# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_September 3 4 2011_S15
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Question 2: If a congregation experiences a pastoral vacancy at the time of its district convention, the
congregation sends its lay delegate to the convention, and the vacancy is filled after the
district convention but prior to the election of the President of the Synod, can the
congregation be given opportunity to have also a pastoral vote in the presidential election?
Opinion: The answer to this question is “no.” The bylaw requirement that the individuals, pastor and lay,
who cast ballots in the election of the President of the Synod must have been in attendance at the previous
district convention allows no exceptions. Congregations whose pastoral offices are vacant at the time of
their district conventions will not have opportunity to participate in the election of the President of the
Synod.
Question 3: If a congregation becomes a member of the Synod after its district convention but prior to the
presidential election, thereby not having had opportunity to send delegates to the district
convention, can it be allowed to participate in the presidential election, which is to provide
opportunity to “every congregation” (Res. 8-17)?
Opinion: The answer to this question is “no” also. Because the congregation was not able to send
delegates to the district convention, it therefore is not able to satisfy the attendance requirement of Bylaw
3.12.2.3.
54. University Lutheran Student Center—Minneapolis (11-2597)
In a letter dated July 13, 2011, the president of University Lutheran Chapel of Minneapolis, Minnesota,
submitted a set of questions along with background information for consideration by the commission. The
questions, pertaining to a 1963 resolution adopted by the former Minnesota District of the Synod which
created the Minnesota North and Minnesota South Districts, were submitted as follows:
1. Does an adopted resolution by a district in convention pertaining to its division into two or more
districts that includes an agreement as to how a piece of property is to be used for the benefit of
the newly formed districts constitute an agreement between the newly formed districts?
2. If the aforementioned constitutes an agreement between districts, is that agreement binding?
3. Is it legitimate for a district to unilaterally change, either explicitly or effectively, an agreement it
has with one or more other districts if the agreement does not explicitly grant the right to do so?
4. May a district that holds title to a [real property that by agreement between it and one or more
other districts is to be used to serve each of the districts in question dispose of the property
without first obtaining either (a) the permission/approval of the other district(s) to the sale or (b)
the approval of the other district(s) to a change in the agreement?
5. If an agreement exists specifically and only due to the ownership of a specific piece of [real]
property, would selling the property effectively change/terminate the agreement?
6. If an agreement exists between two or more districts by district convention action, may that
agreement be changed, either explicitly or effectively, without first obtaining the approval of a
convention of each of the districts in question?
Opinion: The questions presented to the Commission on Constitutional Matters assume the existence of
an agreement in the resolution in question. There is no such agreement within that resolution. The
commission finds nothing further in the resolution that it can interpret in response to the questions asked.

178