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.

 

Comments

[Texas Confessional Pastor]

Your analysis is spot-on. Absolutely correct in every facet. You ask, "is this how we treat missionaries in the field?" Others may have more insight, but the answer to my knowledge is "YES" - I know men who were given calls to be foreign missionaries who had to work the LCMS and District conventions trying to conjure up dollars to support themselves, which of course had to go through the LCMS World Missions' dept. Another man serving an overseas vicarage in a mission field sent a newsletter by email with news and updates, and always ended by a plea for dollars to support his missionary efforts, make the check payable to LCMS World Missions... As I said, others may know better, but for the most part, I think we actually DO force our missionaries to support themselves even while engaged in the very tasks they are CALLED to do - preach and teach the Gospel, etc. Note also our seminaries are forced to raise all their own monies. It should not be a surprise ISSUES was asked to do the same. Shows how far down the pit we've sunk. We trust not the Lord but the almighty dollar. We don't plan carefully, we instead try to be and do everything for everybody and end up not accomplishing one fruitful thing.

[Tim Kuehn]

With respect to this 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."

But Mr Strand does provide an explanation - "due to economic realities." Once the decision was made, LCMS HR took over, and what happened next was out of the ED's hands. Since LCMS HR policy is to terminate w/out advance notice as providing "notice" in the past probably didn't serve any "useful" purpose, that's what HR did.

Effectively, the decision to cancel IE was the ED's responsibility. Canceling the show resulted in personnel being let go, and that "exit" process was handled by HR.

Whether or note one has quibbles over the nature of these "economic realities" is another thing.

"There seems to be a lot of finger pointing."

I don't agree with this, one just has to read the Q&A a little closer. The ED decided to cut IE, and LCMS HR handled the "exit" process for the employees whose service was no longer required.

One may quibble with the reasoning or timing, but these are the parties that made and implemented the decision.

---

I agree with the rest of the analysis, however, as it seems awfully strange that there was no clue something like this was even being considered in prior BCS minutes, and no explanation has been forthcoming of the "sudden emergency" which required immediate action. The only possible explanation I've seen is in the Feb 2008 minutes under "new business" where running KFUO as a zero-expense-to-Synod operation was listed as a goal of the BCS and ED.

Perhaps the ED took that as a mandate to cut costs to accomplish that goal?

[Susan]

Just wanted to thank-you for all of your hard work and terrific analyses. Again, thanks. It is all greatly appreciated.

[Adam E.]

The LCMS leadership was hardly on my radar screen before Holy Week of 2008. I was aware of the controversy over the 9/11 prayer service, but I did not know about the firing of Rev. Wallace Schulz or the calling back of missionaries.
I assumed the LCMS administration was faithfully doing its job of supporting missionaries abroad, and helping to fund our Seminaries and Synodical University System. It is disturbing to me to find that this is often not the case.
I can't help but wonder what the purpose of the LCMS bureaucracy is. Our Synodical leadership appears to me to be an institution whose main purpose is to employ people, who often make more money than pastors, to do clerical work and be in discussion with Lutherans and leaders of other denominations around the world. The other goal seems to be to raise $100,000,000 to plant "contemporary" churches and try to teach the laity to bring more people into the church and help pastors do their work.
I don't know if I can support a church organization that has such different priorities and missions than I believe Christ would have for His church, and an organization that seems less and less interested in proclaiming the truth of the Gospel. Also, how can I support a Christian organization that treats its employees, as matter of policy, the way it has treated Rev. Schulz, Rev. Wilken, Mr. Jeff Schwarz and unnamed missionaries? Finally, how can I support an organization that replaces a mission like Issues, Etc. with another daily talk show for financial reasons, while spending vast amounts of money on business consultants and conventions?

[Claire]

The Synod explanations sound like they were written by a robot. Absolutely chilling, considering that the LCMS is a Christian organization.

[Erich Heidenreich, DDS]

I believe it is important not to propagate the unsubstantiated figure of 40% repeated again in this post. We need to keep the truth on our side. While I believe those who initially estimated the costs at 40% did so in good faith with the best information they had at their disposal at the time, the figure is not quite that high. Nevertheless, it is still quite high.

The official "CPDR" (cost per dollar raised) for KFUO is $.275 for AM and FM combined. This is what you will be told if you ask the Foundation, and they have official audited figures to back it up.

That said, I also should add that neither the Foundation, nor KFUO appear to have kept track of what fundraising costs could be attributed specifically to the AM station or to Issues, Etc.

On KFUO's own financial books, the fundraising costs are arbitrarily split 50/50 between the AM and FM columns.

If you want documentation, on page 6 of the Foundation's own financial report are the figures from which the Foundation calculates a $.275 CPDR. The synod's audited financial report supports the $.275 figure as well.

The Foundation's report shows that KFUO had $1,086,756 in "Direct Gifts". These include: "cash, stock and distributions from donor advised funds." And, KFUO had an additional $227,425 in "Matured Gifts Distributed." These include: "All distributions other than direct gifts including trusts, endowments, gift annuities, pooled funds and bequests."

You get the same $.275 CDPR using the figures on pages 24 and 25 of the official audited LCMS "Consolidated Financial Reports" for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007. The fundraising cost figure reported for KFUO in that audited report is $361,000. That's the amount KFUO's books split 50/50 between the AM and FM columns.

Just wanting to keep the truth on our side. :-) The difference between 28% and 38% is totally insignificant when considering the big picture.

Let's just forget all the financial details for a moment and suppose that Issues, Etc. was, indeed, costing the station a lot of money (a point I believe both sides would admit). So what?

The question remains, why was this particularly effective apologetic outreach considered unworthy of synod resources while so many other questionable modes of outreach (e.g. Ablaze!) are garnishing exponentially more of our synod's resources? That question demands that we realize there are theological considerations involved here.

The more disconcerting question is whether this was more than a simple matter of differences in priorities. Was Issues, Etc. considered to be a monkey wrench in the smooth oiled machinery of "change" in the LCMS toward a church growth approach to ministry and outreach? I believe the answer to that question is YES! That would mean this was not only theologically motivated, but politically calculated.