Save the LCMS!

Issues Etc. Resurrection?

Is there a new Issues Etc. in the works?  You may want to visit this website (make sure you computer's speakers are turned on).  It looks like Todd and Jeff have been been busy busy busy.

Hurray!  Let there be rejoicing in the land!

Purpose-Driven / Seeker-Sensitive Methods are Causing Membership Decline

While President Kieschnick is in the middle of transitioning the LCMS into a "Purpose-Driven" denomination the Southern Baptists are actually waking up and realizing that so-called 'culturally relevant' and 'seeker-sensitive methods' are not growing their denomination but are instead shrinking it.

The Christian Post is reporting on statements made by Paige Patterson, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. According to the Christian Post:

Weak preaching and cultural adaptability are just two of many reasons Southern Baptists give to explain the decline of membership and baptisms.

"[T]he shallow state of preaching has exacerbated the lethargy of the church and left the lost with no real Word from God," said Paige Patterson, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, in a column in Baptist Press.

"The pastor ought to be the major source of theological understanding and the most able teacher of the Bible,” he added.

"Anemic pulpits create anemic churches and denominations."

Since the release last month of the latest data on Southern Baptist membership and baptisms, both of which declined, Southern Baptists have speculated why the largest Protestant denomination in the country has been seeing lower numbers.

"Well, the time has come to identify the real problems," said Patterson.

Many church leaders have been calling for change to respond to what many identify as a shift from modern to postmodern culture. And the latest statistics showing shrinking numbers has made that call even more urgent. But cultural relevance has led many churches to lose the holiness of God and a thirst to be like God, Patterson noted.

A prominent conservative Southern Baptist, Patterson said he is the first to admit that "dullness and 'Baptist tradition' were too often the rule in our churches." But the suggestion that churches must chase after culture in order to be effective in evangelistic efforts is "misguided," he said.

"The more attune to culture Southern Baptists have become and the more we have incorporated the world into our worship, the more our baptisms have dropped!" Patterson noted. (Emphasis Added)

In other words, adopting Seeker-Sensitive methods viz. Rick Warren's Purpose-Drivenism or Bill Hybels Willowcreek methods will do nothing less than insure the long-term DECLINE of the LCMS.

Missionaries Ablaze!

In a recent post, we wondered whether LCMS missionaries would meet the same fate as Issues, Etc.  Apparently, this is the case.  The Rev. James May, a deployed missionary to Burkina Faso and Togo, West Africa, was recently recalled by LCMS World Missions.  Rev. May's newsletter provides this information:

I regret to inform you that due to programmatic and business decisions, World Mission has decided to cease employing me as a missionary in West Africa.  This decision came as a shock to me and my family as it may also be a surprise to you. 

World Mission has been pressuring me to move on and inform you as soon as possible.  One reason is that I would be without a paycheck and insurance soon after we have a baby due in July.  We hope that by the grace of God we could have another call in place when my salary and benefits terminate at the end of August 2008. 

The decision leaves three newly planted churches in Burkina Faso without a theologically trained leader and also the Lutheran Church of Togo without a missionary which they had been awaiting for six years. Please keep all these people involved in your prayers.

The full text of Rev. May's last newsletter can be downloaded here.  By his web site and his reference to the Issues, Etc. cancellation in his newsletter, Rev. May is clearly a supporter of the show.  Ironically, his fate seems quite parallel to that of Issues, Etc.  Rev. May was required to raise $120K per year in support money, even though the cost of the mission was significantly less than that.

The web site Augsburg 1530  first reported this story and has generated a lengthy comment stream, including comments from Rev. May himself.  He writes:

It was not a funding problem. During the last 21 months supporters had sent in $248,000 to keep us on the field. A new program by World Mission requires that career missionaries raise $120,000 per year or risk being sent home to raise more support. It was not easy but we tried our best to find supporters. It should be noted that $120,000 is FAR more than what was spent to pay our field costs.

In a subsequent comment on the same post, Rev. May describes his frustrations over how funds were handled and the bureaucratic obstacles he encountered, along with the fact that the majority of "missionaries" sent out were not theologically trained pastors:

When I went to missionary orientation at Concordia St. Paul in June 2006 there were 28 missionaries sent out. Rev. Dr. Bob Roegner said that this represented the same number called back in 2002. Here lies the problem, the details have been obscured. 25 of the 28 were DCEs, DCOs, or college students. I was the only pastoral candidate and there were two vicars. The two vicars were called back before my call was rescinded. DCEs and DCOs who go out to teach English only have to raise between $15,000 and $25,000 before being sent but the career missionaries like pastors and vicars need to raise $120,000. Including a mission summit meeting in Houston before the convention last year, that sum is 50% more than our expenditures. Last year we raised $148,000 and $120,000 so far this year. There is a small disclaimer at the bottom of the donor sheet that any extra funds will be used to fund other projects as World Mission sees fit. In my two years I did not receive one penny for project money. All the bibles, books, and building materials were paid for with personal funds. I think it is right to ask questions and be accountable. Many congregations had asked me for a breakdown of the funds. We were told that we would get a pie chart but I have yet to get the breakdown. It is your money and it was intended for these people who cant even afford a bible. LHF was able to come out and bring boxes of catechisms in French to distribute freely. It was a great gift but caused complaints to fall upon me for working with them. At least they were providing resources so that they could understand God’s Word.

Rev. May also elaborates on his newletter comments:

The reason I chose “programmatic and business decisions” to describe my reason for dismissal was because I did not want to defame those responsible in my public newsletter. Nevertheless, the reasons are not theological. I have not taught false doctrine. I have not abandoned my post. And I am not guilty of gross sin that would demand I leave my call.

Rather I was told to seek another call. I do not believe that is biblical. In fact, the President of the Lutheran Church of Togo, Kombate Bigbi, called me and was upset about this decision and it was not what he wanted. The parishioners of the three newly planted churches are not happy. The missionaries on the field are not happy and tried to stop it from happening.

The 2007 Report of LCMS World Missions to the synodical convention reports 65 "career missionaries" in 22 countries as of March 2007.  This figure is down slightly from January 2004 when there were 69 "career missionaries" in 32 countries. Unfortunately, the report does not give a detailed breakdown of deployed pastors, DCEs, DCOs, etc.  If the percentages in Rev. May's comment are representative, there would appear to be very few deployed pastors in the mission field.

There seems to be an emerging pattern, of which Issues, Etc. is but one small example.  Missionaries (Issues, Etc.) are forced to raise large sums of money for their own self-support while synod keeps a significant percentage of the money raised (LCMS Foundation*), and then are replaced with lay people (The Afternoon Show) who are cheaper than a missionary and his family and are likely to be theologically more "compliant" with policy and vision.

*A commentator recently challenged the accuracy of our report that the LCMS Foundation charged KFUO 40 cents on every dollar raised.  The LCMS Foundation charged KFUO 40% up front against the projected dollars raised in a fund raising campaign.  If the campaign exceeded its goals, there were no additional charges levied, though the percentage would appear smaller in the financial report due to the larger denominator.  This information comes from very reliable sources.

*Addendum (5/11) - The LCMS Foundation charged KFUO 40 cents on every projected dollar raised.

