# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 1 2 2016_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The Secretary will obtain the biographical information for these nominees and list them, as indistinguishable
from the others, in the pre-convention materials. The list of remaining (excess) nominees shall be preserved in
the sequence established by the blind draw, in case the withdrawal or unavailability of a candidate should
require a replacement to be selected, which would be carried out according to the same process.
________
1

“To accomplish a blind draw, such method must be used as will accomplish a truly “blind” draw, to be carried out in the
presence of at least two (2) office staff or other neutral persons. A statement attesting to the blind draw must be prepared,
signed, and dated by the witnesses and included in the record of the case. Names are to be used by the administrator in the
order in which they were surfaced by the blind draw.” (1.10 dispute resolution process Standard Operating Procedure
Manual, p. 9)

154. Final Approval of Mid-South District Bylaw Changes (14-2735C)
With a February 26, 2016 letter, the secretary of the Mid-South District submitted a final 2015 district
convention change to the district’s bylaws. Upon review, the commission affirmed the convention action,
thanking the district for its diligence and cooperation throughout the bylaw approval process.
155. Review of Concordia University System Bylaws (15-2762A)
An ordained member of the staff of Concordia University System submitted via a January 25, 2016 email
the “Amended and Restated Bylaws of Concordia University System” for final approval by the
commission. Upon review, the commission expressed its appreciation for the amendments that are being
recommended in response to the commission’s earlier review. It also offered the following additional
recommendations for changes to be made prior to final approval.
•
•

•
•

•

•

The commission again strongly recommends the inclusion of a preamble paragraph at the very
beginning of the bylaws document that refers to Synod Bylaws 3.6.6−3.6.6.6 as the primary bylaws of
the Concordia University System.
Article I, Section 2: The commission again advocates the inclusion of “Concordia University
System” in the paragraph’s second sentence to make clear which board of directors is being referred
to, the sentence to read: “A special meeting of the Members may be called at any time by the
President of Concordia University System, or by the Concordia University System Board of
Directors, or by the President of the Synod,….”
Article II, Section 1: The proposed change to line 3 to read “his/her representative” is contrary to
Synod Bylaw 3.4.3.3, which requires the Synod’s Chief Mission Officer to be a minister of religion—
ordained. It should be left to read: “his representative.”
Article II, Section 1: The final paragraph’s third sentence is incomplete. The commission presumes
that the sentence is intended to read: “If a second ballot is required, any candidate(s) elected on the
prior ballot and the candidate with the least number of votes on the prior ballot shall be dropped from
the ballot; the electors will then cast another ballot.”
Article II, Section 2: The paragraph will be more clear if the word “elected” is used less often and
more discriminately, to read as follows: “Elected Directors, elected by the Synod in convention shall
serve six-year terms with for a maximum of twelve years, and shall serve until their successors are
duly elected and qualified. Elected Directors appointed by the Council of Members shall serve threeyear terms with for a maximum of nine years and shall serve until their successors are duly elected
appointed and qualified….The terms of elected and appointed directors shall be staggered.
Article II, Section 6: It will be helpful not to use the word “elect” in the first line of the first
paragraph, the Synod’s Bylaws reserving the word “elect” for use only when positions are filled by
election by a district or Synod convention (Bylaw 1.5.1.2 [a]). In addition, the mention of “President”
in the list of board-selected appointees is misleading, the selection of the CUS president having its
own more involved selection process (Synod Bylaw 3.6.1.5). A separate first paragraph referring to
Bylaw 3.6.1.5 as the process used for the appointment of a president will be more accurate and
CCM Minutes – April 1–2, 2016 – Page 117