Questions for the LCC Restructuring Webinar

After lots of hoopla, surveys, meetings, consultant time, travel, writing,  an unexpected parting of the ways with the consultant followed by two more months of scrambling by a BOD / CCMS Working Group – LCC has a developed a proposed replacement structure and is holding a webinar to explain it.

I, being a good Lutheran, wonders “What does this mean?”

We should fear and love God that…..we ask the appropriate questions about the matters before us in order to make a good and God-pleasing decision. 

Following are some questions I’d have liked the webinar to answer, but first some terms:

• BOD: LCC Board of Directors
• CCMS: LCC Commission on Constitutional Matters and Structure – the committee responsible for reviewing LCC’s structure and vetting any constitutional amendments
• GM: Governance Matters – a consulting services organization specializing in governance
• Consultant: Dr Stahlke from Governance Matters
• A&B – Articles and Bylaws – the proposal developed by the CCMS in conjunction with Governance Matters
• RM: Relationship Model – an organizational governance structure developed by  Dr Les Stahlke
• WG: a Working Group composed of BOD and CCMS personnel, formed after the CCMS decided to abandon the A&B / RM structure due to alleged opposition from the East District
• Plan B  – the structure developed by the WG over a two month period
• EC: BOD Executive Committee – a subset of the BOD with the power of the BOD

Next, the questions :

• Why did the BOD contact the CCMS about the A&T?
• The BOD stated that there was developing opposition to the A&B from certain pastors in the East District –
  • Who are these pastors?
  • What are their concerns?
  • Do these concerns have a basis in either Scripture or good governance?
• A letter from Chairman Ney stated that the CCMS was not aware of these concerns before the BOD’s communication –
  • Why did the BOD not relate these concerns to the CCMS before recommending a WG?
  • Were the opposition pastors ever advised to relate their concerns to the CCMS?
  • Was the CCMS and the Consultant ever given an opportunity to hear the concerns and address them in the A&B?
• Why was the immediate recommendation from the BOD to replace the CCMS / Consultant structure with a BOD / CCMS WG?
• What is the CCMS  / BOD’s opinion that an extensive amount of work was effectively thrown away due to purported opposition by a group of pastors in one District without a chance for the A&B structure to be seen and debated by the church at large?
• What is the differences between the “Plan B” structure and the A&B structure?
• What are the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the two structures?
• Does the BOD and/or the CCMS think that a short term effort that effectively tweaks the existing structure can accomplish the same objective compared to a long-term effort supported and informed by a domain expert?
• The PDF of all documents has a line-by-line comparison of the current and proposed structure –
  • Why wasn’t an explanation of those changes and their implications provided along with the line-by-line comparison?
  • Why wasn’t an executive summary detailing the high-level changes and their reasons provided with the comparison document?

Plan B has one less Synodical BOD member and eliminates the District BODs along with their standing committees and transfers those duties to the Synod BOD. 

• Does the WG anticipate that there will be less work after restructuring than there is before?
• What does the WG expect will happen if the BOD members cannot keep up with the workload?
• What protections will be available to the membership when it comes to conflicts with the Synod BOD’s actions?

 

These are just a few questions that – enquiring minds want to know.