# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S141
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
Question 1: Bylaw 4.2.1 (a) requires that district conventions “be
governed by the bylaws adopted by the Synod for its
conventions, insofar as these may be applicable.” To
what extent, if any, do the words “as these may be
applicable” provide latitude to districts to take what
they believe to be reasonable exception to Synod bylaw
requirements for its conventions (e.g., the Bylaw 3.1.8
[b] requirement that printed copies of convention
workbooks be provided to all official delegates and
representatives)?
Opinion: The commission’s ongoing review of existing and proposed district bylaws and regulations provides guidance to the
districts as to (1) the applicability of Synod-level regulations by
inference to district-level procedures (Bylaw 4.2.1[a]); and (2)
whether districts’ “other regulations” (Bylaw 4.2.1[e]) are or are
not “contrary to the Constitution and Bylaws of Synod.” Authoritative interpretation of the Constitution and Synod Bylaws rests with
the Synod convention and with the commission. This Question
does not admit a concise and general answer.
As to the example, Bylaw 3.1.8 (b) indicates that the Synod has
determined in principle that the full participation of delegates, alternates, and officers, as well as that of all board, commission, and
council members, requires that they receive advance printed copies of
the Convention Workbook. There seems to be no compelling reason
that the same requirement would not be applicable also at the district
level, so the requirement applies (CCM Opinion 14-2705). Whether
a district might, given the relatively smaller size of its workbook,
operate procedurally on a different timetable than the Synod in this
regard (perhaps publishing it six weeks instead of twelve before the
convention, with comments on reports and overtures due three weeks
before) could be argued.
Question 2: To what extent, if any, are the basic requirements for
regional elections as articulated in Synod Bylaw 3.12.2.7
applicable to district regional officer and board member
elections (e.g., use of nominating ballots; number of
names on election slates, elective process to be used,
non-allowance of convention floor nominations, ranking
by separate ballots, etc.), given the bylaw’s parenthetical statement, “(This shall also be the process used for
all other regional elections.),” and the final statement
of Bylaw 4.7.1 regarding such nominations, elections,
and appointments: “… as long as these provisions do
not conflict with the Bylaws of the Synod”?
Opinion: The degree of latitude allowed districts in ordering their
own nominations and elections procedures is indicated in part by an
action of the 2013 Synod convention. It adopted a recommendation
from the Commission on Handbook to amend Bylaw 4.7.1, adding
the term “selection” between “nomination” and “election…of its
vice-presidents.” A similar addition was made regarding “any regional officers or regional board of directors members” (Res. 7-13).
Elsewhere in the Bylaws, selection reflects the procedure for selection (by the circuit) and ratification (by the district convention)
of circuit visitors (Bylaw 5.2.2). Bylaw 4.7.1 thus allows district
regulations specifying that regional officers are selected by their
respective regions and then ratified by the district convention as a
whole, to which “final determinations in elections to all district positions rightly belong” (Bylaw 4.7.3). Since this legitimate procedure is not the one laid out in Bylaw 3.12.2.7, said bylaw is not to
be understood as necessarily binding on regional officer and board
member elections at the district level. (A district could, of course,
infer its procedure from Bylaw 3.12.2.7, if it so wished.)

141

There are limits on what procedures a district can adopt, as imposed by the Constitution and Synod Bylaws other than 3.12.2.7. In
this example, the election of regional officers and board members may
not be by regional election, without final involvement of the district
convention. “A majority of all votes cast by a district convention
shall be required in every election to all elective offices and elective
board positions” (Bylaw 4.7.3). (It is also implied that where a region
selects a single candidate, the district convention must have the right
to amend the electoral ballot. The principle of the Synod bylaws that
the convention as a whole must have at least the opportunity to make
a meaningful choice [election] must be respected. The matter of how
this long-standing principle that all elections must have at least two
candidates applies to regional selection processes has been referred to
the Commission on Handbook for clarification.) In another example
(CCM Opinion 05-2425), the commission determined that district
regulations may not allow a district board of directors to restrict a ballot, as Synod bylaws do not assign this activity to a board of directors.
Question 3: When districts inadvertently overlook or misapply bylaw
requirements and fail to recognize such errors until it is
too late to reverse course and remedy the oversight or
mistake, what, if any, are the expectations of the Synod
for remedying such situations?
Opinion: A district that finds that it has acted on a mistaken understanding of the Synod’s requirements should immediately consult
with the Office of the President of the Synod. Such situations fall
within his area of administration (Bylaw 3.3.1.2; Constitution Art.
XI B 2).
The commission “exists to interpret the Constitution, Bylaws,
and resolutions of Synod and ensure that the governing instruments
of the Synod and its agencies are in accord with the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod” (Bylaw 3.9.2). In cases of uncertainty, districts
are advised to consult the commission.
Adopted April 10–11, 2015
Synod Convention Nominations Processes (15-2768)
The Secretary of Synod presented the Commission on Constitutional Matters with questions concerning the nominations processes
for Synod conventions, questions related to preparation for the meeting of the Committee for Convention Nominations scheduled for January 7–9, 2016, and related to the preparation of ballots for regional
elections scheduled to be mailed to all congregations later in 2015.
A. The first series of questions dealt with the adoption of 2013 Res. 5-05B,
wherein the Synod convention adopted a new paragraph (f) for Bylaw
3.12.3.5:
(f) The committee for convention nominations shall establish
and maintain a procedure to generate and publish in advance
of the convention a list of names from all who have been
nominated for Synod boards and commissions who meet the
qualifications (Bylaws 3.10.5.2 7 and 3.6.6.3) to serve on a
Concordia University System board of regents or the Concordia
University System Board of Directors.

Question 1: Will it be appropriate for the Secretary of the Synod to
devise, as part of his duties to obtain names and information for presentation to the Committee for Convention
Nominations at its first meeting (Bylaw 3.12.3.4 [f]−
[g]), a procedure to present to the committee at its
January meeting for carrying out the requirements of
Bylaw 3.12.3.5 (f)?
Opinion: The pertinent provisions of the Synod’s Bylaws concerning the work of the Committee for Convention Nominations
not only anticipate the Secretary of Synod handling a substantial
amount of the preliminary work of the Committee for Convention
Nominations (Bylaw 3.12.3.4); they also provide that although the

2016 Convention Workbook