Official Workbook report source text
Official Workbook source-navigation report record. No analysis has been added.
- Report number/id
- R59.2
- Report title
- R59.2 2023 Res. 9-06A Task Force To Evaluate Electoral Circuit Parameters, Whitepaper II
- Workbook start page
- 155
- Workbook end page
- 161
- Source pages
- 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161
- Source status
- source_checked
- Committee
- Not available
R59.2 2026 Convention Workbook 156 OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS 3 1,500 members. Of the 34 “underage” exceptions, as noted above, 11 were granted to geographical districts 1 in the WSW region and 16 in the ESE region.2 Figure 3 shows, on a logarithmic axis, boxplot 4 histograms indicating the distribution of the confirmed 3 member sizes of the circuits in each district (the width of each box reflecting the number of circuits in each 4 district). The dark vertical line indicates the lower bound of 1,500 confirmed members; the two lighter 5 vertical lines are at 1,613 members and 1,734 members, the confirmed member sizes (all other things being 6 equal) a circuit would need to have in 2029 to meet the requirement of 1,500 members, after a typical 7% 7 triennial decline, and in 2032, respectively. The darker red dots to the left of the vertical lines represent 8 electoral circuits that received exceptions in 2026; the lighter red dots, those that may require exceptions or 9 realignment or combination of ad�acent �isitation circuits, all other things being equal, for 2029 (77 circuits) and 10 2032 (an additional 45 circuits). The task force, in recommending elimination of exceptions, does so aware 11 that where these threshold lines move well into the “box” of the two center quartiles (and even to or beyond 12 the median for districts like SELC, MDS, AT, NJ, SE, and NOW), realignment of visitation circuits or 13 combination of visitation circuits into increasingly large electoral circuits will be necessary.14 Figure 4 adds another dimension of the 2026 convention circuit apportionment, indicating on the vertical 15 axis the number of congregations involved in each electoral circuit as well as (by the color of the dot) the 16 number of visitation circuits included in each combined electoral circuit. Confirmed member thresholds 17 are indicated as in Figure 3. The figure also distinguishes by color those electoral circuits formed of two or 18 three adjacent visitation circuits. See Whitepaper I for analysis, which is generally unchanged.19 Relative to Figure 4 in Whitepaper I , it may be observed that a significant reduction in exceptions was 20 achieved by formation of more circuits with more than 20 congregations each, beyond the upper bound set 21 in existing bylaws. The task force recommends removing these upper bounds (20 congregations and 10,000 22 confirmed members), as smaller congregations will mean the size of circuits will likely continue to increase, 23 particularly within the WSW and ESE regions. 24 4 A boxplot represents a “distribution curve” (ideally, the familiar “bell curve”) coming up out of the page. The colored box represents the middle quartiles (half the data points) with the divider at the me dian. The “whiskers” protruding from the box represent the outer quartiles, but to a distance no more than 1.5 times the interquartile distance. Outliers beyond the whiskers are marked as black dots. Figure 3: Distribution, Confirmed Membership of 2026 Electoral Circuits (SY2024 data; thresholds at 1 ,500, 1,613, and 1,734; see text) 4 3. Characterization of Confirmed Membership Change1 The rate of confirmed membership change over time is a factor in the “stability” of circuit designations, 2 electoral circuit combinations, and the rate of requests for exceptions. Electoral circuit qualification is based 3 on the statistics gathered in the year prior to the convention (i.e., the 2026 convention relied on SY2024 4 confirmed membership data as of December 31, 2024, gathered by May 2025; the 2029 convention will rely 5 on SY2027 data). District alignment of visitation regions, usually done at district conventions in the year 6 Figure 4: Confirmed Membership and Congregations of 202 6 Electoral Circuits by Region (SY2024 data; confirmed membership thresholds at 1,���, 1,613, and 1,734; see explanation of Figure 3 in text), �ndicating Combined Circuits Figure 5: Triennial Rate of Reported Confirmed Member Gain / Loss by