# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_March 22 23 2019_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Noting its sincere discomfiture with this solution and its intention to present a convention with a full report
and recommendation for constitution and bylaw revisions to address the long-term issues uncovered in its
study and discussion, the commission deferred to the 2016 convention’s apparent presumption that, when
it struck assistant pastors from the list of Const. Art. V B (2016 Res. 11-09), it was striking them from a
prohibitive list, thus allowing congregations to designate such as their voters. In the instant question,
therefore, the ongoing presence of “professors at the Synod’s educational institutions” in the list of Const.
Art. V B is understood to prohibit installed professors of Synod’s educational institutions from serving as
the voting representatives of congregations in the presidential vote unless and until the convention takes
corrective action.
202. South Dakota District Articles of Incorporation (19-2901)
The president of the South Dakota District forwarded his district convention’s 2018 Res. 1-12, which
amended district bylaws to facilitate a new nomination process for district vice-presidents in advance of the
district convention. These changes are approved by the commission and therefore in force and effect. The
district president indicated that the convention failed at that time to revise bylaws regarding the election
process for district vice-presidents to correspond to the new nomination process and inquired whether the
provision of LCMS Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 (b) could allow the district board of directors to adopt these bylaws to
complete the convention’s abortive amendment. The commission does not find Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 (b) to be
applicable, but suggests that the district board of directors propose for the commission’s advance approval,
prior to the next district convention, suitable election bylaws. These could then be adopted by the
convention prior to the election of the vice-presidents of the district. The district president’s letter suggests
possible solutions; the proposed amendment to South Dakota District Bylaw 5.05 (f) is approved for such
submission to the convention, as is the proposed provision for floor nominations to be added to Bylaw 5.05
(e).
203. Rescinding Approval by the Colloquy Committee for Pastoral Ministry (19-2907)
The Colloquy Committee for Pastoral Ministry of the Synod asked the commission whether the roster status
of an individual who was initially approved by the committee under Bylaw 2.8.1 and later by the Council
of Presidents for direct emeritus rostering under Bylaw 2.7.5, but who would later be found to have withheld
information from the Colloquy Committee that would have prevented approval, could be withdrawn for reevaluation.
The Synod has maintained eligibility rules, a process, and standards for individual membership in the
Synod, including colloquy. The bylaws remind us that “there is no inherent right to membership in the
Synod, and the decision as to qualification” remains at the “sole discretion of Synod” (Bylaw 2.6.3). In this
regard, Bylaw 2.8.1 requires that the “colloquy committee must be satisfied that the individual will meet
all personal, professional, and the theological requirements of those who hold the office of ministry.”
The information presented to the Commission on Constitutional Matters is sufficient on its face to establish,
without making a factual determination, that assuming the same to be true, the individual making
application for roster status either was grossly negligent or intentionally misleading in the information
provided to the colloquy committee such that they were unable to properly meet their obligation under the
provisions of Synod Bylaw 2.8.1. Consequently, the committee’s actions would have been based upon
woefully inadequate information, thus so severely impairing their ability to carry out their responsibilities
such as to render them not fully performed. Having not fully completed their bylaw responsibilities, the
actions and recommendations of the colloquy committee did not meet the standards set forth in Bylaw 2.8.1.
Because their actions were neither fully informed nor based on complete information, the colloquy
committee is advised to reopen the application for roster status and give the applicant full opportunity to
submit such information and any extenuating circumstances as he may deem appropriate in explanation of
such, apparently having been not forthcoming in the initial application. The Colloquy Committee, having
received full and sufficient information, may then act to make their determination and recommendation
CCM Minutes – March 22–23, 2019 – Page 154