Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 216

2026 Convention Workbook
181
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
Resolved, That the Board of Directors adopt the Concordia Risk 
Pooling Fund Agreement, as an amplification of its Policy State-
ment on Synodical Insurance; and be it further
Resolved, That publicity regarding this new opportunity be 
shared with all congregations of the Synod for their information 
and decision (see attachment).
Exhibit H-9 indicates that, so far as the program’ s coverage of 
congregations is concerned, the Synod would be responsible “to 
monitor the program, to be sure that it runs as well as is intended, 
and to make and renew relationships periodically with the commer-
cial insurance companies based upon performance and cost fac-
tors. In addition, experience credits or other payments which reflect 
a decrease in the cost of insurance because of the mass purchasing 
and the risk pooling, including through the substantial deductible 
which is inherent in the program, will be utilized through the Syn-
od, as authorized in the agreement among the congregations.” The 
Synod consulted with Nordstrom Risk Management (Los Angeles, 
Calif.) and agreed with the Great American Insurance Company 
(Cincinnati, Ohio) and later Preferred Risk (Des Moines, Iowa, lat-
er known as GuideOne) to offer the insurance. The form of congre-
gational agreement is included in the docket.
The Treasurer reported at the BOD meeting of Feb. 22–24, 1984 (#149), 
“Approximately 350 congregations are covered in the Concordia Risk Pool-
ing Fund, which is being revamped and for which a new carrier will be 
engaged as of April 1. Because of certain weaknesses in marketing, the 
program has met the objective of obtaining lower insurance cost for con-
gregations but has not met the objective of having congregations in a plan 
which will benefit the church at large. Districts are participating well in the 
directors and officers liability insurance program which has been provid-
ed. Certain resolutions of the Board of Directors, as well as other entities 
involved, will be needed in order to clearly state the particulars regarding 
the coverage provided.” Minutes of May 23–25, 1984 (#222), indicate that 
“A number of Districts have joined the Synod in its insurance program and 
more will be doing so as their policies expire. The program has been redi-
rected to provide better marketing and involvement of local agents, and will 
hopefully result in greater penetration and service throughout the Districts. 
Presently, nearly 400 congregations have participated in the former pro-
gram. Some difficulties with regard to the directors and officers liability 
risk insurance are being resolved. Only one entity is not now sharing in the 
cost of providing this coverage.” Minutes of Aug. 22–24, 1984, note (#294), 
“In the area of insurance matters, it was noted that a mailing is planned to 
all congregations, identifying the new congregational insurance program 
through Preferred Risk [became GuideOne in 1999] of Des Moines. The 
new program does not allow as much flexibility in setting premiums as was 
possible under the old plan of pooling a $100,000 deductible against which 
first dollar losses, subject to a cap, were paid. Nevertheless, it should attract 
more congregations since there will be more personal contact by agents in 
the field.”
Minutes of Dec. 4–6, 1985, indicate the program as still active (#682). 
In 2003, LCMS ended its remaining relationship with Lutheran Trust (a.k.a. 
Church Asset Management), the St. Charles, Mo., broker that had ultimately 
facilitated the program.
4. With respect to the property and operations of Synod agencies, ad-
ministration of the Synod’ s “insurance plan” for Synod agencies may be 
understood to lodge under Articles of Incorporation II g, whereby corporate 
Synod is authorized “to establish and conduct all such enterprises and en-
deavors and to exercise such further power as may be necessary or expedi-
ent to carry out the objectives stated in the Constitution” and the Board of 
Directors’ authority and responsibility as “custodian of all the property of 
the [Synod]” (Const. Art. XI E 2).
5. Suelflow, “Church Extension Commission,” in Survey Commission 
Report on District—Synod Relations, 1962.
6. The 4th and 10th objectives were added at this time.
7. With regard to church extension work, at the time of adoption of the 
“modern” Article III in 1979, the Lutheran Church Extension Fund had just 
been incorporated in 1978. The convention presumably did not intend to 
finally approve initiation of this activity and creation of any related 
corporate form as constitutionally permissible.
Concluding remarks and recommendations: Concordia Plan Ser -
vices’ Articles of Incorporation list as the “principal purpose and 
function the administration of the pension, retirement, health, and 
other employee benefit plans (hereinafter, the ‘Plans’) established 
by the Synod in accordance with the terms of such Plans.” The 
control by CPS of an activity outside this principal purpose and 
function will presumably necessitate changes to these governing 
documents, as well. (Compare Articles of Incorporation of the CPS 
Ancillary Program Agency, as reviewed in Op. 15-2773.)
The commission suggests, asking that this opinion be shared with 
the Board of Directors, that if the board determines to undertake 
this activity and to assign it to CPS or a subagency thereof, it would 
be best for the Synod Bylaw description of the work of CPS to be 
amended by the next convention to include this new activity, even 
if already entered into. Review of proposed bylaws would be wel-
comed concomitant with that of the other documents governing the 
activity and potential subagency.
Endnotes
1. The idea of a captive (whether itself a single-parent agency of the 
Synod or participation in a group) serving Synod and certain of its agencies 
was explored 2006–8 by the Board of Directors (Minutes, Aug. 25–26 and 
Nov. 16–17, 2006 [see docket of latter, exhibit IC-11]; May 16–18, 2007; 
Feb. 14–16, Nov. 20–21, 2008). In the last of these, the Treasurer noted that 
a risk-sharing concept would be pursued as an alternative.
2.
 1959 Res. 16-11 declined an overture suggesting mutual proper -
ty insurance covering “churches, schools, parsonages, etc.,” possibly in 
connection with “an existing organization, such as the A.A.L.,” such ar -
rangements having “been found impracticable in past experience and been 
judged unwise by competent men in the insurance field.” 1971 Res. 4-11, 
“To Decline Study of Fire and Casualty Insurance Program,” dismissed the 
proposal of Ov. 4-85 to study developing a “synodwide” fire and casualty 
insurance program, serving “all congregational, college, district, and syn-
odical buildings,” on the grounds that this was “impractical for administra-
tive and financial reasons.” Both declinations are based on contemporary 
business evaluations and not on constitutional grounds.
3. Aug. 29–30, 1980, BOD minutes (#308) evidence a suggestion by the 
Executive Planning Group to “establish a property insurance company to 
provide fire and casualty insurance to congregations at reduced rates” in 
the decade of the 1980s. This was suggested under the Synod’ s “servant 
relationship to the congregations of the Synod,” in which it could, at least 
in the area of “Program Administration, Finance, and Support Services,” 
“offer additional support services, including the centralization of certain 
services, without centralizing any ecclesiastical powers.”
May 25–27, 1983, BOD minutes (#616) show adoption of a resolution (ex-
hibit H-9), coordinated with an amendment to policy treating the Synodical 
Insurance Program:
Whereas, For many years the Synod has utilized its purchasing 
power to provide blanket insurance coverages for all institutional 
properties at a great savings; and
Whereas, It is evident from numerous inquiries that the servant 
role of the Synod should be utilized to assist congregations in need 
of protection to secure it at the lowest possible dollar cost; and
Whereas, The potential of expanding such programs to include 
congregations has been under study for several years; and
Whereas, The Board of Directors empowered the Synod’ s Trea-
surer to work toward offering congregations a program of insur -
ance coverages to protect property and human resources, utilizing 
the mass purchasing power of the Synod while at the same time 
preserving the decision-making authority of each entity and relating 
the costs to the specific risks involved; therefore be it