# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_February 1 1985_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Herring would also be ineligible, although one term of service on the Board was due to election by a
district convention rather than by the convention of the Synod; and that the Commission had no opinion
on the eligibility of David Krohn, although it is understood that unless the district convention carves out
an exception in his case, he is also ineligible for reelection.
101. Designation of First Vice-President When President's Office is Vacated (Ag. 1714, 1726): A number
of questions had been asked regarding the person who serves in place of the president of a district upon
his death or incapacity, as well as the question of determination of incapacity. The questions came about
as a result of the death of President Huber of the Montana District In response, the Commission replied
that the Handbook of the Synod takes precedence only in a case where the Bylaws of the district are in
conflict with the provisions of the Handbook. Since the Bylaws of the Montana District state that, "The
vice-presidents shall, in the order in which they have been ranked, perform the duties of the president in
the event that the president's office is vacated or the president becomes incapacitated," the Commission
reaffirmed a previous opinion given to the English District, stating that it is proper to designate a vicepresident who assumes the duties of the president as the acting president. The Commission assumes that
since the district Bylaws do not conflict with the Handbook of the Synod, the Bylaws of the district are
operative. The Commission will request the Commission on Structure to review the issue. It should be
noted that Bylaw 3.07, b, of the Handbook states that, "The Bylaws of the Synod shall be primarily the
Bylaws of the district. A district may adopt additional bylaws, regulations, and resolutions necessary or
proper for its own administration or for effectively carrying on the work of the Synod." It is suggested
that the Montana District clarify this matter in its own Bylaws. The Commission also ratified the response
of the Secretary to a further inquiry and thereby stated that the Handbook is silent on the application of
Bylaw 2.107 to a district situation, although it does provide a guideline which might prove useful. It is
also silent with regard to the application of 2.129 to a vacancy situation in the vice-presidential positions
on the district level.
102. Guidelines, Congregational Constitution (Ag. 1712, 1713, 1724): A number of questions had been
raised with regard to the "Guidelines for the Constitution of a Congregation" prepared by the
Commission. Several members had questioned the failure to include the need for a unanimous decision in
matters of excommunication. The Commission ratified the response of the Secretary which stated reasons
why the Commission did not include this language. It was also pointed out that the subject is not covered
in the Constitution or Bylaws of the Synod. Furthermore, congregations are urged to proceed cautiously
because of the potential of a secret ballot and the challenge to a "valid" vote apart from such a ballot. In
conversation with Dr. Nafzger of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, the Commission
also received the information that essays appearing in the Abiding Word have no specific authority except
that of pious opinion.
In response to other questions which were raised, it was pointed out that it should be self-evident that
constitutions, as well as amended constitutions, should be dated. The Commission agrees that it may be
proper for a larger majority to be stated in dealing with certain substantive issues, but feels that it is
proper for the congregation to determine the majority required. Although the Commission agrees that it
would be good for the purpose of a special meeting to be publicly stated and that issues considered in the
meeting be limited to that stated purpose, it also felt that ordinarily the purpose of a special meeting is
included in the announcement and that sufficient protection is provided because of the notice which is
required.
With regard to the limitations in 12.0, the Commission points out that it has quoted what was approved by
resolutions of the Synod and reaffirmed on several occasions. Any further explication of this matter
would require a ruling by the convention of the Synod, perhaps based upon an opinion provided by the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations.