# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2023_S159
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
(l) for those whose position requires membership in a Synod
congregation, if the person ceases to be a member of a Synod
congregation.
3.10.6.79.53.1
A faculty or staff member who is on a roster of
the Synod is under the ecclesiastical supervision of the Synod.
In the event a member is removed from membership in the
Synod pursuant to procedure established in these Bylaws, then
that member is also considered removed from the position held
and shall be terminated forthwith by the board of regents.
3.10.6.79.54.2
An appeal process consistent with the Model
Operating Procedure Manual for Faculty and Administration
Complaints and Appeal of Termination: Colleges and Universities (developed by the Commission on Constitutional Matters
in consultation with the Concordia University System the Commission for University Education) shall be in place for use by
faculty members who wish to challenge a termination decision.
Each board of regents shall establish policies for handling doctrine and practice complaints against faculty and staff, which
shall be consistent with policies established by the Commission
for University Education. Notwithstanding the provisions of
any such policy, any person connected with an institution who
is a member of Synod shall also remain under the ecclesiastical
supervision of the Synod, and nothing in any such CUS institution policy shall be construed to limit or constrain any action
that may be taken, or the rights or responsibilities of any party,
pursuant to the Synod’s Handbook with respect to a member of
Synod. Each board of regents shall facilitate the Commission
for University Education’s monitoring of such policies and their
implementation.
And be it further
Resolved, That Bylaw 3.9.5.1 [8] be revised as follows:
PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
3.9.5.1
The Commission on Theology and Church Relations
shall consist of 16 voting and 4 advisory members:
Voting Members:

8. A member from one of the faculties of the affiliated colleges
and universities of the currently accredited by the Synod
R62

2019 Res. 9-17 Report: Study of Voting
Privilege in the LCMS (CCM)
The following report was shared with the Synod on March
10, 2021, “at least 18 months prior to the [2023] convention,” by placement on the Synod web page, official notice,
and announcement to the membership, with comment to be
shared with the floor committee to which this report is assigned.

Introduction
2019 Res. 9-17, “To Study Voting Privilege in the LCMS,”
charged “the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) in conjunction with the Council of Presidents (COP), including a number
of commissioned ministers chosen by the COP, [to] prepare a report
regarding the historic and current voting privileges in the Synod,”
to be made available to the Synod at least 18 months prior to the
2022 Synod convention. This resolution bore special reference to
the service of commissioned ministers and to the fact that “the cur-

159

rent structure of the Synod does not allow for a third category of
voting delegates at district and Synod conventions,” which “third
category” might be understood to consist either of commissioned
ministers specifically or advisory individual members in general.
In order to fulfill this assignment, a study group was appointed,
in part by the CCM and in part by the COP, consisting of the Rev.
Dr. George Gude, CCM Chairman; the Rev. Dr. John Sias, LCMS
Secretary; the Rev. Derek Lecakes, Atlantic District President; the
Rev. Dr. Michael Gibson, Pacific Southwest District President; the
Rev. Dr. John Wohlrabe, Second Vice-President (Great Lakes Region); Teacher Wendy Morris (Missouri District); Teacher Chris
Cody (South Wisconsin District); and Teacher Zachariah Schnare
(Southern Illinois District), all but the first two appointed by the
COP. The committee met twice, by electronic means, in June 2020
and January 2021. The final draft report was circulated and approved for publication on March 9, 2021, concluding the committee’s assignment.
At its first meeting, the committee dealt chiefly with the extensive historical background assembled by Drs. Gude and Sias, this
question having been explored repeatedly in conventions reaching
back to the very roots of the Synod. At its second meeting, the
committee treated in more detail the present role of individual advisory members in the conventions of the Synod and, to this end,
invited Rev. Dr. Allan Buss, Northern Illinois district president,
to share his district’s unique practice of advisory delegate polling. At this meeting and afterward, the committee also considered
roster and statistical information, provided by Secretary Sias and
Dr. Gude, treating the distribution of advisory individual members
in the Synod and their representation at conventions, including on
their floor committees. Some of that material is reflected here, in
order to assess or to assist districts with assessing, in a synodwide
context, how effectively the principle of advisory representation is
being realized, both in the districts and at the Synod level.
The committee limited itself principally to its explicit assignment—namely, documenting the historic and present voting
practice in the conventions of the Synod, as well as the many unadopted proposals, over the years, to change it—but understood
its task also to relate to the long-standing, historical advisory role
afforded commissioned and other advisory, individual members,
and to how it is functioning in the conventions of the districts and
the Synod. The committee offers, in that regard, observations for
further consideration by the congregations, circuits, conferences,
and district conventions of the Synod, with the hope that these will
renew appreciation for the prominent role Synod’s polity gives advisory members—both on the part of the individual members who
have this opportunity and for the conventions they are intended to
advise. Perhaps these observations may also lead to the development of proposals, whether by way of encouragement, standing
rule, or convention overture, district or Synod, for improvement in
the actual realization and implementation of this role.
The Synod and its districts are not able to adjust their voting
representation without a convention of the Synod amending its
Constitution. This report is intended to be helpful to congregations,
circuits, and districts that might be contemplating such a proposal
to the Synod convention, so that they might do so cognizant of the
significant amount of study these questions have received many
times before and the close relation of these issues to fundamental
polity of the Synod. It is also intended to assist congregations, circuits, districts, and the Synod in assessing how well the ideal of advisory representation is presently being achieved. Improvements in
2023 Convention Workbook