Brandon Booth
MollieQuestions need answers
As we await word on how the Board for Communication Services meeting is going, I’m trying to gather the questions that the laypeople would like answered. Would you help me? David Strand and Vicki Biggs have steadfastly refused to answer almost all press inquiries, but it never hurts to keep trying.
Why did David Strand feel the need to inform President Kieschnick of his decision to terminate Issues, Etc. and fire Rev. Todd Wilken and Jeff Schwarz at all?
If this was just a routine budgetary decision, why inform Kieschnick, but not his own board?
Is clearing decisions with the President’s office, but not his own board, a regular practice of David Strand?
Does Kieschnick’s “awareness” substitute for the board’s consent? If so, how?
What other decisions has Strand made without his board’s knowledge or consent?
Were any other of Strand’s non-board decisions cleared through Kieschnick’s office too? If so, what were they?
If informing Kieschnick, but not his board was a “once in a lifetime” incident, why this particular incident?
Filed under: Updates
Does the Board have any recourse, or any power over a decision made or an action taken by its Executive Director?
Have the Board or its members read the online petition signatures and comments, to get a view of the impact of Issues, Etc. that differs with the impact cited by Mr. Strand and Pres. Kieschnik?
How many letters, emails, phone calls have they recieved?
Has any one of them spoken directly with a lay person who protests the action?
If it was an economic decision as David Strand has stated (backed up by Pres. Kieschnik’s letter to the WSJ), and if these revenue losses have been occurring for years, why not deal with those in charge of the finances at the radio station? Why are they not answering for their stewardship?
What has happened to the contributions made to Issues, Etc. just prior to its cancellation? And to the monies of churches whose budgets pledged to support that particular program?
Were, or are, other programs on KFUO so endowed by churches, parishioners, and listeners?
Who is David Strand? Where does he come from? What are his Lutheran and LCMS credentials? How did he come to be in this position? What does his resume’ look like? What is his history when it comes to hiring and firing people?
Here are some programmatic and business questions regarding “Issues, Etc.”:
What were *all* the ways people could listen to Issues–broadcast, webcast, podcast, downloads, etc.–and were all those possibilities and numbers reflected in the public statements made about listenership? Or were numbers used selectively?
What was the total listenership, through *all* means, for Issues compared to the other AM programming?
Were the KFUO financial numbers fair to the AM side? For example, if expensive equipment was purchased for the station, was the cost charged to the AM side, even though FM could use the equipment?
Was giving to or for Issues always recorded as such, or was it put into the general KFUO pot? How was giving within a certain radius (100 miles?) of St. Louis recorded? Is it possible that people who donated to KFUO did so primarily *because of* Issues, but without having it recorded as being *to* Issues?
Was the Issues staff limited in the ways it could raise money, not being allowed to try certain ways?
What percentage of giving was taken by LCMS Foundation?
If cancellation was being considered, why was not an urgent appeal made to support the show or else it would be gone?
Were certain contracts, financial deals, and possible expansion of the program in the works at the time of the cancellation?
What were the “programmatic reasons” for the cancellation of Issues? What was wrong with the content?
Did anyone from LCMS Foundation or other entities complain about the program? For what reasons?
Were anonymous–i.e., worthless–complaints against Issues presented and taken into consideration? Were praiseworthy comments presented at the same time?
Was the decision to fire Rev. Wilken and Mr. Schwarz and cancel the program–was that decision made by the BCS as a whole? Were only certain board members in on the decision? Did Director Strand make this decision on his own?
What did President Kieschnick know, and when did he know it? As president, could he not have prevented, postponed, or reversed the BCS Executive Director’s decision?
Why cancel KFUO’s “premier” radio program, the one with the most listenership, by far the most influential one, the one that has brought the most members into our congregations, the one that has promoted and helped to sell so many excellent books, the one that has featured many of our professors from our universities and seminaries, the one that has helped our pastors strengthen their members in the faith, etc. etc.?
Why does mission work have to make a profit?
What effect might this incredibly poor decision have in *reducing* future giving–by individuals and congregations–to KFUO and to the LCMS?
If financial reasons were the primary drive for cancellation of Issues Etc., how is any other programming in its spot less expensive to produce?
If the reasons are primarily financial, why make a statement like, “we think the Afternoon Show will have broader appeal?”
If the reasons were financial and it has been coming on for a long time, why not give the standard 2 weeks notice for the termination of a position? Why not give the listeners (whether there was 7, 7000, or 7 million) the courtesy of a proper conclusion to the show, instead of just finding out one day by it not being on?
Was Pastor Wilken’s position a “called” position or a hired position?
Since Scripture commends us to do things “in the light of day” so that we do not give the impression of evil
and
since many have clearly been given the impression of evil,
what steps will now be taken to clear up the impression of evil that was given?