Pentecost Want Ads

Who says the synod doesn't have an ironic sense of timing?  Fifty days after terminating Pr. Todd Wilken and Mr. Jeff Schwarz and canceling their show, Issues, Etc., for financial reasons, three days before Pentecost, KFUO-AM is running an ad in the Reporter seeking a radio host.*

Essential qualifications include:

Active member of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.
Formal theological education with a minimum of a Masters Degree.
A minimum of 10 years experience in ministries related to The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.
A minimum of five years of credible experience in mass media related ministries.
Demonstrated personal presentation and on-air announcing skills.
Demonstrated writing skills.
Demonstrated ability to function as part of a team.
Willingness to travel.

We do not know if Pr. Wilken, who is certainly qualified, was offered this position on March 18.  We do know that his position was terminated due to extreme financial pressures at KFUO-AM.  Was the Sharathon that successful that KFUO-AM is now in a position to hire another radio host?  Even with the cancellation of Issues, Etc. and the termination of two full-time positions, KFUO-AM should still in red ink according to their own figures.

Unless Pr. Wilken was offered such a position and declined it, one can only conclude that the "financial reasons" given by David Strand were not the chief reason for Wilken's termination, and that political and theological reasons, which could not be discussed by the administration, were in play.  This move is consistent with the "change management" strategy that seems to be the pattern of operation of the Kieschnick administration.  An obstacle to the "vision" has been removed and is now being replaced by a "team player" who is friendly and supportive.

*Update (5/9) - As quickly as the want ad appeared, it has now disappeared.  Either the position has been filled or the administration got caught palming a card.  You decide.

*Update (5/10) - Augsburg 1530 has received an email for the synod indicating that this job was posted in error.  We'll give the synod the benefit of the doubt on this one, but it sure looks like a poker player who just had a ace fall out of his sleeve.

BCS Meeting Minutes

The minutes of the Board for Communication Services provide a valuable background for the abrupt cancellation of Issues, Etc.  In the minutes of the November 17-18, 2007 meeting, the following report was issued by KFUO Financial Oversight Committee:

D. Report - KFUO Financial Oversight Committee - Garbe
The committee provided a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis of the current status of the station’s financial condition (distributed at the meeting and appended to the protocol copy of the minutes). Report handouts included a historical overview of KFUO; a list of recent relevant studies and reports; the financial picture of the station in Feb. 2006; a progress report (Nov. 2007) from the station manager; the Jan. 2007 report of the KFUO Operational Audit Committee; a spread sheet providing financial comparisons of the station’s condition with and without the G&A and LCMS Foundation development obligations imposed in 2001. It was also noted that FM ad revenue, while recently rising steadily, has not yet fully recovered from the decrease that followed the events of 9/11/2001.

Discussion: How does one quantify the benefits of one ministry of the church vis a vis the benefits of other ministries? While some question continuing support of KFUO as a responsible use of available resources, radio ministry remains an effective means of proclamation and communication to the church’s publics, if one can judge by the number of religious stations and the interest expressed in the KFUO license. 

The underlying financial conditions resulting from the imposition of G&A and development charges persist. Although these charges have negatively affected KFUO operations, there have been some salutary effects in that the BCS and KFUO staff have been able to identify specific operational issues and economies that needed to be addressed in one way or another and have been dealing with them.

The committee states what has been repeatedly pointed out here, that KFUO is burdened with excessive general and administrative costs and development charges from the LCMS Foundation.  To underscore this fact, the committee prepared a spread sheet comparing KFUO financials "with and without the G&A and LCMS Foundation development obligations imposed in 2001."  It is clear that the BCS was quite concerned over the drain on KFUO resources by the Synod as a major contributing factor to KFUO's financial problems.

Later in the same meeting, the future of KFUO was discussed by the subcommittee on KFUO intervention:

Report - Subcommittee on KFUO Intervention - K.Vogts, J. Bush, C. Mueller
K. Vogts presented the current KFUO financial picture and action alternatives. Ca. 70% of KFUO’s budgeted expenditures relates to personnel (salary and benefits - 53%, synodical G&A assessments - 8%) and fund raising costs - 9%. The remaining 30% includes many relatively fixed costs, e.g, royalties, tower operation, utilities. The consensus of the committee is that little can be done to reduce expenditures in the current fiscal year. For example, any reductions in staff might be offset by severance packages. Flexible lines have already been adjusted down.

Revenue increases, however, have shown some favorable trends. Six alternative scenarios were presented, involving various combinations of the following, each with advantages and disadvantages: BCS continues to operate AM and FM; synodical subsidy continues; sell or lease FM license and use interest / revenue to subsidize AM; BCS (Synod) and Concordia Seminary jointly operate AM, i.e., seminary operates / Synod owns; sell FM and use earnings to subsidize AM and other communications efforts.

Consensus: No later than its next meeting, the board must be ready to propose a specific plan for fiscal year 2009. The chairman scheduled a brainstorming session on the matter for the next session.

Three items are noteworthy from this summary.  First, the synodical overhead and LCMS Foundation charges amounted to 17% of the total KFUO budget.  Second, the committee recognized that staff reductions would not have an impact in the current fiscal year due to severance packages which would offset any savings.  Third, six alternative scenarios to improve KFUO's financial condition were presented, including the sale of KFUO-FM to subsidize KFUO-AM.  Joint ventures with the St. Louis seminary were also proposed.  What was not proposed was cutting programming, specifically Issues, Etc.

The cancellation of Issues, Etc. for financial reasons was clearly not on the BCS table in November 2007.  At its next meeting in February 4-5, 2008, the BCS discussed KFUO in anticipation of an upcoming meeting with the synod's Board of Directors.  The BCS reached the following consensus points:

The BCS supports continuing
1. the 5-year moratorium on any talk of the sale of KFUO AM or FM radio licenses.*
2. discussion with Concordia Seminary regarding taking over the operation of the stations
3. the operation of KFUO AM & FM with the intent of providing radio ministry at little or no cost to the synod

Again, there is no mention of Issues, Etc or any other programming or personnel changes.  The general goal of operating KFUO at little or no cost to the synod is on the table, but this is an item for discussion with the BoD, not an item for action.

The available minutes of the BCS would indicate that the decision to cancel Issues, Etc. for financial reasons was made entirely outside the BCS, even though the BCS had subcommittees dealing with the viability of KFUO.  The question to ask is this:  What is the point of having synodical committees and subcommittees, and serving on them, when decisions are made unilaterally behind the back of the very boards and committees who are working to exercise oversight and provide workable solutions?  The unilateral action of the Executive Director in canceling Issues, Etc. for financial reasons subverts the purpose and effectiveness, if not the authority, of the Board for Communication Services.

Questions, Answers, and Analysis (part 4)

Here is the fourth and final installment of our analysis of David Strand's "Questions and Answers."

Doesn’t the church have a special responsibility to care for displaced employees?

The Synod’s policy and approach to displaced employees is rooted in Christian care and
concern and may involve severance, healthcare, outplacement services, and letters of
recommendation. More precise details of the expression of such care must remain
confidential under the terms of the Synod’s Human Resources policies.

Analysis:  The short answer to this question is "yes."  But the question is a complex and nuanced one; the answer says nothing more than "we follow standard business practices." 

Is the Synod "church" in any sense of the word?  The answer seems to indicate "no."  According to the way the answer is shaped, Synod is a business that follows standard business practice and laws.  Churches have servants, stewards, and ministers; businesses have "employees and employers."  Viewed from the world of business, Pr. Wilken and Mr. Schwarz were at-will employees who could be terminated at any time by their employer.   They were offered severance packages in keeping with good business practice.  While "Christian care and concern" certainly are factors where Christians are involved in business, these are not necessarily part of good business practice.

