My question is more broad reaching than that. Why does ANY local synod need to have that kind of primatial endorsement or blessing IF as all Orthodoxy seems to say "all bishops are equal"....Why does it not STOP with the local Synod.
Because first off, saying "they're all equal" is a vast oversimplification. Clearly they are all equal in charismatic authority, and even a Patriarch is subject to his own synod and cannot overrule their authority (in Orthodoxy that is). A Metropolitan Bishop is not a regular bishop though, and a Patriarch is not a Metropolitan Bishop, etc.
I'm not a canonist, so I don't know all the ins and outs of the status of the ROCA or how they arrived at semi autonomous status. Clearly they are a historical outgrowth of the MP, so it doesn't seem like a major leap to me to have their ruling hierarch confirmed by their mother church.
It seems (to me) having the Ukrainian Major Archbishop confirmed by the Pope in order to assume his responsibilities, as opposed to his being confirmed by his synod, displays this same parental relationship. That to me would be problematic.
The question of patriarchate creation was raised, and canon 57 of the CCEO says
The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/__P1L.HTM
This (to me) again seems to structure things more as a parent/child relationship than one of fraternally joined churches.