# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 13 14 2014_S13
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

at least one alternate for each office, except for the offices of president, vice-presidents, and
circuit visitors, and ask their consent to serve….”
Bylaw 2.9.4 c: The phrase “of the district” should probably read “of the congregation.”
Bylaw 2.9.4 d: According to the Synod’s Bylaws (e.g., 3.12.3.6), the Committee on Nominations
has nothing to do with the election of the president. This is the responsibility of the secretary of
the district, as it is of the Secretary of the Synod on the national level.
Bylaw 2.9.6: The third sentence of this paragraph is unclear and unnecessary and should be
deleted.
Bylaw 2.9.7.1 a: According to Synod Bylaw 3.12.2.7 (a), congregations may only nominate
candidates for regional vice-presidents from their own region (as properly noted in district bylaw
2.9.7.2). The bylaw would better read: “Each voting congregation shall be entitled to nominate an
ordained minister from its region….”
Bylaw 2.9.7.1 c: The first sentence is unclear as to how regional nominations are to be tabulated.
The Synod bylaw (3.12.2.7) gives this responsibility to the Secretary on the national Synod level.
Bylaw 2.9.7.2: As in Synod Bylaw 3.12.2.7 (d), nominations from the floor are not accepted for
regional offices and positions. The final sentence should read: “No opportunity shall be provided
for additional nominations from the floor of the convention.”
Bylaws 2.9.8 and 2.9.9: Two occurrences where “counselor” has not been changed to “visitor.”
Bylaw 3.1.1: This bylaw will need to be reworded to mirror accurately the content of the cited
Synod Bylaws 2.5.2 and 2.5.3, which are more lengthy and distinguish between requirements for
ordained and commissioned ministers.
Section “4. Dispute Resolution”: This section must also include a reference to the Synod’s Bylaw
section 1.10 governing dispute resolution. Since that also includes the content of the
accompanying Standard Operating Procedures Manual, the district may want to consider
omitting this section, instead calling attention to the Synod’s process.
Bylaw 4.2: The reference in the final sentence should be to “Synod Bylaw 1.8.”
Bylaw 6.3.1: A district secretary must be from the “clergy roster of the Synod” (Synod Bylaw
4.3.1). To require the district secretary to be a parish pastor is too limiting in light of the Synod’s
bylaw.
Bylaw 6.3.2 b: It should be clarified that the district committee supplies interpretations of the
district’s bylaws only. The Synod’s Commission on Constitutional Matters interprets the Synod’s
Bylaws.
Bylaw 6.3.2 c: Suggestions for changes to the district’s bylaws before each convention are indeed
to be submitted to the Synod’s Commission on Constitutional Matters, but this is to be done “for
review and approval in advance” (Synod Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 [a]).
Bylaw 8.1.1 d: The first sentence should have “District” replaced by “Synod’s” to read in accord
with Synod Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 (a): “Submitted to the Synod’s Commission on Constitutional
Matters….”

49. Elections of Concordia University System Presidents (14-2720)
By letter dated June 3, 2014, the President of the Synod posed a number of questions to the Commission
on Constitutional Matters.
Question 1: Is it permissible according to the Bylaws of the Synod for the board of regents of one of the
Synod’s colleges or universities to choose not to elect a president, but instead to create
another office (e.g., “CEO” or “leader”) that effectively carries out the functions of the
office of president, thereby circumventing the appointed process for selecting the “spiritual,
academic, and administrative head of the institution” (Bylaw 3.10.5.5)?

CCM Minutes – June 13–14, 2014 – Page 28