On the other hand, even if the Synod were strictly a business, it is a business conducted by and on behalf of its member churches and ought to reflect a higher standard of care and concern than is required by standard business practices and labor law.  As a matter of fact, the churches of the LCMS and many Christians did respond with Christian care and concern by raising considerable money and providing emotional and spiritual support to these men with no strings attached.

The use of the word "displaced" is interesting.  It sounds as though something had happened to Pr. Wilken and Mr. Schwarz beyond anyone's control that caused them to be relocated.  One Tuesday morning they suddenly found themselves "displaced."  They were terminated and their show was canceled.

In the planning of future programming, what use will be made of the comments in the
“Issues” petition and in all the messages received regarding the value of “Issues”
content?

In the words of a statement adopted unanimously by the Board for Communication
Services on April 18: “The board recognizes the value of [“Issues, Etc.”] to the Synod for
nearly 15 years and is seeking ways to develop more cost-effective, engaging Lutheran
apologetic programming for broad distribution.” Comments gleaned from
correspondence received since the discontinuation have been, and will continue to be,
taken to heart.

Analysis:  The question attempts to address the 7400 (and still growing!) signatures on the online petition and their comments.  The answer never addresses the petition, referring instead to "correspondence received."  Mr. Strand has already commented publicly that the petition represented only "1/3 of one percent" of the LCMS.

Mr. Strand quotes from a BCS statement adopted April 18.  The minutes of that meeting show that immediately prior to this statement the BCS voted down two motions that would have restored Issues, Etc.  The first motion would have restored Issues, Etc. and given Wilken and Schwarz until August 31 to increase funding and/or reduce costs.  The second motion would have encouraged Wilken and Schwarz to establish Issues, Etc. as an independant Recognized Service Organization (RSO) of the Synod and would have restored Issues, Etc. until August 31.  Both motions were defeated 4 to 3.  Voting for:  Berger, Garbe, Vogts.  Voting against:  Bush, Clauss, Kluth, Mueller.
A pdf copy of the Minutes can be obtained here. 

The question remains:  If Issues, Etc. was of such great value as an apologetic program with broad distribution, why was it abruptly canceled and why were the two men responsible for such a program simply terminated without an opportunity to retool the program?

Did the Treasurer of the Synod express his opinion that “Issues, Etc.” should be the
program to be cancelled in order to prevent a deficit?

No, he did not express any opinion on the cancellation of “Issues, Etc.” or any other
program on KFUO-AM. However, the Treasurer has an abiding interest in all LCMS
boards and commissions operating within their budgets, including the BCS. The
Executive Director of the BCS is charged with the responsibility to manage and operate
the Synod’s broadcast facilities in an efficient and fiscally responsible manner and to
make every effort to maintain a balanced budget.

Analysis:  This statement contradicts an earlier report by M.Z. Hemingway, and repeated on this site, that David Strand informed the BCS he was acting under pressure and threats from the Board of Directors and LCMS Treasurer Tom Kuchta.  At the time this was reported, we noted that this would be a radical reversal in the position of Mr. Kuchta who was supportive of the show. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Strand's account of the events leading up to the cancellation of the show was made in executive session.  A summary narrative appears in the Minutes of the April BCS meeting.  In the summary, Mr. Strand is reported to have said that he "made the decision alone" and implemented the decision after consulting the BCS chairman Mr. Clauss.  Mr. Kuchta is not mentioned in the summary.

The extensive use of "executive session" in dealing with this matter cloaks the entire discussion in secrecy.  Unless someone from the BCS is willing to contradict these statements (that would likely be Berger, Vogts, or Garbe), we have no choice but to take Mr. Strand's claim at face value.

Why has there been such a shroud of secrecy surrounding the decision to discontinue
“Issues”?

We would respectfully disagree that there has been any secrecy about the reasons for the
cancellation. We do acknowledge that there are limitations based on LCMS Human
Resources policies concerning disclosure of facts relating to the termination of
employees. The decision was made and publicly announced. A subsequent statement
said, with good reason, that “detailed reasons are not usually provided when making
program changes, and [that we] intend to continue our policy and procedure not to
publicly discuss specific personnel matters.” Even so, in that same statement, a number
of specific reasons were given for the cancellation of the show.

Employment matters at the LCMS are overseen by the Synod’s Human Resources
Department. This department prohibits comments on such matters for the privacy and
protection of all parties during the requisite transition period.

Analysis:  The question is not answered.  Human resources policies deal with the termination of employees.  (Notice here that these "employees" have not been "displaced" but terminated.)  No one is seeking a publication of Pr. Wilken's and Mr. Schwarz personnel file or their performance reviews.  What people are seeking are clear answers to why Issues, Etc. was abruptly canceled.  Only one reason has been given:  money.  That reason alone does not account for the abrupt decision to cancel the show three months before the end of the fiscal year, two month before the meeting of the BoD to consider the future of KFUO, without consulation of the BCS or the BoD, with the knowledge of the synodical president (but not at his direction).

In hiding behind "human resources policies," Mr. Strand is implicitly smearing the reputations of Wllken and Schwarz, leaving them open to speculation.  The repeated use of "executive session" to keep things off the record and the issuance of "gag orders" tied to the severance packages certainly creates the strong impression of a "shroud of secrecy."  Simple denial does not change that perception.

Shouldn’t Rev. Wilken and Mr. Schwarz have been given some kind of advance warning
or notice?

It is important to remember the sequence of activities. This was not a personnel decision
that resulted in the cancellation. Rather, the show was cancelled resulting in the staff
reductions. As such, this was not a situation calling for warnings, probation, or anything
about “Issues” that could be changed. The decision was based on economic realities. In
accordance with internal Synod policies, once these decisions are made by the program
unit, the Synod’s Human Resources Department becomes responsible for managing the
employee exit process. Following LCMS Human Resources’ practice, no advance notice
of termination was recommended (indeed, such notices generally are not helpful to the
terminated employees and negatively affect morale for other employees). Human
Resources recommended that the terminations be effective immediately, and that Rev.
Wilken and Mr. Schwarz be offered severance packages (as they reportedly
acknowledged). The terminations were handled in sincere Christian fashion.
Beyond this, the ongoing financial struggles of KFUO-AM have been well known among
the staff. The station’s accumulated deficits have grown precipitously in recent years,
reaching into the millions of dollars. People who work for an organization facing
financial difficulty realize that continued employment in such circumstances can be
precarious.

Analysis:  This answer simply defies analysis.  The passive voice makes it sound as though the show's cancellation simply happened, no one knows how, and then somehow Schwarz and Wilken were left without a job.  The language is evasive of responsibility.  "The show was cancelled (sic) resulting in staff reductions."

If the financial situation and economic realities were such that the show had to be canceled, and given that fact the people who work for organizations facing financial difficulties realize how precarious their positions are, wouldn't a "sincere Christian" approach include a considerable early warning that the show and the positions are in jeopardy?  Out of consideration for the supporters of Issues, Etc, wouldn't a call to save Issues, Etc. have been in order?  Is it entirely outside of Human Resources policy to give the show a decent send off if it must be canceled?

