# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1983_S312 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 312 CONSTITUTIONAL OPINIONS Instead of entering into a step-by-step analysis of the positions of the English District Commission on Adjudication, the Commission on Constitutional Matters at this time stresses the following: 1. The general purpose and objectives of the Commissions on Adjudication are clearly spelled out in the Synod’s Hand- book, Bylaw 8.01 (new numbering); 2. The jurisdiction and venue of the District Commissions on Adjudication are also clearly spelled out in Bylaws 8.21 and 8.23; 3. In none of the above references is any authority or duty given to a District Commission on Adjudication to overrule or disregard an interpretation of the Synod’s Constitution made by the Synod’s Commission on Constitutional Matters, espec- ially an interpretation that has stood the test of challenge before a convention of the Svnod and has been ratified by the Synod (see also Bylaw 1.19 e); 4. Furthermore, it is improper and unacceptable for a Commission on Adjudication, in deciding a particular case, to speak on matters which are extraneous and not germane to the only issue at hand—does or does not the congregation hold membership in two church bodies?—and in which it has no authority or duty to act. In applying the above to the question specifically before us, that is, the question of the forfeiture of membership in the Synod as a result of dual membership, the Commission on Constitutional Matters rules that since the Synod has clearly spoken its mind in two successive conventions, the only question which a Commission on Adjudication needs to answer is the question of fact, namely, whether or not the congregation (or individual) does indeed hold membership in two church bodies. The Commission on Constitutional Matters rules further that if the case in question is given further consideration by the District Commission on Adjudication or the synodical Com- mission on Appeals, the decision of the Synod upholding (through Dallas Res. 5-01 and 1979 Res. 5-08) the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters on dual membership must prevail. Dec. 12, 1981 Opinion re Status of Board for Parish Services The Commission on Constitutional Matters has been asked: “Is the Board for Parish Services justified in regarding itself as a new board with a right to establish and fill a new position of Executive Secretary of the Board for Parish Services?” The commission has also been asked to rule whether the Implementation Committee acted properly in adopting a reso- lution which is recorded in its minutes as follows: In regard to the status of a staff person when his present contract expires, the committee formally resolved that the contract will be honored for the life of the contract. Thereupon the staff person automatically goes under the principle of ‘serving at the pleasure of the board” established in the newly adopted Bylaw (2.803). In other words. if the board does not wish to continue his services, it is the board's obligation to take terminating action with the approval of the President (see Res. 2-11). * * * In reviewing the matter it is clear that Task Force II proposed to the 1981 synodical convention the creation of three new program boards (elected) and two new support services boards (appointed) whose entire memberships were to be elected or appointed in 1981 upon favorable action by the convention. This proposal, as far as the two appointed support services boards were concerned, encountered no difficulty and was approved by the convention. The same cannot be said, however, of the proposal as it concerned the elected program boards and specifically the proposed Board for Parish Services. In Section B, 5, subsections a, b, and c (1981 Workbook, page 45) of its report, Task Force II had recommended that approxi- mately one-half of the membership of each proposed program board should be elected in 1981 for five years and approxi- mately one-half elected in 1981 for two years (all elected, however, in 1981). This proposal met with strong reaction from the Committee on Convention Nominations on the plea that requiring all members of the boards to be elected at the 1981 convention placed too great a burden on the committee to provide an adequate number of qualified nominees. Nevertheless the floor committee in proposing Res. 2-08 accepted the proposal of Task Force II and recommended it to the convention for adoption (Today's Business, Section A, page 48). However, after the 1981 convention in Session 2 had declined Res. 2-04, which called for the creation of three program boards, the floor committee submitted Res. 2-04A to carry out the convention desire that Youth and Evangelism, which had been placed by Task Force II with the Board for Parish Services, should be removed from that board and continue as separate program boards, thereby increasing the number of program boards from three to five. This resolution (2-04A) was proposed in Session 5 and adopted in Session 6. In drafting Res. 2-04A to meet the wishes of the convention, the floor committee also decided to withdraw Res. 2-08 and offered instead Res. 2-08A, which was also distributed in Session 5 and adopted in Session 6. One significant change introduced in Res. 2-08A has a bearing on the issue at hand. Res. 2.08A now provided that only approximately one-half of the membership of each of the three program boards (Parish Services, Youth, Evangelism) would be elected in 1981 and that incumbents whose terms did not expire in 1981 would be carried over from the previous Board of Parish Education and from the previous Board for Evangelism and Board for Youth Ministry until 1983 to complete their unexpired terms. The conclusion is inescapable that with the retention of the Youth and the Evangelism Boards and their removal from the Board for Parish Services, and with the provision that incumbents of all three boards were to serve out their unexpired terms, all three boards were now looked upon as continuing boards with modified names and programs. * * * In view of the legistlative history summarized above and on the basis of the final wording adopted by the convention in Res. 2-08A (Proceedings, pages 138—139) as distinguished from the original wording of Res. 2.08, the Commission on Consti- tutional Matters holds that the Board for Parish Services isnot a new board but the board formerly known as the Board of Parish Education with a new name and with added responsi- bilities; as such it does not have the right to establish and filla new position of Executive Secretary of the Board for Parish Services. The commission also holds that the Implementation Com- mittee exhibited the correct understanding in taking the action quoted above from its minutes. March 5, 1982 Opinion re Responsibility for Development of New Agenda A request was received for the commission to determine whether the former Commission (now standing committee) on Worship was to proceed with carrying to conclusion the assignment of developing a new Lutheran Agenda or whether this was now the responsibility of the Board for Parish Services. The commission resolved upon the following reply: 1. Even after the last convention had restructured various boards, thereby making the Commission on Worship a stand- ing committee of the Board for Parish Services, the convention nevertheless in Res. 3-13 later in the convention declared that the development of a Lutheran Agenda was to be the responsi- bility of the Commission on Worship and that the commission was to carry it through to conclusion. 2. Inview of the principle that the Board for Parish Services is to be the board which deals with the parishes through the Districts, it might be advisable to have the method of field testing determined as a mutual decision of both the Board for