# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S195
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

9. STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION
circuit visitors.) Nonetheless, the interpretation offered by
the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM)—that
circuit elections involve one pastoral vote and as many lay
votes as there are in a multi-congregation parish—goes
back as far as opinions of Apr. 23–24, 1970, and June 13–14,
1968.
The necessity of these earlier opinions apparently arises
because of a change, in 1967, in the procedure for election
of circuit delegates. Prior to the 1967 changes, circuit
delegates were selected “by the representatives of the
respective electoral circuits at the convention of the district
preceding the convention of the Synod” (1966 Bylaw 1.51)
After 1967, circuits met as they do now to elect the
delegates, with “[t]he privilege of voting […] exercised by
one pastor and one layman from each member
congregation of the circuit.” (1967 Bylaw 1.51). This was
interpreted to mean that each congregation in a parish was
entitled to a lay vote, and that the parish’s pastor cast a
single vote. The commission, in the noted 1968 and 1970
opinions, gave no explanation of the basis on which the
opinion was rendered. The 1973 convention of the Synod
added bylaw language reflecting these CCM opinions.
Prior to 2010 changes, the election of the circuit visitor
involved nominations by congregational action and an
election at the convention (e.g., 1967 Bylaw 3.61b). Since
2010, the circuit visitor has been elected by present
procedures at the circuit forum, with a multi-congregation
parish voting as it does for delegates.
This practice, in both instances, for election of circuit visitor
and for election of circuit delegates, reflects an unusual
divergence from the pattern of representation established
consistently from the foundation of the Synod—on the
basis of equal representation of pastor and those
pastored—one pastoral vote and one lay vote per
Pfarrgemeinde, meaning pastor-congregation or, in modern
nomenclature, “congregation or [multi-congregation]
parish.” This divergence has, over the years, created
significant confusion, and with the increasing number of
multi-congregation parishes in the Synod, creates
questions of imbalance—either that the number of
pastoral votes is diluted by a much larger number of lay
voters, or that a pastor with a large number of
congregations in his parish may have a great deal of
influence over the decisions made by the circuit of which
the parish is a part.
The Commission on Handbook therefore recommends the
following changes, the effect of which would be to render
the basis of representation at the circuit forum the same as
at the district convention, each congregation or multicongregation parish being represented by its pastor and
one voting lay representative.
Therefore be it
Resolved, That Bylaw 3.1.2.1 be amended as follows:

Resolutions

PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
3.1.2.1
Elections of voting delegates shall take place in
accordance with established policy and procedure.
…
(c) The privilege of voting shall be exercised by one
pastor and one layperson from each member
congregation or multi-congregation parish of the circuit,
both of whom shall have been elected in the manner
prescribed by the congregation or parish. Multicongregation parishes shall be entitled to a lay vote from
each member congregation.Congregations of a multicongregation parish not contributing a lay voter may
send an advisory representative, with voice but no vote.

and be it further
Resolved, That Bylaw 5.3.2 be amended as follows:
PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
5.3.2
The circuit forum consists of a one pastor of each
congregation and one layperson from member of each
member congregation or multi-congregation parish
designated by the congregation or parish. Congregations of
a multi-congregation parish not contributing a lay voter
may send an advisory representative, with voice but no
vote.

Action: Adopted (5)
After discussion, the question was called; this motion carried
[Yes: 713; No: 226]. The resolution was adopted [Yes: 815; No:
128].

To Amend Bylaws to Change
the Board of Directors’ Means of
Representation on Synodwide Corporate
Entities Boards of Directors
RESOLUTION 9-09
Overture 9-43–44 (CW, 516–17)

WHEREAS, The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) currently is
required by Bylaw 3.4.1.3 (e), among others, to serve “as a
nonvoting member of the governing boards of the
Concordia University System, The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod Foundation, The Lutheran Church
Extension Fund—Missouri Synod, the Concordia Plans,
Concordia Plan Services, and Concordia Publishing House,
and on the investment committee of the Concordia Plans
and Concordia Plan Services” (Bylaw 3.4.1.3[e]); and
WHEREAS, Attendance and meaningful participation in so
many corporate boards, along with several others not
listed, could be expected to consume the majority of the
CFO’s time and energy, leaving, humanly speaking, only a
diminished capacity for other aspects of the office; and
WHEREAS, The CFO is charged not only with the task of
serving on entity boards, but with important roles of
analyzing, planning, guiding, monitoring, and reporting on
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2019 (67TH) LCMS CONVENTION | 195