# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S325
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 325

ruling on the appropriateness of the process outlined above,” noting
especially two questions:

Our first question is whether the chairman could designate another
member of the committee to receive the written nominations for him,
or would he have to receive them in person. It seems to us that the intent
of the Bylaw is to ensure that the required material is submitted to the
responsible party rather than to define the exact process by which such
a submission occurs. If so, the chairman of the committee should be
able to designate another person to receive the forms for him and de-
liver them to him.

Our second question deals with the interpretation of the term “im-
mediately” in the context of the Bylaw. The context suggests that the
purpose of the word is to ensure that the written consent of the nominee
was indeed obtained prior to the nomination. It seems to us that the
nomination is not made in the proposed process until the form is sub-
mitted, and that since the signed consent of the nominee is on the form
at the time that it is submitted, that the information is properly said to be
received immediately when the nomination is made.

The Commission responds as follows:

Your memorandum inquires whether a proposed revision of the
process for receiving floor nominations for offices other than those
of President and the Vice-Presidents would comply with Bylaw
3.985 a, which reads:

The chairman of the Committee for Convention Nominations shall
submit the committee’s report in person to the convention al one of its
earliest sessions. The convention may amend the slate by nominations
from the floor. Such floor nominations may only be made from the list
of names which have previously been offered to the Committee for
Convention Nominations prior to the final deadline established and pub-
lished by the committee. unless the convention shall otherwise order by
a simple majority vote. If the convention approves the receipt of such
additional nominations, any delegate making such a nomination shall
have secured prior written consent of the candidate being nominated
and shall immediately submit it to the chairman of the Committee for
Convention Nominations along with written pertinent information con-
cerning the nominee as detailed in Bylaw 3.983 e.

At the outset, the Commission observes that the procedure ap-
pears to omit any method for nomination from the floor of persons
whose names have “previously been offered to the Committee for
Convention Nominations” and whose pertinent tnformation and
consent to nominatton have already been received. Presumably it ts
intended that these nominations be taken directly from the floor as
in the past. since there is no necessity to submit the form described
in step 3 above. Alternatively, your committee may decide for the
sake of consistency and convenience that such nominations should
also be in writing, but need not contain the pertinent information
and consent of the nominee, both of which would already have
been received by the nominations committee.

Assuming this oversight is rectified, the Commission on Con-
stitutional Matters is satisfied that the proposed procedure would
satisfy both the letter and the spirit of Bylaw 3.985 a. The Bylaw
does not require that the nomination be made during a floor ses-
sion. It merely requires the majority vote of the convention to allow
such nominations. Requiring the signature of the nominee on the
nominating form fulfills the Bylaw’s requirement of immediate
submission of the candidate's written consent at the time the nom-
ination is made. The procedure allows for submisston directly to
the chairman of the nominating committee or through an interme-
diary appointed by the chairman. This meets the Bylaw’s require-
ment of submission to the chairtnan. Nowhere does the Bylaw for-
bid submission through an intermediary. As long as the nominatton
is ultimately communtcated to the chairman, the Bylaw’s require-
ments are met.

If you wish to have a revised version of the proposed procedure
reviewed for conformity with Bylaw 3.985 a, the Commission on
Constitutional Matters will be happy to do so upon your request.

Adopted July 8, 1999

Questions re the Application of Bylaw 2.23 re
Restricted Status (99-2156)

A Dispute Resolution Panel in a letter dated July 7, 1999, re-
quested an opinion from the Commission regarding a number of

matters relating to Restricted Status (Bylaw 2.23) as it pertains to
individual members of the Synod. The response of the Commis-
sion to each of the panel’s questions, provided in an August 5.
1999, letter to the panel, follows:

|. Concerning Bylaw 2.23, paragraph b, number |: Does this Bylaw
mean that the restricted individual must be allowed to remain in
his present position of service until the matter being investigated
is resolved?

Response to question 1: Yes, although the entity which issued the
call may remove the individual from that position if its bylaws so per-
init.

2. Does this Bylaw give the District President (if he approves) the
option to allow the restricted individual to remain in his present
position of service, and only that position, until the matter being
investigated is resolved?

Response to question 2: The Bylaw provides that the individual con-
tinues to serve in his present position and may change only if the Dis-
trict President approves. The Bylaw makes continuation in the present
position the norm, which does not require approval of the District Pres-
ident.

3. Does this Bylaw give the District President (if he approves) the

option to allow the restricted individual to serve in a new posi-
tion of service until the matter being investigated is resolved?

Response to question 3: Yes, provided that this is within the scope
of the individual's call, since Bylaw 2.23 b 2 precludes the individual
from accepting a call to any other position of service in the Synod while
the restriction is in place.

4. Does Bylaw 2.23 b | give the District President (if he does not
approve) the option to deny the restricted individual to remain in
his position of service until the matter being investigated is re-
solved?

Response to question 4; No. The Bylaw clearly allows that the per-

son on restricted status can still perform the “functions of ministry ... in
the position of service ... held at the inception of restricted status.”

5. Is there any provision in the Bylaws which would prohibit the
calling body from removing an individual from his position of
service or reassigning him to a different position while the indi-
vidual is on restricted status?

Response to question 5: As stated in answer to the first question
above, a calling body may remove the person in conformity with its by-
laws if they so permit. The calling body may not reassign the person to
a different position without the approval of the District President.

6. Concerning Bylaw 2.23, paragraph f: Is the District President re-
quired to notify the body who has called the restricted pastor that
he has been placed on restricted status, or is this only a require-
ment when placed on suspended status?

Response to question 6: Comparing Bylaw 2.23 f and Bylaw 2.25 d

3, it is apparent that the District President need not notify the calling
body that a pastor has been placed on restricted status but must notify
the calling body if the pastor is placed on suspended status.

The Commission also noted the following final paragraph in the let-
ter from the dispute panel:

It was also pointed out that Walter Tesch, Commission Chair-
man, served as legal counsel to the South Wisconsin District while
the case we are hearing was unfolding and may be put in a position
where conflict of interest could exist.

Response: The Commission responds to this concern regarding the
potential for conflict of interest on the part of its Chairman by clarifying
that the material furnished to the Commission did not identify the par-
ties to the dispute. Mr. Tesch is therefore unable to determine whether
such a conflict of interest does exist. Nonetheless, he has acccded to the
concern raised and has not participated in this opinion of the Commis-
sion,

Adopted Sept. 14, 1999

Questions re Rights of Individuals and Congregations
(99-2157)

A Dispute Resolution Panel in a July 16, 1999, letter submitted
a series of questions for clarification of a number of details from
its dispute case, questions raised by the complainant in the case.
The Commission responded in an August | 1. 1999, letter to the
panel as follows:

2001 Convention Workbook