The financial difficulties were known since 2001.  What precipitated the sudden need to cancel the show on March 18?  The checks were going to bounce?  The Synod was about to go bankrupt?  The sudden urgency after 7 years of financial loss and mismanagement simply does not make sense, and this answer evades the question.  Instead, Mr. Strand appears to be placing the responsibility for the abruptness of the cancelation and terminations on the shoulders of Human Resources.  There seems to be a lot of finger pointing.

Why did the cancellation of “Issues” and the termination of the two men have to create
such controversy?

The termination was neither motivated by nor designed to create controversy, and
controversy was not inevitable.

On March 18, the Executive Director of Communications and the Executive Director of
Human Resources met with Rev. Wilken and Mr. Schwarz and told them that “Issues”
was being discontinued and that their positions were being terminated. The gentlemen
were told that there were a number of factors that led to the decision. They received a
letter from the Human Resources Executive Director that discussed the basis for the
decision generally. They were offered the opportunity to converse in more detail on the
reasons for the termination with either the HR Executive Director or the Executive
Director of Communications, or both, at a future time of their choosing. The meeting
ended with prayers by both Rev. Wilken and David Strand.

Shortly after the cancellation of the program, keeping within the restrictions of Synod HR
policies, the Executive Director of Communications posted a statement on the KFUOAM
website regarding the reasons for the decision. Later, after receiving numerous
inquiries from fans of “Issues,” he posted an updated statement on the LCMS website
with more detail concerning the fiscal reasons behind the decision.

Sadly and unfortunately for the church, some critics of the decision attacked the public
statements and used the situation to criticize the Synod more broadly—far beyond the
matter of “Issues, Etc.”—making public comments highly critical of the Synod President,
the Ablaze! outreach initiative, and the unity of the Synod generally. Such actions were
far beyond any reasonable anticipation of reaction to the decision.

Analysis:  The nice thing about writing your own "Questions and Answers" is that you get to shape the question before you answer it.  The question plays into the answer and anticipates it.  The better question to ask is this:  Why did the cancellation of Issues, Etc. create such a controversy.

Instead, Mr. Strand blames "critics of the decision" for stirring up the controversy by attacking the public statement and using the situation to criticize the Synod more broadly.  This is an attempt to isolate the Issues, Etc. matter from the wider problems that exist with the Synod and shift the blame to the nay sayers.  The cancellation of Issues, Etc. is a symptom of a much larger problem of the synod's finances and priorities.  The manner in which the cancellation has done nothing but throw fuel on the fires of speculation.

To say that the negative response was "far beyond any reasonable anticipation" suggest an administration that is completely out of touch with the reality of the state of the Synod as a polarized and divided house.  What sort of reaction did they "reasonably anticipate?"  How could they not expect a backlash of criticism for canceling a show that represented a significant constituency in the LCMS?  Does Mr. Strand honestly believe that a vision of unity means unity in reality?

In the first paragraph, Mr. Strand alludes to "a number of factors" that led to the decision.  To date we know of only one:  finances.  The remaining factors have been hidden under a shroud of secrecy, sealed by executive sessions, gag orders, and policy manuals.  The financial argument alone does not fully account for what happened, and as long as the greater truth of the "number of factors" is suppressed, there will be continued controversy.

Wasn’t the real reason for canceling “Issues, Etc.” its theological stance?

The answer is absolutely not. As all public statements previously made on this topic have
said, and as the responses in this document demonstrate, the decision to cancel “Issues,
Etc.” was based on financial exigency. The show had a voice that resonated with people
in the LCMS and some outside the LCMS. One hopes this voice can continue to be heard
through other communication channels.

Responsible stewardship of limited resources for KFUO-AM prevented the continuing of
“Issues, Etc.” as the broadcast radio program it was designed to be. There is a place for
Lutheran apologetics on KFUO-AM. But the business model for “Issues” was simply too
expensive for the budget available and the audience support it received.

Analysis:  The question is hard to take seriously.  Admission that one of the "number of factors" was theology would set off a huge controversy that could split an already divided Synod.  Mr. Strand claims that the responses demonstrate that the decision to cancel Issues, Etc. was based on "financial exigency," indicating an immediate financial crisis that could not wait another day.  Yet he also states there were "a number of factors" that led to the decision.  Of all the factors that might have led to the cancellation, only the financial factors can be defended publicly without causing a major upheaval in the Synod.  But this explanation alone does not adequately answer the questions, no matter how many times Mr. Strand says it.

Mr. Strand expresses the hope that the voice of Issues, Etc. which "resonated with people in the LCMS and some outside the LCMS" could continue to be heard through other communication channels.  If this is so, why hasn't the Executive Director for the Board of Communication Services pursued such channels on behalf of Issues, Etc?  Why were Pr. Wilken and Mr. Schwarz not given the opportunity to work on such channels?  Why did the BCS vote down two motions by a 4:3 margin to give Wilken and Schwarz an opportunity to pursue such channels and maintain the continuity of that voice?

SUMMARY

This is our best summary of the major points of Mr. Strand's Q&A document:

1.  Finances were the only reason that can be discussed in public for the cancellation of Issues, Etc. and the terminations of Todd Wilken and Jeff Schwarz.  There were a "number of other factors" which cannot be discussed in public.

2.  Mr. David Strand is solely responsible for the decision with the knowledge and approval of BCS Chairman Clauss, (and by his own statement, Pres. Kieschnick), to the exclusion of the BCS, the Board of Directors, and the officers of the Synod, including Mr. Thomas Kuchta.

3.  Responsibility for the show's deficit and its share of KFUO-AM's deficit rests with Todd Wilken and Jeff Schwarz, who were called upon to be self-supporting and yet were denied the opportunity to raise money independently.

4.  The secrecy surrounding the decision is solely the result of Human Resources' employee confidentiality policy.

5.  Responsibility for the ensuing controversy rests with unreasonable critics who unexpectedly exploited the scandal to attack the Synod and criticize the Kieschnick administration and its Ablaze! program.

6.  Cancellation of the show during Holy Week, though regrettable, saved $5500.

7.  The abruptness of the cancellation and terminations was the result of Human Resources policy and a financial exigency (extreme emergency) at KFUO-AM.

 

FINAL ANALYSIS

If this analysis and summary is distorted or unfaithful to the original document in any way, we are open to correction.  The Q&A document answers some questions while evading and avoiding others.  Still unanswered is the question of why the host and producer of Issues, Etc, acknowledged by all involved to be a first-rate apologetics and outreach program with a potential worldwide audience on the internet, was not given a reasonable opportunity to come up with a better and more efficient business plan.  Also unanswered is why "missions and ministries" of the Synod must be under the constant pressure to be self-supporting and even Synod-supporting.  Is this how we treat our missionaries in the field?  Do we also ask them to be self-supporting and take away 40% of the dollars they raise?  Are we going to be recalling missionaries from the field and replacing them with "missionary-light" volunteers as has been done with Issues, Etc on KFUO-AM?

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the Q&A document is the attempt to stifle criticism and shift the blame for the controversy away from those who caused it and onto those who were on the receiving end of the decision.  The document also tries to isolate the Issues, Etc matter from the greater context of the Synod and its financial and theological woes  The cautious secrecy and attempts at damage control on the part of the Synod along with the prolonged dissent n the internet, by petition, by public protest, and by resolutions of various districts suggest that the Issues, Etc. controversy is but a small symptom of a very deep divide in a synod that claims by to walk together in harmony. 

