Here's a little paragraph to pique your curiosity:
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.
The truth is, the four-vote, Jesus First majority on the current B.C.S. is main reason David Strand knew that he would be able to get away with unilaterally canceling Issues and firing Wilken & Schwarz.
ReplyDeleteStrand acted, knowing that the majority of his own board would not hold him accountable. And he was right.
When a director of a synodical board can act unilaterally, knowing that his own board will look the other way, unaccountability has become part of the synodical culture.
It is bureaucracy at its worst.
Unaccountability is now, in Strand's parlance, the synod's way of doing "business."