# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S127
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

APPENDIXES TO REPORTS
R56

Opinion: Mid-term board members who have not relocated but who
find themselves residing in a designated region other than that of
their election because regional designations were changed by the
Synod (Bylaw 3.12.1) may finish out their terms of office.
The 2010 elections of mission board members took place under
the special circumstances created by Res. 8-15, which resolved that
(solely for the 2010 mission board elections) the usual advance designation of regions would be waived. Instead, the Board of Directors
and Council of Presidents presented to the convention a regional
make-up for the 2010 convention based upon existing regional designations of the Council of Presidents. The elections of mission board
members were conducted accordingly.
When due process was followed in preparation for the 2013 convention and regions were determined by taking into consideration
“geographical and number of congregations information in the interest of fair representation” (Bylaw 3.12.1), a number of the board
members elected by the 2010 convention no longer reside in the regions now designated as the regions they are to represent. Given the
unique circumstances of their elections and the clear expectation of
the Synod that their terms of office are for six years, the commission
opines that they should be allowed to complete their current terms
of office. While eligible for a second term, such election by the 2016
convention will require their election as regional board members of
the regions of their residence at the time of the election.
Question 3: When a vacancy exists in a regional board position, to
be filled by the Board of Directors of the Synod (Bylaw
3.2.5), shall the bylaw requirement that names of nominees be gathered from “the district boards of directors”
(Bylaw 3.2.5 [a]) be understood to refer to the boards
of directors of only those districts within the region of
the vacancy?
Opinion: The nominations process provided by Bylaw 3.12.2.7 allows only member congregations within a given region to participate in the pre-convention nominations process. Similarly Bylaw
3.12.1 (b) limits nominations to individuals of geographical regions where congregational membership is held. These residence
and congregational membership requirements necessarily remain
the same when vacancies are to be filled. Therefore in the case of
vacancies in regional or officer positions, participation by district
boards of directors is necessarily limited to districts within the region where the vacancy occurs.
Adopted Dec. 13–14, 2013

I. Opinions of Commission
on Constitutional Matters
Regional Board and Vice-President Issues (13-2689)
The Boards for National and International Mission each have ten
regional members (Bylaws 3.8.2.2 and 3.8.3.2): “Five laypersons and
five individual members of the Synod (one each from each region of
the Synod) elected in the same manner as are regional members of
the Board of Directors of the Synod (Bylaws 3.12.1 and 3.12.2.5).”
Certain members of the Board of Directors are elected according
to regions (Bylaw 3.3.4.1), as are vice-presidents two through six
(Bylaw 3.12.2.7). Current bylaws provide no instruction regarding
whether or how to proceed when a relocation or vacancy occurs in a
regional position. The Commission responded to questions from the
Secretary of the Synod as follows.
Question 1: In the case of a mission board, the Board of Directors,
or vice-presidents two through six of the Synod, when
a regionally elected board member or officer relocates
to a different region of the Synod during his/her term
of office, can this individual finish out his/her term as
elected, or must he/she resign because his/her congregational membership is now in another region (Bylaw
3.12.1 [b])?
Opinion: 2010 Resolution 8-14A “To Elect Five Vice-Presidents
by Geographic Region” stated in its Whereas paragraphs its expectation that the establishment of five geographic regions, “created for representational purposes to improve communications and
coordination of functions,” would serve to establish stronger connecting links between the congregations, districts, and the Synod.
The Synod would thereby “benefit from improved representation
from all areas of the nation.” Specifically, regional vice-presidents
would serve as “geographic representatives of the church to improve communications and coordination of functions between the
congregations within the geographical regions and the national
Synod.” The same expectations were reiterated by Res. 8-16A “To
Ensure Regional Representation on the Board of Directors.”
In addition, Bylaw 3.12.1 (b), which speaks of regional elections,
states that “individuals will be considered part of the geographic region where their congregational membership is held,” while Bylaw
3.12.2.7 (a) speaks of a member congregation nominating individuals
“with residence in its designated region.”
These convention resolutions and bylaw statements indicate that
“residence” and “congregational membership” requirements serve
representational and other purposes, expectations that cannot be met
by regionally elected individuals who relocate outside the region from
which they were elected. Therefore, when a regionally elected board
member or officer relocates to a different region of the Synod, this
member must resign from the officer or board member position.
Question 2: In the case of the mission boards, a number of current
board members were elected when region designations
were different from what they are at present, so that
these board members no longer hold congregational
membership in the region from which they were elected.
Must mid-term board members who find themselves in
different regions than when elected resign their board
positions or may they finish out their terms of office?
2016 Convention Workbook

Constitutional Questions re Advocacy of Doctrinal Positions
Contrary to the Synod’s Stated Positions (13-2694)
In an email dated December 6, 2013, the President of the Synod
asked the commission if open and repeated advocacy of theological
positions contrary to the Synod’s stated positions were violations
of Article II and Article VI 1 of the Synod’s Constitution. He also
posed specific questions about the public rejection of “A Statement
of Scriptural and Confessional Principles” (1973) and about the filing
of formal dissent from such theological positions.
Response of the Commission
Unity of doctrine and practice were primary reasons for the formation of the Synod and are key to its continued existence. This unity
is expressed internally as we walk together and externally in witness
to those outside the Synod. Subscription to the stated confessional
position of the Synod is both a precondition for acquiring membership in the Synod and a requirement of those who wish to continue
127