# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_November 4 5 1994_S7
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Can the elected lay delegate select his own alternate to vote in his place if the congregation
failed to elect an alternate?
In addition, the Commission had before it a letter from the circuit counselor who had conducted the
election, explaining the procedure which had been followed and the reasons for the action which had been
taken.
Before responding to the questions which had been posed, the Commission first determined that the request
had been forwarded by an eligible entity. It then reviewed the issues involved and decided to respond as
follows:
Before responding, the Commission notes two things: 1) It clearly recognizes the dilemma facing the
circuit and particularly the circuit counselor in attempting to deal properly with the issues involved as it
was seeking to carry out the election of the circuit delegates for the synodical convention on a timely
basis. It does not intend to find fault with a process adopted in an unprecedented situation; and 2) It is
responding in view of the fact that the request is signed by the President of Trinity Lutheran Church on
behalf of the Church Council. Based on other information provided, the Commission has concluded that
the request is a legitimate one coming from a body which is authorized by the congregation to represent
it between meetings. The Commission also believes that the substance of the matter should be dealt
with and that possible, but unlikely, technicalities should not prevent consideration of the issues.
The Commission has therefore considered the questions forwarded to it and responds as follows:
1. No, the pastor in question may not serve as the voting pastoral delegate to the Circuit Forum under
the conditions described. If the congregation is 'upheld in its action and the congregation believes
the pastoral vote was improperly cast and was determinative in the election of the circuit delegates,
the congregation would be in a position to challenge the election.
2. Under the circumstances described, the Circuit Forum cannot determine the eligibility of a pastor to
represent a congregation at a Circuit Forum in which convention delegates are elected.
3. This question has been answered in #1 above.
4. Given the congregational constitutional provision, the elected delegate may not select an alternate to
vote in his place at the Circuit forum if the congregation failed to elect an alternate or provided a
procedure for the designation of an alternate.
101. Constitutionality of Election of District Board of Directors (Ag. 1997) : At its district convention,
the California-Nevada-Hawaii District had adopted new bylaws which provided for a reorganized Board of
Directors. A pastor had written to the Commission on Constitutional Matters requesting a ruling which
stated, "The procedure passed by the convention (Resolution 4-03A) (see attached) specifically stipulates
"ratification" by the Board. He further stated several of us have challenged this election as being illegal and
in violation of the resolution. We believe the candidates with a plurality should have been ratified, or, at the
very least, if a majority of votes was needed, it should have been returned to the congregations for a vote.
This was clearly a case of an election held without the representation of the congregations.
The Commission had before it a copy of the resolution which was adopted, as well as a letter from the
district secretary to pastors, presidents, and congregations of the district regarding the election of regional
vice-presidents and regional directors. It stated among other things a procedure which would be followed if
ties or a lack of a majority occurred for any office. The procedure would be similar to that used at district
conventions to elect Circuit Counselors. If the procedure would be necessary, it was stated that there would