District / Region, 1994–2024 2026 Convention Workbook 157 OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS5 prior to the Synod convention, generally relies on the previous statistical year, so districts have to predict 1 circuits likely to drop below requirements in the intervening year of data reporting.2 Through the period 1994–2024, the confirmed membership of the Synod has been decreasing at a generally3 accelerating rate, with some regional variation. Figure 5 shows the triennial rate of confirmed membership 4 change throughout the period for each district and region (these data are presented to show the trendusing 5 LOESS, or “locally-weighted scatterplot smoothing”). The confirmed membership of the Synod as a whole 6 was experiencing 2% triennial loss in 2003, 4% in 2011, 6% in 2016, 8% in 2020, and 7% in 2024. These rates 7 fluctuate regionally; in 2019 and 2020, the WSW region experienced 11% triennial loss rates; presently it has 8 dropped to 6% (but with increasing lag in reporting , which can render the rate artificially low ); at present, 9 all regions have triennial loss rates between 5.5% and 7.6%. At a triennial loss rate of 7%, an electoral circuit 10 of 1,613 confirmed members at the time of one convention’s electoral circuit qualification will likely have, all11 other things being equal, 1,500 for the next, and 1,395 for the one thereafter.Put another way, a circuit would 12 need 1,613 members today to have 1,500 in three years, and 1,734 today to have 1,500 in six years. (It should 13 be noted that the upturn in the small buckets of districts and the non- geographical category may not be as 14 significant, in fact, as they appear.)15 Of course, these changes are not uniform across the districts or within a given district. Figure 6 shows the 16 distribution (in box-plot form, with the colored portion of the box reflecting the two inner quartiles, or half 17 the circuits) of recent rates of confirmed membership change across the districts—a reminder that “all other 18 things” are rarely equal. A considerable number of circuits reported confirmed membership losses, over the 19 past three years, of more than 10%, with some districts having half or more of their circuits in this range. At 20 the same time, there are districts reporting as many as a quarter of their circuits having net gains in the past 21 three years. In this sense, the vertical lines indicated in Figure s 3 and 4 to show threats to circuit stability22 may here and there—and more frequently in the WSW region—underestimate the challenge at hand, or, in 23 fewer places, overstate it. Comparing to the same figure in Whitepaper I, note the change in scale; some of 24 the losses reported in years no longer part of the window were extreme. In a few districts, more circuits are 25 reporting gains; in others, reported losses are more pronounced. Nonetheless, the general analysis holds.26 �ection � o� �hitepaper � is historical in nature and re�uires no update�27 Figure 6: �istribution o� �isitation -Circuit-Level Reported Confirmed Membership Change, 2021–24 6 5. Analysis of Potential Change due to Variation of Electoral Circuit Formation Parameters1 Whitepaper I explored the question of the potential impact, in terms of convention size and possible changes 2 to representational balance, of changing the basic minimum parameters for electoral circuit qualification (7 3 member congregations and 1,500 confirmed members). The set of heuristic Max-P experiments described in 4 Whitepaper I was repeated with SY2024 data and to reflect some of the choices made in the task force’s later 5 work. �or details on the Ma� -P e�periments, see �hitepaper �, �ection �� 6 Noting that 7% of 2026 circuits are exceptional relative to SY2024 data, and that the Max-P model admits of 7 no exceptions, the number of circuits formed by Max-P on SY2024 data for a given district varied from 100% 8 to 167% of those aligned for the 2026 convention, with a median of 121% (standard deviation 16%). Some 9 districts (e.g., CNH, EA, NE, NJ, MDS, MI, SELC, SW, TX) are very close to “optimally” aligned to maximize 10 representation (Max-P forms no more than 10% more circuits); others (CI, EN, IW, MNN, MNS, MT, ND, NEB, 11 NI, NW, OH, OK, SD, SI, WY) are farther from such (Max-P forms 20–67% more circuits), possibly reflecting 12 other alignment priorities or a desire to keep circuits stable long -term rather than continually realign to 13 maximize representation. 