# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S318 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 318 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS with” and “under which they have agreed to live and work to- gether” (Bylaw 1.3.4). Adopted Oct. 16-18, 2005 Implementation of Circuit Realignment (05-2447) In a letter dated October 5, 2005, a district president asked the Commission to review a proposal of his district’s Circuit Realign- ment Committee that establishes a schedule for implementation of the realignment of circuits in his district should proposed actions to that effect be adopted by the 2006 district convention. Question: Is the proposed schedule for the implementation of cir- cuit realignment as stipulated in the enclosed resolution acceptable? As you will note, because of the schedule of the conventions of the district and the Synod, we are proposing that circuits be realigned so that the new con- figuration of circuits takes effect for the 2007 conven- tion of the Synod and for the 2009 convention of the dis- trict. Qpinion: Article XII 3 c gives responsibility to districts to estab- lish visitation circuits by including among district officers ‘‘as many circuit counselors as each district may determine upon.” Bylaw 1.3.2 expands upon that understanding: “The Synod divides itself into districts and authorizes the districts to create circuits.” Accord- ingly, Bylaw 4.3.1 includes “a circuit counselor for each circuit es- tablished by the district” in a list of officers to be elected by each district, with Bylaw 5.2.2 providing the process to be used for such elections. The Bylaws also authorize the creation of a second kind of cir- cuit. While Bylaw 5.1.1 establishes the criteria for creating the vis- itation circuits provided for above, Bylaw 3.1.2 establishes the cri- teria for creating electoral circuits from those existing visitation circuits to provide delegates to conventions of the Synod. In both cases, the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod are silent regard- ing the manner in which the implementation of these bylaw re- quirements is to take place. The implementation schedule proposed by the district’s Circuit Realignment Committee, advocating that the electoral circuits in question be realigned for the 2007 Synod convention with the re- alignment of visitation circuits waiting until the 2009 district con- vention is not workable, given the requirement of the Synod’s By- laws that the establishment of electoral circuits depends upon existing visitation circuits. To change electoral circuit configura- tions prior to changing visitation circuit configurations is not possi- ble or appropriate, since visitation circuits are the building blocks by which electoral circuits are constituted (paragraph (a) of Bylaw 3.1.2). The question of how best to introduce circuit realignments when district convention action is required therefore remains, especially given bylaw requirements for the election of circuit counselors by a process that involves a detailed pre-convention process that neces- sarily involves existing circuit alignments. The Commission offers the following two options that are consistent with existing constitu- tional and bylaw requirements. Option J: Postpone implementation of any realignment decided by the convention until the next following district convention (in this case, 2009), electing current circuit counselors according to the existing alignment of circuits and authorizing that the circuit coun- selor nominations process provided by Bylaw 5.2.2 be applied ac- cording to the new realignment when preparing for the following convention. In the meanwhile, electoral circuits for the following year’s Synod convention (in this case, 2007) would continue to be formed from the existing circuit configuration according to the re- quirements of Bylaw 3.1.2. After the implementation of the realign- ment (in this case, 2009), the formation of electoral circuits would be carried out according to the new circuit configuration in prepa- ration for the following year’s Synod convention (in this case, 2010). Option 2: Provide for implementation of the realignment effec- tive immediately (in this case, 2006), electing circuit counselors according to the new alignment of circuits and allowing for the for- mation of electoral circuits for the coming year’s Synod conven- 2007 Convention Workbook tion according to the new configuration. Under this option, the election of circuit counselors would become more involved, since the nominations process outlined by Bylaw 5.2.2 in preparation for the convention would of necessity have been carried out according to the then-existing circuit configuration. Bylaw 5.2.2 (f) makes clear, however, that the election of circuit counselors is not final until the slate provided by the nominations process has been rati- fied by the convention. As part of that process, Bylaw 5.2.2 (c) and (d) provide for the holding of a caucus of the pastors and lay dele- gates of a circuit at the time of the convention, thereby to act on behalf of the circuit’s congregations to resolve any issues regarding a circuit counselor nomination. In this case, such caucusing would allow the delegates from the congregations of visitation circuits af- fected by the realignment to meet prior to final ratification by the convention of the slate of nominees for circuit counselor (Bylaw 5.2.2 (f) and to nominate to that slate a pastor of their newly formed circuit to serve as counselor. Use of this option should be accompa- nied by clear notice to the congregations of the district of its process and consequences. Adopted Oct. 16-18, 2005 Authority of the Board of Directors (05-2438) A pastor member of the Synod in a letter dated September 10, 2005, after calling attention to several bylaws describing the au- thority of the Board of Directors and of the President of the Synod, asked a series of questions regarding the following action of the Board of Directors during its August, 2005 meeting: WHEREAS, It is most important that all activities sponsored by and/or conducted under the auspices of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod are in accordance with the doctrine and practice of our Synod: and WHEREAS, Concerns have been expressed regarding the theological positions or articulations of some of the presenters at past LCMS Na- tional Youth Gatherings; therefore be it Resolved, That the Board of Directors evangelically encourage the Board for District and Congregational Services of the Synod, in con- sultation with the Office of the President, to evaluate carefully and thor- oughly all presenters invited to future National Youth Gatherings to en- sure that they are faithful to the doctrine and practice of The Lutheran Church—Missounri Synod; and be it further Resolved, That the Board of Directors express its concerns regarding potential liability or adverse financial consequences connected with fu- ture National Youth Gatherings; and be it finally Resolved, That the Board of Directors requests the Board for District and Congregational Services to report to the Board of Directors at its February, 2006 meeting the progress that is being made in addressing and resolving the issues that have been discussed between the Board of Directors and the Board for District and Congregational Services re- garding the LCMS National Youth Gathering. After noting the repeated references in the resolution to “doc- trine and practice” and to “theological positions or articulations,” the questioner asked: Question 1: In light of Bylaw 3.3.5.4, by what authority did the Board of Directors pass a resolution dealing with “doc- trine and practice” and “theological positions or articu- lations”? Question 2: In light of Bylaws 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.1.1.1, did the Board of Directors usurp the authority of the synodical Pres- ident? Question 3: If the Board of Directors did in fact usurp the authority of the synodical President, should the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors be declared null and void? Opinion: Ecclesiastical Authority of the Board of Directors As reflected in Opinion 05-2434 (see minutes of the Commis- sion’s October, 2005 meeting), the precise limits of the authority of the Board of Directors cannot be delineated in the abstract. As suggested in that opinion, the primary responsibilities of the Board are in the areas of business, property, and legal affairs, including