Unless this deep division of doctrine and practice is addressed openly and honestly, there is little hope of saving the LCMS from its own self-inflicted cancellation and termination.

 

Questions, Answers, and Analysis (part 3)

Here is part 3 of our analysis of David Strand's "Questions and Answers."

KFUO-AM paid $66,000 last year to syndicate Sunday-night “Issues” on a dozen or so
Bott and Salem radio stations. Doesn’t the station also pay to syndicate such short-form
programs as “By the Way,” “Front-Porch Parenting,” “The Meyer Minute,” “Portals of
Prayer,” and “Today’s Verse”?

Outside of production costs—such as putting the material on CDs and mailing the CDs—
KFUO-AM pays nothing for the syndicated airing of these programs on more than 600
stations across the country. Participating stations play them for free.

Analysis:  The question sets up a false comparison of "apples and oranges."  Issues, Etc. was a one-hour syndicated show.  The programs listed above are very short filler programs.  This is like comparing short community news articles that local newspapers use to fill column space to a full feature-length article.

Why were the “Issues” archives initially removed from the KFUO-AM website when the
show was discontinued?

Once the decision to discontinue “Issues” had become public, modifications had to be
made to the KFUO-AM website to reflect the changes in the programming schedule and
to remove references and links to the discontinued program.

It is standard radio practice to remove all references and recorded material (even
something as minor, for example, as prerecorded public-service announcements)
involving “personalities” no longer with the station. Many things had to happen quickly
on the afternoon of March 18 to make the necessary changes to the programming
schedule on the AM website and to remove references and links to “Issues, Etc.”
After removing “Issues” from the lineup and website, an initial consideration was to
possibly keep the archives off the site, recognizing that many archives were available on
the Internet, in transcripts, on CDs, and elsewhere, and that there would be a cost savings
on the bandwidth fees. However, noting the demand for the archives after the
cancellation of the program, station management restored the archives as soon as possible
the next day.

When the archives were restored on March 19, the high volume of downloading caused
the KFUO website to freeze (crash) several times. Of course, the archives were not
available during the times when the website was frozen. As a means of dealing with the
“crashes” and the slowness of audio-file transfers owing to Web traffic, load problems,
and the apparent use of download accelerators (which heavily tax the bandwidth
capabilities), the “Issues” archives were placed on a dedicated server to try to speed up
the transfers and avoid crashes. LCMS technology staff has been attending to these
matters all along to make the situation as workable as possible.

Analysis:  The answer clarifies what happened with the web archives of Issues, Etc.  Mr. Strand acknowledges that the archives were initially taken down, and he reveals that initial consideration was given to keeping them permanently off the KFUO site.  He states that this consideration was made in view of "many archives available on the internet."  In other words, the Issues, Etc. archives were intentionally taken down.  While this may be "standard radio practice," it seems unusual in this case since the Issues, Etc. archive represented a unique body of work consisting of topical papers and live interviews.

The official Issues, Etc. archive on the internet was Issuesetc.org. The owners of this site, Robert and Ken Meyer, were ordered by KFUO station manager Chuck Rathert to take down their site at the same time the archives at KFUO-AM were removed.  Furthermore, the Meyers, who were under contractual agreement with the Synod and KFUO, have never received permission to restore Issuesetc.org.  The archive site that exists today is essentially a reconstructed site from listener provided files.  Finally, Issuesetc.org was not an independent site but was linked to the Issues, Etc. archive at kfuoam.org.  While other sites had the written material, only the KFUO-AM site had the audio files.

It appears that KFUO was not adequately prepared to deal with the cancellation Issues, Etc. and the "standard radio practice" of removing all material pertaining to the canceled show.  The ensuing technical difficulties would indicate that a hasty or ill-communicated decision was made, leaving station personnel without a clear plan of action.  A big question behind the timing of the decision is the haste and apparent secrecy that was involved.  The mishandling of the web site indicates that station management was not likely aware of what was happening until the last minute.

What was the total listenership of the one-hour broadcast of the Sunday-night syndicated
edition of “Issues, Etc.”?

We don’t have statistics. If the stations we paid to syndicate “Issues” on Sunday nights
subscribe to a ratings service, we are not privy to their numbers. We do know that
Sunday night between 9 and 10 o’clock is not an especially desirable or popular time to
be on the radio (which is one reason why this time was chosen; it was relatively
inexpensive). Listeners to the first hour were always encouraged to listen to the second
hour on the Internet. However, in analyzing the listener traffic, we found that the second hour of Sunday-night “Issues,” available only on the Internet, had a peak number of
online listeners in February of 39. In fact, we don’t even know if these 39 streamers were
listening to “Issues.” The peak number of 39 was the highest number of streamers for
any KFUO-AM show on any Sunday in February.

Analysis:  The question is a good one, but it is not answered.  Mr. Strand admits that he has no data on the Sunday night show.  In place of hard data, he makes an assumption about the audience size on Sunday night between 9 and 10 o'clock.  Mr. Strand cites the live streaming audience for the second hour, which would be at 10-11 PM (Central time).  This neglects the fact that internet listeners are more likely to listen to a download at their convenience than a live stream, no matter what the time.  The mention of the fact that the 39 live streamers constituted the "largest number" of any KFUO-AM show on any Sunday in February seems less than sincere. 

"Damning with faint praise" is not the same as "putting the best construction on everything," especially when the data are not properly presented and analyzed.

In giving the reasons for the show’s discontinuation, why was the language changed in
the original posted statement from “programmatic and business reasons” to
“programmatic and stewardship reasons”?

Though there is nothing wrong with the word “business,” and though the church engages
in business affairs on a necessary basis, the word can have negative associations in some
people’s minds, particularly in the milieu of the church and its ministries. “Stewardship”
implies much the same thing as “business”—fiscal responsibility in managing one’s
resources—without the potential negative connotations.

Analysis:  The question and answer appear to makes this a matter of semantics, but semantics are very important, since words convey meaning and intent.  The fact that "stewardship" and "business" "imply the same thing in the mind of a synodical official is troubling.  Stewardship is a matter of faithfulness to a trust; business is about profits and losses.  This is more than a matter of "negative connotations in some peoples' minds" (here the responsibility for correct understanding is shifted from the speaker to the hearer).  It is indicative of how one looks at the Synod and its missions and ministries.

The semantic shift is symptomatic of the larger issue that is at stake in the Issues, Etc. matter.  The issue is that the synod's missions and ministries are being handled as a business would treat them in terms of profits and losses.  The Synod itself is being run as a business, with heavy reliance on corporate consultants, and if Synod's financial condition is a dire as it seems, it is not being run very well.  If the Synod were indeed a business, upper management would long have been called on the carpet or have been fired.  If the Synod is a stewardship, then those who are elected and appointed as stewards need to give an account of their stewardship and not hide their decisions behind executive session.

So what were the “programmatic” reasons?

For 84 years, the key focus of LCMS radio ministry via KFUO-AM has been Gospel
outreach. Unquestionably, “Issues, Etc.” (like all of our shows) benefited both our
members and reached some unchurched people, as validated by recent testimonials.
Broadcast Sunday-morning services provide worship opportunities for the homebound
and others. Programs such as “Law and Gospel” and “The Bible Study” serve to enrich
our members as well as spread the Gospel to those who are unchurched. The responsible
management question is whether similar or greater ministry can be achieved with this
media ministry at a more affordable cost than that incurred by “Issues, Etc.”

