# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_December 6 7 2024_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

If no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast on the first ballot, a second or successive
ballot(s) will be required; the candidate receiving the fewest votes and all candidates receiving less
than 15 percent of the votes cast shall be dropped from the ballot, unless fewer than two candidates
receive 15 percent or more of the votes cast, in which case the three highest candidates shall
constitute the ballot and balloting shall continue until an election occurs by majority vote.
With regard to the overture treating term limits, it is important that this be put into terms of exact bylaw
language to be adjusted. The commission understands this to amount to the striking of the second sentence
of RM Bylaw 3.03 A 1 (except that this change would also remove the term limit on the first vice-president,
which the overture as written would not accomplish; if this is the desired effect, then this sentence would
be left to read “No first vice-president shall…”), and the striking of the word board in two instances from
the second sentence of RM Bylaw 3.03 B (or, if the amendment were so worded to apply also to committees
and commissions, the striking of that entire sentence). The commission’s opinion is with regard to all these
alternatives.
With regard to the overture treating circuit alignment, the commission’s opinion is with regard to the two
alternative forms.
The commission finds the proposed amendments to be in harmony with the Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions of the Synod and urges the district also to adopt the change indicated to RM Bylaw 3.02 B 2.
The commission also notes, at 3.01 B 4–5, a use of the nominating committee or its chairman in the election
of the district president, which appears on the face to conflict with Bylaw 4.7.2’s prohibition of the same.
The commission suggests that, particularly at 3.01 B 5, it may be more appropriate for the district secretary
to determine the timing of closure of nominations for president. The district secretary may also be capable
of performing the count referenced in 3.01 B 4. The commission grants approval also to such changes.
These are approved for presentation to the district convention for adoption. The district and its president
are thanked for sending these documents for review and reminded to send a clean copy of the bylaws as
finally adopted to the Office of the Secretary for the commission’s files.
61. Minnesota South District Bylaws, Proposed Revision (24-3035)
By an email of Sept. 20, the Secretary of the Minnesota South (MNS) District forwarded for review a draft
revision of the articles and bylaws of his district. The commission notes in its review:
(A) Articles of Incorporation
•

Article II, Section 1 a: a comma should be inserted after the first instance of “Synod.”

•

Article II, Section 2 d: The language “in regards to theological or doctrinal or ecclesiastical matters”
may lead to uncertainty of application and should be removed (Cf. 2004 Res. 4-11). This was not
in the article language reviewed in Op. 11-2615; articles were not reviewed in Op. 15-2676. This
language is present in the district Handbook reviewed in Op. 17-2831, and the articles received the
commission’s approval at the time, although no approval was given by the commission or the
Synod in convention or board of directors for what was at the time apparently not realized to have
been a change. The commission requests documentation of all changes made to articles by the MNS
district convention since 2011 and copies of the articles as filed with the State of Minnesota in
2012, 2018, and 2022. The commission finds this particular language to be in conflict with Article
II, Section 2 b. It is also constitutionally problematic, as the district is subject not only in some
respects to the acts of Synod in convention but in all respects (see, e.g., Bylaws 1.4.1, 4.1.1–
4.1.1.3). The noted phrase must be removed.

•

Article II, Section 2 f: The language inaccurately reproduces what was required to be included by
2004 Res. 4-11, which explained that the approval required is “of the Synod, in convention, or the
Board of Directors of the Synod.” The commission does not understand that permission for
CCM Minutes – December 6–7, 2024 – Page 45