# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_December 6 7 2024_S3 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) modification of the language was ever granted. It understands “of the Synod” here to be subject to the elaboration of 2004 Res. 4-11, so that the Board of Directors of the Synod could authorize correction of this section. • Article III, Section 3 a (ii) and (iv): These broad provisions, especially (iv), allow the board of the district potentially unconstitutional authority to assign to the president duties outside of those he is required by the Constitution and Bylaws to undertake, which would be at his option to assume and subject in any case to the authority of the board. • Article III, Section 3 a (iii): The commission also notes the weighty responsibility, related to business, property, and legal matters, that accompanies the district president signing in the name of the district, as in item (iii), although this may relate to a constitutional responsibility of the district president in Const. XII 9 d. This observation is referred to the Board of Directors of the Synod for consideration as relevant to its study of agency governing documents. • Article III, Section 3 e 5–6: The proposed changes appear to load the district president with ultimate responsibility for establishing new ministries and congregations and developing mission-focused leaders and congregations. These are not native responsibilities of the district president under the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. Unlike on the Synod level—where there is an extensive mission apparatus built under the leadership of the President—the district board is not excluded by the Bylaws of the Synod from the program side of the district’s operations. The commission recommends replacing 5–6 (especially since this section deals with the “business and legal affairs…to be managed by the board”) with “5) To provide for implementation within the district of decisions of the national and district conventions” and “6) To allocate necessary funds for the support of the national and district budgets” (cf. Synod Bylaws 4.5.1 [d] and 3.3.4.5). • Article IV: The district should note the option available in Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 (b), which would need to be incorporated here for the district to make future use of it. (B) Bylaws (cited as renumbered) • Bylaw 2.1: Better would be to say, “The members of the Minnesota South District shall be as determined under the constitution and bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.” • Bylaw 2.2: Const. Art. VII and VI significantly limit the force of the shall in this provision; this should be recast in terms of encouragement. • Bylaw 2.3: The first sentence should read, “All organized congregations that have joined the Synod and are members of the district hold voting membership and are entitled. Each congregation or parish is entitled to two votes (one ordained minister and one lay person).” • Bylaw 3.1.2: Language in quotation of main paragraph and in subparagraphs (a–c) needs to be updated to reflect 2023 changes to Synod Bylaw 3.1.3.1. Subparagraphs (d–e) should be numbered as Bylaw 3.1.3 (cf. Synod Bylaw 3.1.3.2), as these deal with both voting and advisory delegates and therefore should not be subsumed under Bylaw 3.1.2, dealing only with the latter. • Bylaw 4.4: The commission questions whether this paper-intensive process (“triplicate”) is still being required, or whether this should be restated to prevent confusion about filing requirements. • Bylaws 4.7 and 4.7.1.2: The election procedures of Synod Bylaw 4.7.3 should either be elaborated or referenced with regard to the various elections. • Bylaws 4.11.1–2: These seem to be more germane to the previous section, 4.10, than to 4.11, which treats of terms of office; perhaps they should be relocated there. • Bylaw 4.12.3 (b–d) and 4.14: Synod Bylaws 1.5.3.1–4 speak of governing boards organizing themselves and appointing committees. Here, the district president seems to be appointing CCM Minutes – December 6–7, 2024 – Page 46