Analysis:  This is an excellent question.  Unfortunately it is not answered.  The examples provided are again a comparison of "apples vs oranges."  No other show on KFUO-AM dealt with apologetics and current events, nor did it interview leading authorities in their various fields.  Issues, Etc. was a tough-minded program that dealt with issues that needed to be discussed, even if it offended some people or made others uncomfortable.

What has KFUO-AM put in the place of Issues, Etc.?   A light, friendly conversational talk show.  Is Mr. Strand claiming that "The Afternoon Show" is a "similar or greater ministry" than Issues, Etc.?  The unmistakable implication is that the Synod has no programming interest in apologetics, polemics, and tough-minded Christianity.  Sadly, this seems to parallel the "seeker-sensitive" model that is being promoted as a template for congregations in the Synod to follow as their example.

Why were the “Issues” broadcast-audience numbers cited in the lcms.org statement so
outdated?

As explained in the statement published on the Synod’s website, for years, the broadcast
ratings for “Issues” and all other KFUO-AM shows were predictably low and static.
Sometimes, the station did not register enough listeners to even show up on the chart. In
2005, station managers (even then in cost-savings mode) saw no justification in
continuing to pay for reports that never told them anything new. This was three years
ago. Since then, there is no sign that “Issues” or any other AM show has significantly
climbed the charts in the St. Louis market. The shows are essentially the same now as
they were then. Since 2005, gifts to “Issues” have stayed on the same plateau—not an
indication of a growing broadcast-audience base.

Analysis:  The question and answer are irrelevant.  The question is not why the audience numbers were outdated, but why outdated numbers were cited as a justification for canceling the show.  This answer reveals the assumptions.  There was "no sign" that Issues, Etc. or any other AM show had significantly climbed the charts in the St. Louis market.  What "sign" would that be?  There is no hard data offered to support this statement.  The "sign" appears to be that gifts to Issues, Etc. had remained constant since 2005.  If there is no direct connection between internet listeners and donors, why should there be a direct connection between radio listeners and donors.

The fact remains that Mr. Strand used 3-4 year old audience data as justification for canceling Issues, Etc.

Why completely cancel “Issues, Etc.”? Why not just cancel the Sunday-night syndicated
version of it?

The Sunday-night syndication costs ($66,000 in the last fiscal year) were a fraction of the
total program expense for “Issues.” The savings gained would have been insufficient to
reach the deep cost-reduction target required.

Analysis:  While it may not have reached the "deep cost-reduction target required," it would have made a 26% dent in Issues, Etc. $250,000 reported "shortfall."  Of course, Mr. Strand admits that he has no idea how large the Sunday syndication audience was, and Issues, Etc. was not given the opportunity adequately to test the fund raising capacity of the syndication audience with its Reformation Club and the Issues 300 campaign.  In fact, there is no indication whatsoever that any attempt was made to salvage Issues, Etc. while attempting to reach the deep cost-reduction targets that were required.

Puzzling in this answer is the need for urgency to achieve this deep cost-reduction target at the end of the fiscal year with the May Board of Directors meeting less than two months away and a special ad hoc committee slated to report on the state of KFUO.  At the best construction, it would appear that Mr. Strand made a desperate, ill-conceived move to improve the state of KFUO's finances prior to the Board of Directors meeting.

Why did you discontinue “Issues, Etc.” and terminate Rev. Wilken and Mr. Schwarz
during Holy Week?

In retrospect, one can only regret the timing of the cancellation. Although there is never
a good day to lose one’s job, anytime close to a major church festival, before or after,
certainly may be perceived as a worse time. In this case, if we had waited until early
April, we would have been obligated to pay another $5,500 in monthly Sunday-night
syndication fees. But again, in retrospect, such savings pale in comparison to the valid
point that Holy Week was not the best time to effect this decision.

Analysis:  The question deals with the appropriateness of the timing, given that the Synod is a church organization.  The answer appears to express regret, but it is in a rather distant "one can only regret...."  The regret is offset by the suggestion that the inappropriateness is a matter of perception rather than fact.  The stated reason is that it saved $5,500 in monthly syndication fees.  When you put the two thoughts together, they sound like this:  "While regrettable with respect to timing, the move did save the Synod $5,500."  It also cost the Synod two expensive severance packages and an enormous amount of goodwill.

The liturgical year, with all its subtle nuances, is not part of the non-liturgical type of Christianity that is being held up by our synodical leadership.  The seasons of Advent and Lent along with the solemnities of Holy Week are not on the purpose-driven agenda.  The sad truth is that $5,500 seems to be the going price for Holy Tuesday.

The issue of timing is not really Holy Week.  Holy Week simply added insult to injury.  The real question is why the sudden, clandestine cancellation of the show and termination of its host and producer?  This sort of action is warranted only in a state of emergency, such as the host blurting out obscenities on the air or engaging in conduct unbecoming for the position he holds.  A decision based on simple economics could have been done much more openly and deliberately, with full consultation of the BCS and the BoD.

(to be continued)

Questions, Answers, and Analysis (cont.)

Here is Part 2 of Mr. David Strand's Questions and Answers and our analysis.

How come “Issues, Etc.” was the only show that had to ask for money on the air?

It was not the only program soliciting funds from listeners. Other hosts on other shows
also encourage listeners to contribute to the ministry of KFUO-AM. Beyond that, the
station regularly runs prerecorded messages throughout the day encouraging the same
thing. Virtually all program hosts, along with other staffers, participate in the station’s
annual “Sharathon.” Further, there are “Give Now” buttons on the KFUO website, and
periodically on the Synod’s main website, for the benefit of all of KFUO.

Analysis:  The question is incorrectly put.  Of course all the shows encourage listeners to contribute to KFUO-AM.  Of course the station runs prerecorded messages encouraging contributions to KFUO-AM.  Of course staff members and program hosts are asked to participate in "Sharathon" fund raising.   But the question remains:  Why was Issues, Etc. the only show on KFUO-AM that had to raise its own funds?

Was “Issues” credited for all the revenues it brought in?

Yes, all donations specifically earmarked for “Issues,” including Reformation Club
income, were credited to “Issues.” Beyond that, the program was credited for at least its
pro rata share of non-earmarked gifts, and during the past year, was credited with a
generous proportion of the non-gift revenue to the station. Again, the allocations, as part
of the accounting practices relating to KFUO-AM, have been described by the Treasurer
of the Synod as “accurate,” “fair,” and “very reasonable.”

The only “Issues”-related support that does not figure into the equation are the funds
given by congregations directly to radio stations in their locales. These monies do not
come into St. Louis, are not part of the KFUO-AM or “National Issues” budgets, and are
not tracked by the LCMS Foundation or Accounting Department.

Analysis:  The fact that there were donations specifically earmarked for Issues, Etc. and a Reformation Club to support it, demonstrates the unique fundraising status of Issues, Etc. compared to the other shows on KFUO-AM.  The answer fails to mention the 40% that the LCMS Foundation keeps for funds that it raises.  The question asks if the funds were "credited" to Issues, Etc.  One might ask whether this was before or after the 40% tax levied by the Foundation.

