# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_January 7 2025_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

•

IN Bylaws 8.2.3.1: The commission notes there are two bylaws with this number.

•

IN Bylaws 8.2.3.1 (first and second)*: The commission notes that, should the district ever close its
convention more than four months prior to September 1, the bylaws as written may present a timing
issue.

•

IN Bylaw 8.2.3.1 (second): In (d) the reference to Bylaw 1.10.10.1 should be removed, as not
germane to any but reconciler appointments.

•

IN Bylaw 8.3.1.1 (a)*: The district president is designated the “chief executive” of the district by
Synod Bylaw 4.4.1 and is of course an officer of the district (Const. Art. XII 3) but is not identified
by the Synod as “chief executive officer” of the district, which carries corporate trappings that do
not entirely transfer. The term “chief executive officer” should read “chief executive” instead.

•

IN Bylaws 8.3.1.2 [c][1–2], 8.3.6.5 [c], and 8.4.2*: Related to the above, IN Bylaws in certain
places seem to attribute general management and supervision of district business affairs to the
district president when these belong clearly and finally to the board of directors of the district
(Bylaw 4.5.1) and may only be delegated in a limited and penultimate sense to an executive,
perhaps the district president. It should at a minimum be made clear in these instances that any such
delegation is “with the board of directors retaining general management and supervision.” The
commission here does not venture suggested language but would need to review language proposed
by the district to resolve this issue.

•

IN Bylaw 8.3.6.1: The board’s responsibilities for the legal, as well as business, affairs of the
district (cf. Bylaw 4.5.1) should be noted here.

•

IN Bylaw 10.1.2.3: The procedure for successive ballots in Bylaw 4.7.3 (b) is obligatory. Were a
tie to result in more than five candidates on the ballot for president, the district’s procedure would
incorrectly remove more than one in the first successive ballot.

•

IN Bylaw 10.2.1.3: A tie could presumably result in inclusion of more than two (and, possibly,
many more than two) candidates on the ballot. This should likely be accounted for. In any case, the
procedure for successive ballots described in Bylaw 4.7.3 (b) applies.

•

IN Bylaw 10.2.3: It should be clearer, perhaps best by direct reference, that the run-off procedure
referenced here is that described in Bylaw 4.7.3 (b) (or present IN Bylaw 10.5.2.2, but see next
item).

•

IN Bylaw 10.5.2.2: The procedure stated here is correct for president and vice-president elections.
See Synod Bylaw 4.7.3 for the correct procedure for determining successive ballots in other
elections, which is not correctly reflected in the district’s bylaws. It would be well to include the
full text of Bylaw 4.7.3 (b–d).

•

IN Bylaw 10.7.1.1*: “removal” should be added to the list of unfortunate events that could
precipitate a presidential vacancy.

The commission requests a draft addressing the above issues, so that it may approve also these changes for
presentation to the district convention for adoption. The district and its secretary are thanked for submitting
the document for review.
78. Southeastern District Bylaws, Additional Overtures (24-3041A)
By an email of Dec. 23, the Southeastern (SE) District Office of the President forwarded for review four
additional overtures submitted to the district convention:
•

To Continue to Ask the Synod to Grant Lay Vote to Every Congregation at District Conventions:
The overture seems to misunderstand the sense of Bylaw 3.1.2.1 (c), which does not allow each
CCM Minutes – January 7, 2025 – Page 54