# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_October 23 1996_S1
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

1, Can our Nominations Committee require that potential nominees sign our Conflict of Interest Policy
as part of the nomination process (as opposed to signing it after they are elected)?
There is nothing in the Bylaws which would prevent a Nominations Committee from using the
signing of the conflict of interest policy as a criterion for nomination. However, the Commission
does not believe it is a wise procedure and rather than requiring a signing in advance, would
encourage the Committee to notify all who are being considered for nomination that if they are
nominated and elected, they will be required to sign a conflict of interest statement. Unless that
approach is taken, it is possible that good candidates could be eliminated by default, e.g., lost in
the mail, simply overlooked, etc. Furthermore, there may be questions relative to the policy which
are not easily answered by others than members of the board on which one would serve if elected.
2.

If someone refuses to sign the form, can they be eliminated from further consideration for an
elected position within the District?
The Commission believes its response to the first question also responds to this concern. It would
note, however, that the reference is to consideration by the Nominations Committee and not to
consideration by the convention, which may add to the slate of nominees provided by the
Committee.

2.

If we cannot require that a person sign the form prior to the time of their actual nomination, by
what time must they sign the form?
The phrase "cannot require" is also dealt with in question one. Before participating in the
decision-making process of a district board, commission, or administration as an officer, the
person should be required to sign the policy. This could involve logistical problems since those
elected and present are usually installed at the time of the district convention. However, it is the
principle of being involved in the decision process or administration noted above which should
govern. The Commission would also note that this is in agreement with point 8 of the district's
conflict of interest policy.

69. Dissenting View Regarding 1995 Resolution 3-05 (Ag. 2048) : In a letter to the Commission, a pastor
had indicated that in his opinion Resolution 3-05 was confusing because it indicated that disagreement
regarding the matter of woman suffrage in the church, as well as the holding of certain positions, was not
divisive of fellowship. It was noted that if a person followed the procedures for expressing dissent, it would
be possible that the position of the Synod would still not be changed while the dissenter also retained his
position on the issue. The question then arose as to whether or not, since the matter was not divisive of
fellowship, the person who had followed the process for dissent would be free to teach his position. In
responding to the questions which had been raised, the Commission first agreed that the particular resolve
in question appeared to be confusing. Nevertheless, it also stated that it believed it could be properly
understood and was not contradictory to the other resolves of the resolution. In its response, the
Commission stated the following:
The Commission concludes that the very fact that provision is made for dissent and the proper
procedure for expressing it implies that not every matter on which one dissents is divisive of fellowship.
Nevertheless, because the members of the Synod seek to express their common faith publicly, it is
imperative that such dissent be given careful consideration in an effort to achieve objectives 1 and 6 as
found in Article III of the Constitution. These are stated as