Apart from all the specific questions being asked, the most troubling thing to me is the precipitous action (as indicated by the unexpectedness, poor timing, initial deletion of all Issues etc material, the lack of substitute programming ready to go upon its cancellation, and so on) and the subsequent lack of forthrightness in response to legitimate questions about what led to the cancellation. The official public responses so far are clearly simply PR spin intended to avoid really explaining what happened.
If the cancellation was due to bungling and mismanagement at KFUO to which responsible parties are simply embarrassed to admit (for example, not having recognized that download activity is the true measure of the significance of the show, not real-time listenership in St. Louis), that is unfortunate and hopefully reversible, but relatively limited in scope of significance or impact to LCMS members as a whole. On the other hand, if the cancellation was due to displeasure by synodical leadership with the *theological content* of Issues etc, then this is indeed a major issue of concern to all in the LCMS who agreed with the message of Issues Etc even if they were not regular listeners of the show.
In summary, what I would really like to know from synodical leadership:
1) Is this *really* a simple matter of the unfortunate cancellation of a show as disappointing as that has been to loyal listeners (it’s simply show-biz - you don’t get the ratings, you get cancelled). That’s what we’re being told, but the answers to date clearly are intended to obfuscate, not clarify. I would hope for the sake of the Rev Wlilkens and Mr. Schwartz more than anything that this could be reversed if the problem is KFUO mismanagement. Whether KFUO programming *is* just ratings-driven show-biz or important missions activity is something about which we can reasonably disagree.
Or
2) Has Issues Etc been made a pawn in a struggle for the theological soul of the LCMS, as Mollie’s WSJ suggests?
If the answer is #1, the fires could largely be put out with simple forthrightness from synodical leadership about what lead to the abrupt cancellation as opposed to giving us the transparent PR spin we’ve gotten so far. Simply admit to bungling the situation and even if the cancellation is not reversible, make clear the steps being planned to get KFUO’s act together in the future. Simple forthrightness from leadership would go a long way in allaying my concerns about the whole situation and restoring my battered faith in their leadership. GK’s WSJ response did not help, but rather fanned the flames (forgive me, I couldn’t resist).
What has many of us upset and alarmed by this is the fear that Mollie has hit the nail on the head with #2. Are we the next pastors/laymen/congregations to be shown the door? Is this not only no longer our grandfather’s synod, but soon no longer ours either?
Is the Synod willing to provide full financial disclosure for KFUO without a specific request from congregations?
Question one: Was any consideration given to the effect this cancellation would have on the affiliates who carried Issues etc. such as our station in McCook NE? Were they expected to pick up “Tissues etc.” (LOL-love that title) simply because the BCS said so?
2) With a Share a Thon only a month away, why wasn’t the financial need of Issues etc. made known so that funds could be raised then?
3) What was the big hurry? Were there bill collectors calling? Was a bank threatening to forclose?
4) Do you think this cancellation has promoted unity within our Synod?
Was my donation, specifically given to “Issues Etc”, taken in by another entity and supplied “their cut” prior to any gift received by “Issues Etc”. If so, at what percentage? If so, are there legal issues (under the terms “non-profit”) in question? I seem to remember that each time a solicitation was made to support “Issues”, there was no indication that *all* of the gift would not be used directly for the support of “Issues Etc.” In other words, I assumed the majority of my gift would go to the stated purpose, namely, IE. I believe this is what the listeners were lead to understand. Could there be legal ramifications under tax codes?
I refuse to believe financial spin…er…reasons. So my question is this:
Why doesn’t Synodical Leadership like Issues Etc.?
Questions need answers, especially honest questions, but I do not expect any honest answers any time soon. Even though I considered Pastor Wilken’s on air ministry to the Word to be pastoral in every sense of the word, I can no longer think of the president of the LCMS as a pastoral in any way, for there is absolutely no pastoral care to be found in him for the souls that he and his ideology has hurt. Gar nichts, nada. He is a broken minister.
I have sent the e-mails and made the phone calls and have only received silence or patronizing, pretentious form letters in reply.
Let’s be honest, people. They don’t give a rat’s behind either about us or our honest questions, and they just want us all to go away. We’re a mere fraction of one percent in their damned calculations, and our fondness for the Lutheran Confessions stands in the way of their grand strategies to immanentize the eschaton.
Rob Olson
An earthquake and rain 31 days later.
I think God is pretty upset.
My question is based on an assumption that the synodical leadership which made the decision to can Issues, Etc. did not support the program and its host. Did you support the program, or not? If you did not support it, what are the reasons? If you did, why were you not willing to spend the amount necessary to continue what many consider to be the best Gospel outreach our synod has produced in the recent past?