14 These preliminaries out of the way, we will now evaluate, for a variety of parameter selections, the extent to 15 which a given set of parameters : (1) renders presently or likely- soon-to-be exceptional circuits 16 unexceptional; and (2) would give districts the option of optimizing their representation to new, lower 17 standards, increasing their representation share and the size of the total convention delegation. Max-P 18 enables the second measure. 19 �able �� �ercent (%) of 2026 con�ention circuits �assuming no realignment or recombination of visitation circuits , and a 7 % 20 triennial drop in confirmed membership� that would re�uire e�ceptions or realignment/combinationfor 2029–2035 conventions 21 Congregations Confirmed Members Confirmed Members Confirmed Members 800 1000 1200 1500 800 1000 1200 1500 800 1000 1200 1500 4 0.2% 1.0% 3.0% 14.9% 0.4% 1.0% 4.0% 23.9% 0.8% 2.0% 6.6% 32.4% 5 0.2% 1.0% 3.0% 14.9% 0.4% 1.0% 4.0% 23.9% 0.8% 2.0% 6.6% 32.4% 6 0.2% 1.0% 3.0% 14.9% 0.4% 1.0% 4.0% 23.9% 0.8% 2.0% 6.6% 32.4% 7 0.8% 1.6% 3.6% 15.5%5 1.0% 1.6% 4.6% 24.6% 1.4% 2.6% 7.2% 33.0% ������ pro�� ����� con�ention� ������ pro�� ����� con�ention� ������ pro�� ����� con�ention� Table 2 shows, for a variety of combinations of circuit formation parameters (minimum congregations and 22 minimum confirmed members) the estimated proportion of 2026 circuits (assuming a 7% triennial drop in 23 confirmed membership and no congregation closures or mergers ) that would likely have fallen below the 24 indicated minimum congregation and confirmed membership requirements by the time to align for the 25 2029, 2032, and 2035 conventions. As indicated previously, 15.5% of existing 2026 electoral circuits would 26 require exceptions (if allowed; otherwise, adjustment or combination) for 2029, 24.6% for 2032, and 33.0% 27 for 2035. If the confirmed member requirement were reduced to 1200, the exception rate could be held to 28 3.6% for the 2029 convention (but would likely rise to 4.6 % and 7.2%, respectively, for 2032 and 2035).6 Of 29 course, it is not realistic to expect that with the bar lowered that at least some districts would not restructure 30 to increase representation, potentially increasing the size of the convention, possibly dramatically.It should 31 be noted that in the “congregation requirement” dimension, closures, mergers, and charters are not modeled.32 5 These are not evenly distributed: 20.0% of non-geographical circuits, 20.4% of those in the WSW region, and 30.1% of those in the ESE region would likely require exceptions to maintain 2026 circuits in 2029, with 6.2–11.1% requiring them in other regions. If the 7/1500 requirement is held, in three triennia’s time , 33.0% of circuits would have to be revised, as indicated : 46.7% of non - geographical circuits, 50.6% of those in ESE, 46.2% of those in WSW, and 19.3–27.5% of those in the other regions. 6 These projected exception rates are much lower than those in the first paper, partially because realignment for the 2026 convention—primarily at district initiative and partially because of a reduced number of exceptions granted—significantly reduced the number of circuits within a few triennial drops of (or already below) the confirmed membership line. They are also reduced by the adjustment of projected 8– 9% triennial drops to 7% due to incorporation of 2023 –24 reporting. A reduction to 1,200 members helps only so much; 13.3% of non -geographical, 19.3% of those in ESE, and 11.8% of those in WSW would be exceptional in three triennia. 2026 Convention Workbook 158 OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS 7 It must at the same time be asked, however, if districts were to take advantage of changed circuit 1 requirements to realign circuits to optimize for representation, how significant the change in proportional 2 representation or in the total convention size would be. A significant increase in convention size might have 3 undesirable budgetary and logistical complications, and a significant potential for districts to increase their 4 proportion of representation, potentially at the cost of visitation or other “working” aspects of current 5 circuits may also raise appropriate concern. The previously described Max -P algorithm was used to 6 “optimally” form electoral circuits under a wide range of parameters, based on SY2024 data. Table 3 shows, 7 for a range of congregation and