# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_July 27 August 3 2023_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Question 2:

If convention delegates agree with the rationale of the third whereas clause of Resolution
9-07 (Today’s Business, 1:187, lines 10–14) to revise Synod Bylaw 3.12.2.8 [“ideally,
positions elected from the Synod convention should be filled by the persons elected by the
Synod convention insofar as possible, for purposes of continuity of service on the related
board and the benefit of the related expertise thereby provided to such board, and thus that
it is appropriate to allow a person elected from a region to continue to serve until the elected
term expires even if such person relocates residence”] concerning members of Synod
boards, is there reason why the same rationale shouldn’t also be applied to members of
District boards?

Opinion:
The rationale explicitly speaks only to Synod board positions and would not conflict with
Bylaw 4.3.3. Whether the underlying argument could support a similar amendment in Bylaw 4.3.3 would
be for the floor committee and/or convention to determine.
Question 3:

If the proposed revision of Synod Bylaw 3.12.2.8 would affect the residency requirements
for members of District boards as outlined in Synod Bylaw 4.3.3, might it be prudent for
Floor Committee 9 to also present a proposed revision of that bylaw language, so that the
application at the district level is explicitly clear?

Opinion:
The commission finds that the proposed revision would not affect residency requirements
for members of district boards.
(C) Proposed Amendment to Res. 9-09, “To Appoint Task Force to Consider Implications of Adopting
Four-Year Convention Cycle”
By an email of July 25, a member of Floor Committee 9 requested an opinion on a proposed amendment to
Res. 9-09, to present a constitutional amendment to initiate a four-year cycle upon the conclusion of the
2026 convention, requiring that convention to adopt bylaws to implement the change. Strictly on the basis
of constitutional possibility, the commission finds this approach to be possible. However, as presently
written, simply to strike the “three” of Const. Art. VIII A 1 and replace it with “four,” the effect would not
be as desired, instead initiating a four-year cycle without delay. Const. Art. XV provides that “proposed
amendment[s] shall become effective” on a stated date definite, presuming their ratification by the
congregations; therefore, if such an amendment is to have delayed effect, this must be incorporated in the
language of the amendment and not only in the resolve, to wit: “The Synod convenes every three years, but
after the conclusion of its 69th Regular Convention, every four years, for its regular meeting.”
Even so, such a change, once adopted and ratified, would create a multitude of pending conflicts between
the Synod and district bylaws and the Constitution—pending conflicts that would become actual and
operative conflicts, were the 2026 Synod convention and the 2025 district conventions to fail to adopt
conforming bylaws. Further complicating the situation, the 2025 district bylaws would have to be adopted
before the Synod would adopt conforming bylaw changes in 2026. (No such change may be intended, but
the commission notes that the effect of the proposed change would, without another constitutional
amendment, be a four-year-cycle in which districts continue to meet the year prior to the Synod convention
[Const. Art. XII 13]).
The commission notes with concern that constitutional adoption of the four-year cycle on this basis
presumes the task force’s and the 2026 convention’s ability to achieve a workable set of bylaws to
implement the change. With many intensive changes at both the Synod and district levels contingent on
such a constitutional change, some of which may have profound implications beyond the frequency of
conventions, the convention would be taking significant risks in adopting this approach. One risk is that
unintended consequences of the change, especially related to the permanent lengthening of terms and the
engagement of congregations in governance at the district and Synod levels, may become apparent only
after adoption of the constitutional change, when the Bylaws begin to be worked on in earnest. Another is
that the subsequent convention may not finish its bylaw work, leaving the Commission on Constitutional
CCM Minutes – July 27–August 3, 2023 – Page 154