# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_October 16 18 2005_S21
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

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 necessarily involves existing circuit alignments. The
Commission offers the following two options that are consistent with existing constitutional and bylaw
requirements.
Option 1: 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 counselor nominations process provided by
Bylaw 5.2.2 be applied according 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 requirements of Bylaw
3.1.2. After the implementation of the realignment (in this case, 2009), the formation of electoral circuits
would be carried out according to the new circuit configuration in preparation for the following year’s
Synod convention (in this case, 2010).
Option 2: Provide for implementation of the realignment effective immediately (in this case, 2006),
electing circuit counselors according to the new alignment of circuits and allowing for the formation of
electoral circuits for the coming year’s Synod convention 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
ratified 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 delegates 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 affected 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 accompanied by clear notice to the congregations of the district of
its process and consequences.
93. New Jersey District Bylaw Amendments (05-2448)
Proposed amendments to the Bylaws of the New Jersey District, forwarded by the district president and
received October 10, 2005, were given brief consideration. Because the documents had been only recently
received, the Commission agreed to give attention to the matter at its next meeting.
94. Other Matters
Raymond Hartwig and Wilbert Sohns provided reports on recent meetings of the Commission on
Structure and the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synodical Structure and Governance. Other matters briefly
discussed during the meeting:
•

Secretary Hartwig was asked to provide to the Commission such information that will help it to
get started in fulfilling its responsibility as provided by Bylaw 3.9.2.2.4, to examine in advance
not only the articles of incorporation and bylaws of every agency of the Synod but also its
“regulations.”
53