# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2023_S191
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

191

any potentially actionable and desirable convention
plans already made, while extending the window of
possibility for all districts?

lar district conventions would, in any case, occur in 2025, and the
subsequent Synod convention, in 2026, according to the normal
triennial cycle.

Opinion: Such an action, given the above and that Const. Art. XII
13 explicitly contemplates exceptions to the rule that “regular sessions of the districts are held in the year immediately preceding the
general convention of the Synod” as capable of being made “by
the Synod,” is consistent with the Constitution and Bylaws of the
Synod.

It is incumbent upon the President to communicate clearly in the
“full and complete information regarding the matter” not only the
question itself but especially the consequences of adoption and rejection, providing the congregations with the requisite information
to make an informed decision.

Guidance on implications of the above three questions:
The commission notes that if the question of deferring the 2022
Synod convention to 2023 and extending the window for prior district conventions to include calendar years 2021 and 2022 is put to
the congregations, and especially if the vote is in the affirmative,
this will necessitate many decisions about the proper application of
pre-convention timelines both at the Synod and at the district levels.
These will have to accommodate convention schedules that may be
shifted after significant processes have already begun. Likewise,
processes may also need to be initiated while there is still great
uncertainty about the potential deferral of the related convention.
Specific provisions and circumstances may require various approaches to maintaining as equitable and effective the mechanisms
by which congregations effect the pre-convention phase of their
governance of districts and the Synod. Without examining specific
language and circumstances, it is impossible to address these situations. Responsible officers need to take care that the fundamental rights of congregations and other members to participate in all
aspects of pre-convention and in-convention governance of their
districts and their Synod are protected, and that the exercise of such
rights is facilitated by especially clear and timely communication.
With regard to the Synod convention, for example, the 18-month
call for nominations is about to be issued in January, with nominations due in the Office of the Secretary of the Synod no later
than “nine months prior to the convention of the Synod” (Bylaw
3.12.3.4 [f]). The opening of the process cannot at this point reasonably be delayed, as nominators must be provided their 18 months to
nominate, should the convention of the Synod be held on schedule
in 2022—a possibility that must be prepared for unless and until
the congregations finally vote to defer it. Should the convention be
deferred, the close of nominations cannot reasonably be terminated
after the usual nine months’ duration but must be held open until
“nine months prior to the convention.”
Similar considerations will have to be made with much greater urgency in the districts of the Synod. Care must be taken to preserve
the integrity of each district pre-convention process. Furthermore,
materials and reports designed to support 2021 district conventions
must—while acknowledging that further developments may occur
in an additional year of discussion—be available for the consideration of districts that are able to convene without delay.
Postponing the convention would also impact elections and terms
of office for elected and appointed offices at the Synod and district
levels. Bylaw 3.2.4 (f) provides that incumbents “shall serve until
their successors assume office.” In effect, were the convention to
be deferred by a year, one year would be added to each term of the
2019–2023 “triennium” on the Synod level and, depending on the
year in which each district convention is held, either in the 2018–
2022 district “triennium” or the 2021–2025 district “triennium.”
The proposed mechanism would impact the length of the current
triennium but not that of any future triennium. Subsequent regu-

Endnotes
1. As was observed in Op. 20-2938, while it is incumbent on districts
to make every reasonable effort to meet in the district convention year, it is
not necessary to the holding of a Synod convention that all districts have
succeeded in meeting the year prior.
2. The first act of the 1944 convention (Proceedings, 2–3; see also BOD
Minutes, Mar. 6 and May 15, 1944) details this use:
The following resolution was adopted in the first session on June
21, 1944, having been drawn up by our Synodical Attorney, Mr.
George Eigel:
Whereas, The Office of Defense Transportation urged all associations and organizations to cancel their conventions for the year
1944 on account of the transportation problem; and
Whereas, In compliance with said request the President of the
Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States did
request all congregations to vote on the question of postponing their
convention for the year 1944; and
Whereas, A majority of the congregations did vote in favor of
canceling and postponing said convention; and
Whereas, It did later develop that the convention could be held,
and as a consequence thereof the President notified all congregations that the convention would be held at the time and place decided
upon at the 1941 convention, to wit, June 21 to June 30, 1944, in the
City of Saginaw, Michigan: therefore be it
Resolved, by the delegates in convention assembled, being a majority of all delegates elected to said convention, and representing all
of the congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri,
Ohio, and Other States, that we do hereby ratify and confirm the action of the President in calling said convention as agreed in the resolution at the convention of 1941, and we agree that the convention
may proceed with its regular business in due course in accordance
with said call.

Slate of Candidates for Synodwide Corporate Entities (21-2970)
Minutes of December 3–4, 2021
By an email of Oct. 22, 2021, a member of a synodwide corporate entity board of directors posed, at the direction of the board’s
chairman, the following question. The commission, in accordance
with Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (b), solicited input from the board and from the
President of the Synod.
Background: Bylaw 3.6.1.5 (a)(1) requires that “the slate of candidates for the initial appointment of the chief executive” of synodwide corporate entities “shall be selected by the governing board in
consultation with and with the mutual concurrence of the President
of the Synod.” And in the event of a vacancy in the chief executive
position, Bylaw 3.6.1.5 (a)(2) requires that the governing board
“shall present its list of candidates [plural] to the President.”
Question:

Does the word “candidates” (plural) in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of Bylaw 3.6.1.5 (a) indicate that
said “slate” and “list” must contain the names of at
2023 Convention Workbook