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.