# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 2 1994_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

practice to Section 3 of this constitution, as determined by the adjudication procedures
of the Synod.
9.3
In the event the congregation should dissolve, the property and all rights
connected therewith shall be transferred to that district of the Synod in which the
congregation held membership at the time of dissolution.
The Commission is of the opinion that this wording would meet the concerns which you expressed and
would, in fact, be acceptable if the Synod should even modify its adjudication processes in the future.
Using the proposed wording, under the present adjudication procedures, this would involve using a
reconciler from the district and a decision by a panel of reconcilers if the parties involved in the
disagreement cannot resolve the issues with the district reconciler's help.
77. Release of Names and Addresses of Lay Delegates to District Conventions (Ag. 1979) : A person
who had been designated by a congregation to serve as its lay delegate to a district convention had
requested the board of directors of the district to provide a copy of the list of names and addresses of lay
delegates to the district convention as selected by congregations. The board of directors of the district had
declined to do so and the person designated as delegate who was making the request had, in correspondence
with the Secretary of the Synod, asked that a decision be made on the matter. The Secretary had provided a
response and had indicated that if an official ruling was needed the request for such ruling should be made
to the Commission on Constitutional Matters directly. That request had now been made.
After careful review of the request, the Commission decided to respond as follows:
At its meeting held on April 9, 1994, the members of the Commission on Constitutional Matters
considered your request for an opinion regarding release of names and addresses of lay delegates to a
District Convention when requested to do so by a duly elected delegate of a congregation of the District.
After duly considering the matter, the Commission concurred with the response which was provided in a
March 14, 1994 communication from the Secretary of the Synod. This response stated in part:
Based upon the description of the dispute which you have provided, it does not appear that the
Dispute Resolution Process is the proper forum for dealing with this matter. There are a number of
issues which need to be considered:
1.

Bylaw 8.01 indicates that the process is available for resolving "disputes that involve as
parties, members of the Synod, the Synod itself, a District or an organization owned and
controlled by the Synod, persons involved in excommunication or lay members of congregations
of the Synod holding positions with the Synod itself or with Districts or other organizations
owned and controlled by the Synod and shall be the exclusive remedy to resolve such disputes."
While you are a duly elected delegate of your congregation to the 1994 New Jersey District
Convention, it is the congregation which must be a party to the case, not a delegate of a
congregation to the convention.

1.

Bylaw 4.07 indicates that districts may adopt bylaws and resolutions as long as they do not
conflict with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. The Bylaws of the Synod nowhere state
that districts are to release the addresses of lay delegates to district conventions, although they do
state that names and addresses of lay delegates to the national convention are to be published.
Consequently, since the New Jersey District Bylaws contain no statement on this matter they
cannot be said to be in conflict with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.

1.

Since the bylaws of the district do not clarify the matter, a decision must be made by