The second paragraph raises some questions.  Was there money available to Issues, Etc. given by congregations and individuals to local radio stations that were not accounted for?  How much was this?  How did this affect the bottom line of Issues, Etc.?

Why did you cancel “Issues, Etc.” on the eve of its “Issues 300” fundraising campaign?

“Issues 300” was not a formal, sanctioned fundraising effort being done in cooperation
with the LCMS Foundation; rather, it was an effort by Rev. Wilken and Mr. Schwarz to
raise funds for the syndication of the one-hour Sunday-evening broadcast. There were no
ads, publicity, direct-mail materials, telemarketing strategies, or donor visitations poised
to be set in motion by the Foundation. There were no projections to suggest that “Issues
300” would offer significant help in meeting the fiscal and stewardship responsibilities of
reducing, and eventually eliminating, the large budgetary variances at KFUO-AM.

Analysis:  This is a good question, but the answer begs the question.  As indicated above, Issues, Etc. was responsible to raise money to support itself as a mission and ministry of the LCMS.  The LCMS Foundation kept 40% of all funds raised for Issues, Etc.  Issues, Etc, recognizing the large potential of the syndicated Sunday evening audience and the internet followers, initiated its own campaign to have 300 congregations pledge $1000 from their congregational budgets.  Here is the U-Tube video for the campaign. 

If successful, it would have raised $300,000 for the show.  According to Mr. Strand's first answer, the annual deficit of KFUO-AM was $620,000, and the deficit for Issues, Etc. was $250,000.  If the Issues 300 campaign would have been successful, it would have offset the Issues, Etc. deficit with $50,000 to spare and would have offset the entire KFUO-AM budget deficit by 48%.  This is hardly insignificant.

The first sentence is revealing.  The Issues 300 campaign was not a "formal, sanctioned fundraising effort being done in cooperation with the LCMS Foundation."  This Foundation keeps 40 cents on the dollar.  The Issues 300 campaign did not raise any money for the Synod and it Foundation, therefore it was irrelevant to the decision to cancel the show for financial reasons.

Why would you discontinue what was easily the most listened to program at KFUO-AM?

In terms of broadcast audience, probably the most listened to program on KFUO-AM is
its Sunday-morning worship service. “Issues,” the most heavily resourced program in
terms of fundraising and production costs, and airing during the evening drive-time slot,
had a solid core of listeners. But considerably less expensive programs such as “The
Bible Study” also have broadcast-audience followings—perhaps equal to, or, at times,
even exceeding that of “Issues.”

Analysis:  The question and the answer do not line up.  What is meant by "most listened to"?  The answer speaks to actual radio listeners.  Mr. Strand reported that Issues, Etc. had an average of 1,650 listeners according to a 3-4 year old ratings data.  He does not report what the numbers are for the Sunday morning worship services or the other "less-expensive" programs.  In fact, the answer is purely speculative - "probably the most listened program..." "perhaps equal to, or at times, even exceeding...."  Probably and perhaps do not constitute hard facts.

As in the past, Mr. Strand does not include the internet audience of Issues, Etc. which by several independent analysis was quite large.  By framing this as strictly a radio programming issue, he is neglected the large mission and ministry implications.

The premise must also be considered.  Is it proper to make a decision on a "mission and ministry" of the LCMS solely on the basis of numbers?  Does not content also enter into the discussion?  Issues, Etc. had a unique content, compared to the rest of KFUO-AM's programming.

Why in your posted statements have you cited the low broadcast-audience and livestreaming
numbers of “Issues, Etc.” but said nothing about the show’s download
figures?

Owing to several factors, download numbers are not as accurate or reliable as broadcast
or streaming statistics. Anomalies (such as oddly inconsistent tallies, sometimes large
ones) are known to occur in download counts. Moreover, the majority of KFUO-AM
downloaders receive their programs, or audio files, via automatic subscription. The
automatically transferred files are counted as downloads whether their recipients actually
listen to them or not.

Analysis:  This answer is based on unsubstantiated claims.  What are the "several factors" that make download numbers "not as accurate or reliable" as 3-4 year old broadcast statistics?  Is there a concrete example or a reference to "anomalies" in download counts that are known to occur?  The final sentence is particularly interesting.  There is no guarantee that automatically transferred files are actually listened to.  There is equally no guarantee that live listeners are actually listening!

That being said, “Issues, Etc” was the most downloaded program on KFUO-AM. In
February 2008, “Live Stats,” the service that counts our AM downloads, credited
“Issues” with 95,594 downloads, an average of 3,414 a day. “The Bible Study” got
85,121, an average of 2,935 a day.

Analysis:  These are impressive numbers and a welcome admission.

Since last October (discounting November, when a sizable anomaly was known to occur),
the average count of monthly “Issues” downloads was 113,801, or 3,793 a day. These
are good numbers, and KFUO-AM is grateful to those who have accessed “Issues” and
other AM programs in this way. Of course, providing this downloading service incurs
costs for the Synod, including about $30,000 this past year for bandwidth. There also are
costs associated with the preparation, storage, and maintenance of the downloadable
archives. It might also be pointed out that downloaders don’t typically translate into
donors, of whom there were 558 individuals and 39 congregations to “Issues” last year.
Downloading is a wonderful technology, but a live radio station also needs a strong and
growing core of live listeners to sustain itself.

Analysis:  The cited "sizeable anomaly" is left unexplained, though the average counts are quite high, as is acknowledged.  What is interesting is the turnabout in responsibility, blaming the internet listeners for costing the Synod money! 

The download traffic was costing the Synod $30,000.  How was this figure arrived at?  Is this related to poor equipment and inefficiency at KFUO?  If bandwidth and archiving are so costly, why was there not a nominal fee charged for downloads (as opposed to live streaming audio)?  Internet consumers are accustomed to paying small fees for the privilege of downloading music, etc.  In addition, why wasn't a more interactive web site with member privileges explored as a way to tap into the acknowledged large internet audience?

The answer states that "downloaders don't typically translate into donors" yet Issues, Etc. was cancelled just as it was about to put that very premise to the test with "Issues 300."  How many other shows on KFUO-AM claim 558 individual supporters and 39 congregations?

If Issues, Etc. was a "failure" as a local radio show, why wasn't an alternative proposed?  If downloading is a "wonderful technology" why not expand its utility?  The blunt cancellation of the show with no apologetic alternative indicates a lack of vision and foresight on the part of those responsible for "communication services."

(to be continued)

Questions, Answers, and Analysis

On the eve of the Ascension of our Lord, Mr. David Strand, executive director of the LCMS Board for Communication Services, released an 8-page Q&A document dealing with questions arising from the cancellation of Issues, Etc. and the terminations of Pr. Todd Wilken and Mr. Jeff Schwarz.  This document was produced by Mr. Strand at the request of the Board for Communication Services.  We offer the original document together with our analysis.

Why was “Issues, Etc.” discontinued?

The program was discontinued because of fiscal realities and the acute need to cut
expenses at KFUO-AM and move toward operating the station within the budget
provided by the Synod. Since 2001, the accumulated deficits of the KFUO-AM radio
ministry exceed $3.5 million, shortfalls the Synod must pay with unbudgeted funds. In
the last fiscal year, 2006-07, the station’s deficit was $620,000 beyond the budget
allowed for the ministry. The ability of the Synod—which currently is dealing with its
own serious financial challenges—to cover such deficits now and in the near future is
extremely limited.

