As the restructuring process continues to work through all of LCC’s Districts, each District has to answer the question of how to move forward – do they continue on? Do they wind things up? Is there a different option to pursue? And what do they plan to do about the situation Synod’s put them in where the Districts are going to be cut loose Jan 1, 2019?
The East District’s handbook committee decided to wing it and effectively legislate from the bench without benefit of legal counsel.
Recently Central District posted their plans for moving forward, and I must say I’m more impressed how they’re proceeding compared to what was reported in the East District BOD minutes.
Here’s a selected paragraph outlining Central District’s plan:
As a result, there will be a three month gap between our District Convention and when the above individuals will officially begin their work. Recently, our Central District BOD received advice from legal counsel stating that the BOD should be nominated and elected to oversee the district’s obligations to the end of 2018. In order to save time … and effort … the Central District is looking for general consensus from the members of the district to simply allow the current BOD, DP, and CC continue to serve until the end of 2018. If there is such a consensus, motions to that effect would come before the convention from the BOD.
Be advised that these groups may not even have to meet in those three months. Also, the current board members, including the District President, are willing to stay on in this capacity until the end of 2018. In the near future, the Circuit Counsellors will be polled of their willingness to serve
Here’s the major differences between Central District’s and East District’s approach to the issues caused by restructuring –
East District’s handbook committee used their “sanctified common sense” while Central District got professional legal advice.
East District “legislated from the bench” without consulting its members, Central District sought the consent of the governed to move forward by general consensus.
This is something clergy in general need to get their heads around – corporate bodies are like buildings and roads – they are secular left-hand kingdom entities that serve a sacred right-hand kingdom purpose. They are governed by the laws of the land and as such they must be managed accordingly. This is why one retains competent professional advice to navigate these kinds of situations.
Naturally there’ll be times when the requirements of one kingdom will conflict with the other kingdom – in such circumstances decisions have to be made about how to proceed and that requires the collaboration of both legal and theological counsel.