# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S142
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

142

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Secretary is not a member of the committee, he shall convene the
initial meeting of the committee and shall also “be available, upon
call, for consultation” (Bylaw 3.12.3.5). The committee is responsible for informing itself of its duties and the requirements of each
position for which it must select candidates. It also elects its own
chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary and is required to organize
its work “in whatever way it deems necessary” (Bylaw 3.12.3.5 [b]
and [c]). Given the short time frame from the committee’s meeting
in January and the convention slightly more than 6 months later,
it is understandable that the Secretary of Synod would be on call
for consultation, for there is much to be done during that relatively
short period of time. There is nothing that precludes the Secretary
of Synod developing a procedure for presentation to the committee
at it first meeting for whatever use the committee may determine
appropriate.
Question 2: If it is appropriate to devise a procedure, will it be appropriate for the Secretary of the Synod, as part of his duties
to facilitate the work of the Committee for Convention
Nominations, to contact those persons who have been
nominated for Synod boards and commissions to obtain
the information that will be necessary to determine if
they meet the qualifications requirements provided in
Bylaws 3.10.5.2 7 and 3.6.6.3; to learn of their willingness to serve if nominated and subsequently elected to
a CUS board position; and to subject the information
to the screening process required by Bylaws 3.10.5.2
7 and 3.6.6.3—in preparation for the meeting of the
Committee for Convention Nominations?
Opinion: The provisions of Synod Bylaw 3.12.3.4 see the Secretary doing a great deal of the preliminary work for the Committee
for Convention Nominations. Moreover, in Bylaw 3.12.3.5 (e) the
responsibility for ultimately reviewing and verifying that the nominees for positions on boards of regents meet the qualifications set
forth in Bylaw 3.10.5.2 7 belongs partially to the Secretary of the
Synod, the same also true for positions on the Concordia University
System Board of Directors and the qualifications set forth in Bylaw
3.6.6.3. It is not inappropriate for him to have this level of involvement as part of his duties in gathering the information necessary to
satisfy this requirement.
Question 3: If it is appropriate to carry out the process described
by #2 above, can the required list provided to the
Committee for Convention Nominations include only
the names of those who qualify for a CUS board position and who have indicated that they would be willing
to serve if elected? Or must the list contain all names
of all nominees for all boards and commissions who
have been nominated for other boards and commissions,
identifying those who meet qualification requirements
and have consented to serve if nominated and elected?
Opinion: Synod Bylaw 3.12.3.5 (f) requires that the list referenced
include “all” names nominated for Synod boards and commissions
“who meet the qualifications (Bylaws 3.19.5.2 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 4: As the Committee for Convention Nominations goes
about its work, may it use nominees from the Bylaw
3.12.3.5 (f) list as necessary to satisfy the requirement
of Bylaw 3.12.3.6 (a)? As the Committee for Convention
Nominations goes about its work as described in Bylaw
3.12.3.6, must/should the report described in paragraph
(c) include mention, in the case of CUS elections, that

2016 Convention Workbook

the candidates have satisfied the requirements of Bylaws
3.6.6.3 or 3.10.5.2 7 as pertinent?
Opinion: As the Committee for Convention Nominations goes
about its work, it may select nominees that appear on the Bylaw
3.12.3.5 (f) list as necessary to satisfy the requirement of Bylaw
3.12.3.6 (a), so long as they are names received through the regular nominations process. And yes, the report described in Bylaw
3.12.3.6 (c) should also include mention that the candidates satisfy
the requirements of Bylaws 3.6.6.3 or 3.10.5.2 7 as pertinent.
Question 5: Must the list created under the procedure established by
the Committee for Convention Nominations include also
the names and required information of those nominated
for regional board positions, e.g., Board of Directors,
Board for National Mission, and Board for International
Mission? If the answer to this Question is “yes,” will this
include every individual from every region for every
board or commission position who has received at least
one nomination?
Opinion: The list thus created must include also the names and
required information of those nominated for regional board positions (e.g., Board of Directors, Board for National Mission, and
Board for International Mission) who have been found qualified
under the processes described in Bylaw 3.12.3.5 (e). As noted previously, Bylaw 3.12.3.5 (f) requires that the list referenced include
“all” names nominated for Synod boards and commissions and
found qualified—whether regional or not, and from every region,
for every board or commission position. This is so even when an
individual receives only one nomination for a position. However,
names nominated only for regional positions, and therefore not received by the Committee for Convention Nominations through the
regular nominations process, are not available to the committee as
it selects candidates under Bylaw 3.12.3.6 (a). Names nominated
for regional positions and included in the Bylaw 3.12.3.5 (f) list
become available only as floor nominations at the convention and
only if the convention so orders by a simple majority vote (Bylaw
3.12.3.7 [c]).
Question 6: Will it suffice to satisfy Bylaw 3.12.3.5 (f) expectations
if the final list of qualified persons is published in the
Convention Workbook as part of the Committee for
Convention Nominations report?
Opinion: Yes.
B. The remaining questions were prefaced with the information that this
will be the first convention to fill regional positions for which there will
be incumbents who will have served first terms. It was also noted that
the nominations process outlined by Bylaw 3.12.2.7 is understood to
be the process that is required to be used for all regional elections.

Question 7: Is it correct to assume that the principle articulated by
Bylaw 3.12.3.4 (d) pertains only to that nominations
process that is the responsibility of the Committee for
Convention Nominations and does not apply to regional
elections?
Opinion: Yes.
Question 8: Given the relatively quiet nature of board service, especially on mission boards, whose members may escape
public notice but whose six years of experience may be
regarded as valuable and a consideration for reelection,
to what extent, if any, may incumbency be made known
in the regional nominating ballot process?
Opinion: There is no basis for making incumbency known in the
“regional nominating ballot process.” Bylaw 3.12.4.1 requires that
in all elections, all names shall be listed “without any distinctive