confirmed membership requirements, the theoretical potential increase in 8 the size of the national convention (lefttable),7 if all districts redistricted “optimally,” and the percentage of 9 optimally formed circuits that would require exceptions after the elapse of three years (righttable).10 �able �� �otential for increase in number of electoral circuits relati�e to an �optimal� baseline and proportion of resulting circuits 11 re�uiring e�ceptions after a �- year inter�al (present data; no accounting for future change�12 Congregations Confirmed Members in SY2024 (present) Confirmed Members in SY2027 800 1000 1200 1500 800 1000 1200 1500 4 66% / 97% 47% / 74% 32% / 56% 14% / 35% 26% 32% 35% 46% 5 52% / 80% 38% / 63% 26% / 49% 9% / 29% 19% 25% 36% 42% 6 37% / 62% 27% / 50% 18% / 40% 4% / 24% 17% 23% 30% 39% 7 23% / 48% 17% / 38% 10% / 33% – / 18% 12% 19% 24% 35% Potential increase in convention voting delegation gi�en �arious changes in circuit minimums, relati�e to optimal (588 circ�� � (ital�� 2026 actual (497 circ�) �roportion of �optimally formed� circuits li�ely to fall below minimums after 3 years (7% conf� membership decline� For example, if the bylaw bounds were to be adjusted to require 1200 confirmed members and five 13 congregations instead of 1500 and 7, the number of delegates could be increased by as much as 49% relative 14 to current alignment (or by 26%, if we imagine a theoretical maximum number of delegates at present).36% 15 of the circuits formed, however, at that “optimal alignment” would likely fall below the new bar within one 16 triennium. To reduce to five congregations and 800 members could result in a voting delegation 80% larger.17 Table 3 reflects formation of circuits based on present statistics, a definite upper bound on increases. Given 18 that 2029 is the first convention for which changed requirements would take effect, and given that districts 19 tend to desire some stability in circuit formation, Table 4 shows the change in number of circuits relative to 20 optimal formation at current parameters and relative to 202 6 counts, for a variety of parameters, assuming 21 districts figure on a 7% triennial confirmed membership decline to form circuits that will li�ely be �alid in 2032. For 22 more conservative parameter changes (e.g., to 6 congregations and 1,200 members) this likely better 23 estimates the “upper bound” on convention size impact relative to 2026. 24 �able �� �otential for increase in number of 2029 electoral circuits (formed on the assumption of a 7% triennial membership 25 decline) relati�e to an �optimal� baseline and proportion of resulting circuits re�uiring e�ceptions for the 2032 convention26 Congregations Confirmed Members in SY2027 (2029 Conv.) Conf. Mbrs. in SY2030 (2032 Conv.) 800 1000 1200 1500 800 1000 1200 1500 4 68% / 88% 48% / 47% 31% / 47% 12% / 25% 23% 28% 36% 41% 5 55% / 74% 39% / 41% 26% / 41% 8% / 22% 20% 25% 33% 42% 6 41% / 58% 30% / 34% 20% / 34% 5% / 18% 14% 22% 30% 34% 7 28% / 43% 19% / 25% 11% / 25% – /12% 12% 18% 24% 33% Potential increase in convention 2029 voting delegation given �arious changes in circuit minimums, relati�e to optimal (�57 circuits� � (ital�� 2026 actual (497 circuits) �roportion of �optimally formed� circuits li�ely to fall below minimums after another � years 7 P ercentages set in Roman type are relative to optimally formed circuits, given current requirements (7 congregations and 1,500 members); on SY2022 data, 602 such circuits are possible, 1 3% more electoral circuits than are currently formed (15% of which are currently exceptional). Italicized percentages are relative to the actual number of 2023 electoral circuits, of which there are 532. 8 The interaction of congregation confirmed membership sizes, counts, and geographical factors, and their 1 peculiar combinations in the different districts and regions mean that variation of parameters does not have 2 a uniform effect across the Synod. Figure 7 shows the potential for relative increase in the number of electoral 3 circuits as estimated by the Max -P algorithm, configured to form circuits with sufficient excess confirmed 4 members today to survive a continued 7% triennial decline until the 2029 convention, for (a) a variety of 5 parameter combinations, by region; and (b) for circuits with a minimum 6 congregations and 1,200 6 members, by district. In (a), variation in the confirmed membership requirement is along the x-axis; 7 