The Mission Phoenix

       I was serving on some church committee or other, and we were debating whether or not to proceed with a particular course of action. One of the members of the committee, a Lutheran lawyer, opined: “For me, that doesn’t pass the squirm test.”  What - I asked - is the squirm test? He said something like this: “If all of the details of this decision became public knowledge, would you be OK with your part in it? Or would it make you squirm?”

       It’s a good rule of thumb. Let’s use it to examine the decisions made by the Board for Mission Services regarding the selection of a new executive director.  This is a true story, so it may take a while.  Ready?

       The need to choose a new executive director of LCMS World Mission was precipitated by the surprise resignation the previous director, Bob Roegner. In a press release dated November 12, 2008, Roegner’s resignation was announced with an effective date of November 16, 2008. (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=14333).

       The reasons for Roegner’s sudden resignation were never made public. Roegner’s official statement was nebulous, citing a “desire to return to hands-on ministry”. Speculation as to the reasons for his resignation seem to me to serve no useful purpose. However, the timing of his resignation was certainly fortuitous, as it allowed the BFMS to very quickly name an interim director – Roegner’s resignation was effective on November 16, and the BFMS was scheduled to meet in California November 17 – 19. At that meeting, the BFMS named an interim executive director. (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=14429).

       Roegner’s resignation was seen by many mission obervers as an opportunity to breathe some fresh air into the leadership of LCMS World Mission. No one really felt compelled to dig into the reasons behind Roegner’s resignation. Even though it appeared that the date of the resignation was orchestrated to coincide with the BFMS meeting, no one found fault with that (myself included). The BFMS was simply being efficient.

       When an executive-level position in Synod needs to be filled, there is a certain procedure that needs to be followed. The procedure is usually detailed in the relevant policy manual of the particular board or organization. Since I do not have a copy of the BFMS policy manual, I do not know what the particular procedure in this case would be. In general terms, however, the procedure is usually something like this:

1) general call for nominations

2) development of a list of candidates by the Board

3) vetting of the list by the president of Synod, during which time he may add or remove names.

4) interview of the top candidates(usually 3 – 5) by the Board

5) discussion of interview data by the Board, followed by a vote

6) presentation of results of voting; followed by the issue of a call to the leading candidate.

7) acceptance / rejection of the call by the callee

       Things appeared to be proceeding normally. In January 2009, the Synod issued a general call for nominations to fill the position. (http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=14759). Names were to be submitted by January 31. Later on, in April 2009, I received a communication from the BFMS which indicated that 15 nominations had been received, and that the quality of the nominees was superlative.

       Then the surprise! At the April 15 meeting of the BFMS, the decision was made to call the interim director, as the executive director! According to the press release, the Board’s action “removes the “interim” title from (the new director’s) position and serves as an endorsement of his continuing leadership of LCMS World Mission.”

       Why was this a surprise? It was a surprise because the BFMS had not yet interviewed EVEN ONE of the 15 other nominees! The selection process was aborted before it had really even gotten underway.

       This is problematic on a number of levels. First, there is a possible breach of procedure. However, without access to the BFMS policy manual, one cannot be sure whether or not the Board is required to interview potential candidates.

       Second and more importantly, the general selection and interview process necessarily exposes Board members to differing perspectives on our Synod’s mission work. This is often a time of critical reflection and analysis of the current direction of the work.

       As an interesting parallel, the Synod’s director of Human Resources position was also vacant at this time. In the May 2009 minutes of the synodical Board of Directors, this comment was made:

     “As interim Human Resources Executive Director, the CAO also reported that the executive director vacancy is being used as an opportunity to evaluate the Synod’s human resource department and programs. ... Areas requiring improvement have been identified... These needs will be taken into consideration when filling the vacancy.”

       This is normal procedure when an executive director position is vacated. By not interviewing the nominees, the members of the BFMS were not exposed to differing perspectives and could not have engaged in the kind of critical reflection that the situation would seem to warrant.

       As a nominee, I expressed my concerns to the Synod’s human resources department. I did not receive a direct reply. However, in relatively short order, I received a letter from Butch Almsted, BFMS chair, which was directed to all of the nominees. The letter explained that their decision to abandon the executive director search was motivated by two primary concerns: 1) the proven leadership abilities of the person chosen; and 2) the possible structural changes of the Synod’s program boards in the 2010 convention. This further explanation was then added to the Synod’s press release (see portion underlined, and in red at: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=15126).

       This “clarification” left me more muddled than before. If the program boards are up in the air until 2010, wouldn’t it be better to leave an interim director and not name a permanent director at all?

       I continued in my muddled state until the Synod’s Board of Directors released the minutes of their May 2009 meeting. Buried on pages 143 - 144 is this tidbit:

“Following the adoption of the budget, the following resolution was introduced and adopted:

Resolved, That because of the work of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance, the Board of Directors take seriously its responsibilities and authority under Bylaws 3.3.5.3 and 3.3.5.5 (a) should steps be taken by program boards to fill vacant executive director positions at this time.

       The Chief Administrative Officer was instructed to take this board action to any boards showing interest in filling executive director positions at this time.”

(http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Board_Of_Directors/0905%20BOD%20Minutes.pdf)

       The picture becomes clearer. Either the timing was incredibly providential, or someone on the BFMS suspected (or was tipped) that the Board of Directors would be considering this action. Since the BFMS meeting was scheduled one month before the BOD meeting, there was a window of opportunity to fill the LCMS World Mission executive director position before the BOD directive became a reality.

       But on further reflection, this also raises some disturbing considerations. Why was it so important to remove the word “interim” from the title? What can a permanent executive director do, that an interim executive director cannot do? Wouldn’t it make more sense to leave the position as an “interim”? Or is the BFMS worried about something else? Are they concerned about safeguarding the current leadership and direction of LCMS World Mission? Are they worried that someone new might want to move things in a new direction? What is really going on here?

       I do not know the current executive director of LCMS World Mission. People whom I respect say he is a great man and a gifted leader, and I do not doubt that for a minute. Perhaps this really was God moving, and the right man was chosen at the right time. This blog isn’t about the person who was chosen. It’s about the decision-making process of the Board that selected him.

       You be the judge – does it pass the squirm test?