Though “Issues, Etc.” took up only 18 percent of KFUO-AM’s programming week, its
expenses after revenues in the last fiscal year, conservatively speaking, were $250,000—
more than 40 percent of the station’s total shortfall, or need for subsidy.

Analysis:  Mr. Strand claims here that the sole reason for the cancellation was financial and that Issues, Etc. was a heavy burden to KFUO-AM, which has lost $3.5 million dollars since 2001.  Remember that KFUO-AM is considered a "mission and ministry" of the LCMS, so that cuts reflect the LCMS's priorities in "mission and ministry."  Furthermore, this answer makes Issues, Etc. responsible for the financial situation of KFUO-AM, whereas the actual financials make a case for station mismanagement.

Remember that the LCMS paid out $2.1 million to Ablaze! consultants in 2007.

Remember the salary figures for KFUO:  KFUO-FM employs 18 people to the tune of $1.07 million; KFUO-AM employs 8 people at $780,000.

Remember that KFUO-FM is a commercial station that is supposed to support the "mission and ministry" of KFUO-AM.

Nonetheless, couldn’t you have cancelled some other show?

There were no other programs to cancel that would have resulted in a meaningful step
toward operating within the budget and curtailing the mounting deficits. Every other
program on the KFUO-AM schedule is hosted either by a volunteer or by people who
have extensive other duties at the station. Discontinuing one of these shows would have
resulted in minimal savings. “Issues,” on the other hand, had two dedicated, full-time
staffers devoted exclusively to “Issues.” This accounts, in part, for the unusually high
costs, compared with the other shows, of producing “Issues.”

Analysis:  In effect this is saying that the LCMS prefers to have its "mission and ministry" staffed by volunteers and people who have other extensive duties at the station and can't afford to do a show that requires extensive preparation and the expertise of two full-time dedicated staffers.  Of course this accounts for the comparatively high costs of the show, but are those costs "unusually high"?  What are unusually high are KFUO's excessive overhead costs, salaries, and the 40% development fee charged by the LCMS Foundation.

You get what you pay for, and Mr. Strand is saying that the LCMS is no longer willing or able to pay for quality professional programming on KFUO-AM.

How can one know your financial and accounting numbers are correct?

The numbers are based on the audited financial statements of the Synod and on rational
assumptions used in the internal accounting of KFUO-AM—assumptions described by
the Synod’s Treasurer as “accurate,” “fair,” and “very reasonable.”

Analysis:  While we certainly respect the synodical Treasurer's opinion that the numbers are "accurate," "fair," and "very reasonable," we aren't really sure what question the Treasurer is answering here.  This answer is essentially circular and says, "They are correct because we say so and everyone we talked to about it agrees with us."

Given the extreme state of the Synod's finances and its practice of borrowing from itself against general funds, an independent, outside audit that is not under the direction of synodical officials would not be out of order.

Why were the “Issues” host and producer made responsible for AM’s $3.5 million
deficit since 2001? Why wasn’t management blamed?

The host and producer were not blamed for the overall shortfall. All parts of KFUO-AM
have contributed to the aggregate financial problem and, despite efforts to increase
revenue and decrease expenses, the deficits continue. Responsibility for the $3.5 million
accumulated deficit over the past seven years resides with station management and the
LCMS Board for Communication Services (BCS) throughout that period. In fairness to
those overseeing the station, however, it should be noted that in recent years, while the
station has attempted to raise more revenue and operate more efficiently, it has faced
steep increases in its fair share of “G&A” (general and administrative overhead for
Concordia Technologies, General Services, Human Resources, and Accounting) and
fundraising costs allocated by the Synod.

Analysis:  The host and producer of Issues, Etc. were not blamed but they, and their listeners, suffered the consequences of mismanagement that has been going on since 2001.  The final sentence admits that the synodical drain on its own "mission and ministry" has crippled it with high "G&A" and the 40% development fee charged by LCMS Foundation.  In other words, the Synod itself is to blame for a considerable part of KFUO's financial woes.

Why not make cuts at top-level, higher-paid management at KFUO?

KFUO operates with a lean management structure. Like most radio ministries, there are
considerable regulatory, technical, and administrative tasks that must be performed.
Many of these tasks require expertise and experience specific to the radio industry.

Analysis:  This "lean management structure" employs 26 people to run a radio station.  It has lost $3.5 million since 2001.  It received a vote of "no confidence" from the Board for Communications Services.  Under its watch, KFUO received an "F" rating from Ministry Watch, leading watchdog agency.  The current management has clearly demonstrated its lack of expertise and experience specific to the radio industry, particularly as a "mission and ministry" of the synod.  Based on this track record, changes at the top should have been made long ago.

Besides discontinuing “Issues,” what has KFUO-AM management and the BCS done to
try to improve the financial situation at the station?

Various-cost reduction and revenue-increasing efforts have been undertaken in earnest by
management and its governing board in recent years. These efforts include the
completion of a consultant-led, comprehensive operational audit; appointment of a
financial oversight committee; contracting of a Christian radio fund-raising consultant;
completion of a campaign-readiness study; appointment of a full-time LCMS Foundation
executive as KFUO development director; church-wide promotion of KFUO access via
the Internet; stepped-up gift solicitation; exploration of potential operating partners; and
major fund-raising initiatives and events. Other efforts made on the FM side, for the
good of all of KFUO, include the elimination of three staff jobs in 2007, the automation
of overnight and significant portions of weekend programming, the revision of sales-staff
compensation to incentivize performance, and increased on-air advertising rates.

Analysis:  The Synod's answer is to hire more consultants.  There appears to be a pattern developing here.

The answer does not state how long these measures have been in place and what their result was.  The appointment of a full-time LCMS Foundation executive as the KFUO development director is ironic since the Foundation keeps 40 cents of every dollar it raises.  It's good to hear that three staff positions were eliminated in 2007.  Does that mean a cut from 21 to 18, or from 18 to 15?  Why isn't KFUO-FM automated during the day as it is at night and on the weekends?  It is simply a classical music station.  How many people does it take to play Mozart?  It's good to hear that the sales-staff is presumably on commission to "incentivize" performance, and the station is charging more for advertising time.  How long have these measures been in effect and how effective have they been?

Why was this particular cut made now, before the May Board of Directors' meeting in which an ad hoc KFUO committee was supposed to give a report on programming and the future of the station?  Why not wait until the end of the fiscal year to make necessary adjustments?

The real question behind this question is what is the synodical administration doing to improve the financial situation of the Synod?  This is much like governments cutting key programs such as education while refusing to scale back their own bureaucracies.

Why can’t the Synod transfer money from other ministries or activities to increase
KFUO’s budget?

There are many important ministry priorities competing for finite Synod funds. It is the
role of the Synod’s Board of Directors to decide how best to allocate dollars on behalf of
all 6,044 congregations and the 2.4 million people in these congregations. KFUO is a
media outreach ministry, one of a myriad of outreach programs of the church. Its
managers must work with the dollars budgeted to it and any gifts the radio station can
acquire on its own.

Analysis:  The question is wrongly put.  Of course the synod's budget allocates a certain amount of funds for each "mission and ministry" of the Synod.  The real questions are these:  Why are the Synod's overhead and development costs so high as to undermine its outreach ministries?  Why is so much money paid out to consulting firms?

(to be continued)