variation in the congregation count requirement is indicated by the different line styles. Variation in the 8 latter requirement has a more pronounced effect in the regions with a greater proportion of relatively larger 9 congregations. ESE and WSW regions struggle to add circuits at a rate similar to other regions (of course, 10 their “baseline” includes a greater proportion of exceptional circuits already, so they have more “negative 11 inertia” to overcome). P erhaps p aradoxically, though, lowered requirements would allow other regions12 (especially in the GP region, but for reasonable parameters also in the GL and CEN regions) to add circuits at 13 a higher rate than these could.14 Taking one example of moderate change to parameters in Figure 7(b), with 6 congregations and 1,200 15 members required, one can see a great variety in the ability of districts to add new circuits, ranging from 16 increases at or below 25% (SELC, MDS, KS, IE, SW, MI, TX, and most of the ESE region) to over 60% (MT, NW, 17 WY, SD, NI).8 Such potential swings in representation are neither “right” nor “wrong,” but are significant to 18 note and perhaps of broader variance than might be expected, even in districts that are not among the 19 smallest. Note also that these figures include no exceptional circuits (the task force is proposing eliminating 20 them). 21 6. Alternate Requirements for Electoral Circuit Formation22 Similar circuit formation experiments were performed with alternative requirements for electoral circuit 23 formation, including requiring 4, 5, 6, or 7 parishes instead of congregations, or requiring 2, 3, or 4 installed 24 pastors in addition to the existing requirements for congregations and confirmed members. The former 25 would bring circuit formation into line with representation of congregations as parishes in circuit forums, 26 district conventions, and the vote for President. The latter would have a similar effect, but also impact 27 8 District-level rates of potential representation change range from 1.00 to 2.00, with a mean of 1.36 and standard deviation of 0.20. Comparing “optimal” circuits of 7 congregations and 1,500 members to those of 6 congregations and 1,200 members (using the “optimal” instead of 2026 actual as baseline), district -level rates of potential representation change range from 1. 14 to 1.50, with a mean of 1.21 and standard deviation of 0.066. A significant amount of the potential change and the variability in the potential change is due to pre-existing differences in how “optimally” districts have selected circuits (see all prior caveats on the sense of “optimal”). (a) �ith a �ariety of parameters , regionally (b� �ith � congs� and �200 conf� mbrs�, by district Figure 7: �hange in electoral circuits, relati�e to 202 6 actual, using Max -P and forming for 2029 with the assumption of continued 7% triennial confirmed membership decline 2026 Convention Workbook 159 OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS9 circuits that have for other reasons a low ratio of installed pastors to congregations. These results were not 1 presented in Whitepaper I but became relevant later in the task force’s work. This update will present data 2 on parish-based formation, which is an idea the task force is recommending as bringing circuit formation 3 into line with other Pfarrgemeinde-based processes (see 2023 Res. 9- 12 regarding this concept), in which, 4 from the very early days of the Synod, the sum of congregations served by one pastor received, together, one 5 pastor and one lay vote (see also Bylaw 2.5.5).6 Considering electoral circuits formed for the 2026 convention, if seven parishes were to be required, rather 7 than seven congregations, an additional 6.5% of present circuits would be rendered exceptional (as elsewhere, 8 these are not evenly distributed, striking districts making more use of multi -congregation parishes and 9 having fewer very small congregations: 1.1% additional in WSW, 8.3% in GP, 3.0% in CEN, 17.6% in GL, and 10 1.2% in ESE Regions). Reducing the requirement to six parishes from seven congregations renders 1% or fewer 11 more circuits exceptional at present and in the next three triennial projections. This is the recommendation 12 of the task force.13 �able 5: Percent of 2026 con�ention circuits (assuming no realignment or recombination of �isitation circuits� and a 7% triennial 14 drop in con�rmed membership� that �ould re�uire