# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S282
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

282

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

serve. The issue was further complicated by the fact that the qualifications at issue were matters of civil law and not the Synod’s bylaws.
At the time the issue surfaced, upon assertion by the Lutheran
Church Extension Fund (LCEF) that it is required by regulations of
the 50 states to do formal criminal and other regulatory related background checks on all members of its board of directors, Bylaw 1.2.1
(d) was read by a member of the commission, which states in part:
“(4) The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, in referencing the laws
of the State of Missouri in these Bylaws and in the Synod’s Articles of
Incorporation, intends to acknowledge its responsibility to be subject
to civil authority. In all such references, however, the Synod intends
to retain all authority and autonomy allowed a church under the laws
and Constitution of the United States and the State of Missouri.”
Bylaw 3.12.3.6 (2007 Handbook, pp. 183f.) requires that the Committee for Convention Nominations publish a list of qualifications
for each office. On page 45 of the committee’s report, “Biographical
Synopses and Statements of Nominees,” the qualifications for the
LCEF Board of Directors were provided. The background checks
required for board positions were not included. Furthermore, the need
for such checks was not communicated to the Secretary of the Synod
or to the Committee for Convention Nominations. In fact, none of
the names submitted by the committee for convention consideration
underwent the required examination.
While it is the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters that no candidacy for any office is proper unless the information
provided to the convention confirms that the candidate in fact meets
all qualifications for office, it is now clear that all qualifications for
LCEF Board of Directors members were not disclosed in advance
to the convention, and even those placed on the slate for board positions were not fully vetted (they were not submitted to a background
check). Accordingly, should any candidate ultimately elected by the
convention fail to pass the required regulatory checks, that person will
not be allowed to assume office, and the Synod’s process for filling
vacancies will necessarily be used to fill that position.
The commission has met with LCEF representatives, the Committee for Convention Nominations, and the two delegates who placed
two names in nomination from the floor to discuss this situation.
The nominations committee and the LCEF will need to update the
description of the qualifications for this and any other such positions for use by future conventions, as required by Bylaw 3.12.3.8
(Handbook, p. 184).
Based on these circumstances as described, the Commission on
Constitutional Matters suggests that the assembly revisit the two
nominations from the floor in question from Session 8.
(Adopted July 10–17, 2010)

Convention Issue re Bylaw Amendments
An issue was raised during the course of the convention as to the
appropriateness of amendments from the floor. During Session 12,
the commission provided the following statement to the convention:
Reverend Chairman, a member of the Commission on Constitutional Matters earlier read to the convention the provisions of Bylaw 7.1.1,
found on page 201 of the Handbook, regarding the process for amending
our Bylaws. After consultation between the President, the parliamentarian, and the commission, it is clear that a number of amendments to
resolutions of the floor committees have been allowed without written
submission to the convention, without prior review by the affected floor
committee, and without prior review by the Commission on Constitutional Matters to determine that such amendment is not in conflict with
the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. The most recent opinion of
the commission regarding these requirements may be found in Opinion
07-2505, found on page 263 of the Convention Workbook.

2013 Convention Workbook

The commission and the floor committees have been asked to review all such amendments previously made, and the commission has
found them not to be in conflict with our Constitution and Bylaws. The
convention is therefore now asked to acknowledge the earlier violations
of this process, to reaffirm all existing work of the convention, and to
recognize that any such issues will be dealt with under Res. 8-12A adopted earlier this morning.
The commission notes that by a vote of 973 to 60, the assembly
agreed to the commission’s conclusions, thereby acknowledging the
earlier violations of the bylaw amendment process, reaffirming all existing work of the convention, and recognizing that any remaining issues
will be dealt with under Res. 8-12A adopted during Session 11 of the
convention.

(Adopted July 10–17, 2010)

Convention Arrangements and Participation
During the course of the convention, the President, the members of
the commission, delegates, and others expressed concern and areas of
concern or possible suggested improvements for future conventions
be communicated to the appropriate person or entity for consideration
before the next convention. Such areas of concern included:
• The election process as it relates to nominations from the floor.
• Allowing an individual stand for election to two positions which cannot be held at the same time without requiring the individual to make
a choice between the positions in such timely fashion as will allow
the convention to consider another person and thereby avoid a possible immediate vacancy.
• As reflected in the commission’s minutes following the 2007 convention, the absence of a requirement in Bylaw 3.9.2.2.1 for the
commission to examine floor amendments to the Constitution.
• A question whether Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (c) allows amendments from the
floor.
• Bylaw 7.1.1 requirements for presentation of proposed bylaw
amendments in writing for consideration by floor committees and
examination by the commission prior to presentation to the convention
resulted in confusion on several occasions during the 2007 convention. A motion was introduced and carried “to direct the Secretary to
write a letter to the President suggesting that a rule be added to the
Standing Rules for future conventions requiring that proposed bylaw
amendments be printed in Today’s Business prior to presentation to
the convention.” It was also suggested that a procedure be developed
to inform the commission of all such proposals at each day’s deadline
for submission of business to Today’s Business.
• Near the end of the convention and at the suggestion of the First VicePresident, the commission was seated at the front of the section set
aside for district presidents and special advisory delegates so that the
commission could more readily be found by delegates as needed and
so that the commission could more readily be available to respond to
inquiries from the floor.
• Whether motions, nominations, or proposed amendments by advisory
delegates are matters of bylaw or solely matters of parliamentary
interpretation.

(Adopted July 10–17, 2010)

Ecclesiastical Supervisory Responsibilities
of a District President (10-2581)
In a September 4, 2010, e-mail, a district president submitted
the following questions to the commission, also providing a brief
background.
Question 1: The Synod’s Bylaws state that I [as a district president]
“shall supervise the doctrine, the life, and the official
administration” of the ordained or commissioned ministers in my district (Bylaw 4.4.5). What ecclesiastical
supervisory responsibilities do I hold regarding a congregation’s doctrine and practice?