# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 24 2020_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The 2010 Synod convention also adopted Resolution 4-07, which made a large number of bylaw changes
pertaining to the preparations for conventions of the Synod. One of these bylaw changes altered how the
President and all vice-presidents of the Synod were to be nominated. The 2010 change to then-Bylaw
3.12.1 eliminated the requirement of 3.12.1 (b) that all nominating ballots by signed by the president and
secretary of the nominating congregation, replacing it instead with a provision directing the Secretary of
the Synod to provide “a secure and verifiable method that will offer opportunity to every congregation of
the Synod to submit nominations.” This change was not, however, incorporated into the 2010 Handbook
with regard to the nomination of regional vice-presidents.
Rather, probably because of a desire to keep the manner of nominations for all regional positions
consistent, 2010 Bylaw 3.12.2.3 (b), as incorporated into the 2010 Handbook, followed the process adopted
in Resolution 8-08A, continuing to require the signature of the president and secretary of each nominating
congregation to sign the form and submit it to the Secretary of the Synod.
The 2016 Synod convention adopted Resolution 11-05, which changed the manner of nominating the
regional members of the Board of Directors and the elected members or the Board of National Mission and
the Board of International Mission (all of which are regional). In this new process, nominations were no
longer limited to congregations, but followed the process for all other nominations received by the
Committee for Convention Nominations. The stipulation requiring signatures from the chairman and
secretary of a nominating congregation was removed. Resolution 11-05 did not address the manner of
nomination for regional vice-presidents.
Since the procedure for nomination by the congregations today applies only to the offices of President of
the Synod, First Vice-President, and the five regional vice-presidents, it is the opinion of the commission
that Resolution 4-07, adopted by the 2010 convention, can be followed in its original intention to allow the
Secretary of the Synod to provide “a secure and verifiable method that will offer opportunity to every
congregation of the Synod to submit nominations,” not only for the President of the Synod and the First
Vice-President, but also for the five regional vice-presidents as well, without requiring the signature of the
president and secretary of nominating congregations.
Question A.2: Is the use of a reliable, impartial election contractor to facilitate these nomination processes
to be precluded either by the language limiting external tabulation help to an “auditing
firm,” or the language, in the regional process, requiring ballots to be received by the
Secretary of the Synod?
Opinion:
Bylaw 3.12.2 (d) uses the term may in reference to the engaging of an external auditing
firm to tabulate the nominations. The term may would allow the process to be handled in-house by the
Secretary of the Synod, should he so choose, or by an external tabulator. Since 2010 Resolution 4-07 was
intended to apply to the election of the President of the Synod, First Vice-President, and the five regional
vice-presidents, the application of this process to the nomination of the regional vice-presidents would allow
the Secretary to use a reliable outside resource to tabulate the nominations and certify also these
results, should the Secretary of the Synod so decide. This is also comprehended within the sense of his
provision of a “secure and verifiable method” using “assistance necessary to accomplish this task.”
Question A.3: Could the requirement that regional nominations be “signed by the president and secretary
of the nominating congregation” be implemented in some electronic fashion, rather than
physically, on an official ballot? (In asking this question, it is noted that there is no ability
at the Synod level to verify the signatures currently submitted, and that the security and
verifiability of the process presently relates to identifying valid, original physical ballots
and keeping records as to which congregations have cast their votes, to prevent duplication
or third-party submission. An electronic process could be “verified” more thoroughly, for
example, by e-mailing congregational officers when the congregation’s nominating ballot
has been cast, to alert them to any potential unauthorized use.)
CCM Minutes – April 24, 2020 – Page 11