e�ceptions or realignment/combination for the 202 9–2035 conventions15 Parishes Confirmed Members Confirmed Members Confirmed Members 800 1000 1200 1500 800 1000 1200 1500 800 1000 1200 1500 4 0.2% 1.0% 3.0% 14.9% 0.4% 1.0% 4.0% 23.9% 0.8% 2.0% 6.6% 32.4% 5 0.2% 1.0% 3.0% 14.9% 0.4% 1.0% 4.0% 23.9% 0.8% 2.0% 6.6% 32.4% 6 1.2% 2.0% 4.0% 15.7% 1.4% 2.0% 5.0% 24.5% 1.8% 3.0% 7.6% 32.8% 7 7.4% 8.2% 10.3% 21.1%9 7.6% 8.2% 11.1% 29.2% 8.0% 9.3% 13.7% 37.0% ��202� pro�� (202� con�ention� ��20�0 pro�� (20�2 con�ention� ��20�� pro�� (20�� con�ention� Table 5 shows the percent of 2026 convention electoral circuits requiring realignment or recombination for 16 a variety of parish-based requirement models over the next three conventions. As indicated in the leftmost 17 sub-table, if the bylaw is amended to require at least six parishes in an electoral circuit and the current 1,500 18 confirmed members, 15.7% of current circuits are estimated to require adjustment before 2029, with an 19 additional 8.8% requiring attention by 2030 and 8.3% by 2033.20 �able 6� �otential for increase in number of 202� electoral circuits (formed on the assumption of a 7 % triennial membership 21 decline) relative to 2026 actual and proportion of resulting circuits re�uiring e�ceptions for the 20�2 con�ention22 Parishes Confirmed Members in SY2027 (2029 Conv.) Conf. Mbrs. in SY2030 (2032 Conv.) 800 1000 1200 1500 800 1000 1200 1500 4 81% 62% 46% 24% 23% 25% 35% 41% 5 62% 49% 38% 19% 16% 21% 30% 35% 6 46% 36% 28% 13% 14% 16% 24% 34% 7 30% 24% 18% 7% 9% 13% 20% 28% Potential increase in convention 2029 voting delegation gi�en �arious changes in circuit minimums� relative to 2026 actual (497 circuits) �roportion of �optimally formed� circuits li�ely to fall belo� minimums after another � years Table 6 shows, similar to Table 4 as based on congregation counts, the potential increase in voting delegation 23 size if a variety of parish-based metrics were to be adopted and if districts were to form optimal circuits based 24 on SY2027 projections for the 2029 convention (a realignment far more extensive than dealing with fraction 25 of circuits that would have become exceptional by that time, left sub -table of Table 5 above). Adopting a 26 standard of 6 parishes and 1,500 members would allow a theoretical ma�imum increase in the 2029 voting 27 convention delegation, relative to 2026, of 13% (17–18% in CEN, GL, and GP regions and 4–6% in WSW and 28 9 These are not evenly distributed: 20.0% of non-geographical circuits, 20.4% of those in the WSW region, and 30.1% of those in the ESE region would likely require exceptions to maintain 2026 circuits in 2029, with 6.2 –11.1% requiring them in other regions. If the 7/1500 requirement is held, in three triennia’s time, 33.0% of circuits would have to be revised, as indicated: 46.7% of non - geographical circuits, 50.6% of those in ESE, 46.2% of those in WSW, and 19.3–27.5% of those in the other regions. 10 ESE regions due to relatively fewer circuits with large parishes and relatively less importance at present of 1 the multi-congregation parish model; it must be remembered, of course, that the WSW and ESE regions also 2 are starting off with a “baseline” exception rate much higher than the other regions. With exceptions 3 forbidden the model, they are “playing catchup” with regions that have already adjusted to larger circuits 4 made up of smaller congregations). 5 7. Codependent Bounds for Electoral Circuit Formation (“Relieved Model” )6 �he tas� force determined not to pursue this model further� so updated data is not presented here�7 8. Basic Contextual Data on the Member Congregations and Pastors in the Circuits of the Synod8 Geographic factors are significant when considering the reasonability of circuit formation. Figure 9 shows, 9 for 2026 visitation and electoral circuits, the distribution, by district, of electoral circuit radii, expressed in 10 miles10 (these are displayed on a logarithmic scale due to the great variation in the geographic size of 11 electoral circuits). South Wisconsin and Northern Illinois (and the Great Lakes Region, in general) have the 12 most compact visitation circuits, with a median radius below 1 2 miles (mi.). Among geographical districts, 13 Wyoming and Montana have the highest median radii at 70 and 88 mi., respectively (these increase to 13214 and 163 mi. for electoral circuits, when combination is taken into account); Great Plains and West-Southwest 15 regions are similarly challenged with relatively large visitation circuits that tend to combine into 16 significantly larger electoral circuits (WSW has a mean radius of 46 mi. for visitation and 61 mi. for electoral; 17 ESE, 37/45 mi.; GP 34/36 mi.; CEN 27/31 mi.; GL 17/18 mi.; this is, of course, even more the case with the 18 nongeographic districts, at 111/222 mi.). 19 �ee general comments and data (changed but not dramatically since the �rst presentation� and commentary on 20 eligible installed pastors and pastoral full-time e�ui�alents in �hitepaper �� �ection ��21 9. Concluding Thoughts22 This whitepaper updates selected portions of the data presented to the task force in support of its work, 23 focusing especially on changes due to 2025–26 circuit realignments and adding data on parish-based circuit 24 requirements. The changes proposed by the task force will provide, for most circuits, a stable transition 25 between 2026 and 2029 conventions. This document attempts to provide a rough numerical framework for 26 evaluating the task force’s conservative change—which will over time reduce the size of the convention by 27 keeping representational proportions consistent with the post-1969 historical norm—in the context of many 28 10 �ue to issues with projection, the radius of circuits involving �awaii and the Church of All Nations in Hong Kong are inaccurate. Figure 9: �inimum radius (miles� of 2023 visitation (left� and electoral circuits (right�� by district and region� 2026 Convention Workbook 160 OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS 11 other possibilities, such as reducing the number of confirmed members or congregations (parishes) required 1 to form an electoral circuit in order to preserve the same geographical units of representation with which we 2 are familiar, but at a much higher proportional representation. Such an approach would come with a 3 significant risk of engendering widespread recircuiting. Setting the limits low enough to avoid all exceptions 4 for current circuits for multiple triennia could dramatically increase the size of the convention and create 5 circuits that ultimately are lacking in strength for other purposes (selection of a visitor, strength of 6 ministerium, etc.) This updated whitepaper and its still-useful forebear are hoped to be helpful to the floor 7 committee and convention in considering not only the floor committee’s proposal but also various 8 alternatives. 9 2026 Convention Workbook 161 OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS LCMS Health Ministry collaborated with LCMS Specialized Spiritual Care Ministry to provide resources and training through the new Lutheran Visitation Education program for chaplaincy roles and parish church workers, along with the ongoing continuing education for specialized spiritual care workers. Promotion of Mental Health Bible studies, resources, and campaigns were developed to care for people within and outside the Church and to reduce stigma around mental illness and bias against persons suffering from men- tal illness or seeking help. Digital Media • Created an ongoing social media awareness campaign with regular posting on Facebook and Instagram. • Published podcast series and episodes on ONM podcasts God’s Mission Here, Friends for Life, and End Goals. Educational Events Live presentations were provided to congregations, church workers, parish nurses, district webinars, national conferences, and participants at the LCMS Youth Gathering. Mental Health Collaboration with Agencies, Auxiliaries, and RSOs LCMS Health Ministry has coordinated and collaborated with numerous Synod entities, agencies, and recognized service organi- zations (RSOs), including Concordia University System, Concor - dia Publishing House, Concordia Plan Services, KFUO Radio, and the LWML. Grants were provided to RSOs and congregations for mental health programs: • Concordia Counseling • DOXOLOGY • GracePoint Institute for Relational Health • Lutheran Family Service, Iowa • Lutherans For Life • Lutheran Counseling and Family Services of Wisconsin • Night of Hope • Shepherd’s Canyon Retreat ONM will continue to equip, resource, collaborate, and coordi- nate the ongoing efforts to address mental health and mental illness issues remaining focused on Jesus Christ, who invites us to cast our burdens on Him because He cares for us (1 Peter 5:7). Daniel M. Galchutt, ONM Executive Director