# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 25 1997_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

be made a requirement for the nomination of "President, two or more Vice-Presidents, [and] a
Secretary." Bylaw 4.51, a, states
a. The following officers shall be elected from the clergy roster of the Synod by each District: a
President, two or more Vice-Presidents, a Secretary, and a Circuit Counselor for each Circuit
established by the District. [Emphasis added]
Based on this bylaw, candidates for these offices may hold their membership in other districts.
However, as required in Bylaw 4.51, c,
c. All officers and members of boards shall be members of member congregations of the
District upon assuming office and during the course of their tenure. [Emphasis added]
With respect to members of boards and commissions, the district may require that candidates for these
positions be "members of voting congregations" and "active in the District for at least one year." There
is no synodical bylaw prohibiting this restriction, nor is there any which states that they may hold
membership in member congregations of other districts. Constitution Article XII, 2, grants the privilege
of imposing this restriction when it states that
" . . . each District is at liberty to adopt such bylaws and pass such resolutions as it deems
expedient for its conditions, provided that such bylaws and resolutions do not conflict with the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod."
With respect to Circuit Counselors, the only restriction is that contained in synodical Bylaw 5.11, which
states
"Every voting congregation of each Circuit shall be entitled to nominate as a candidate for the
office of Circuit Counselor either one or two individual pastors of the member congregations of
the Circuit or from among the emeriti who hold membership in one of the member
congregations of that Circuit."
In view of the above, the Florida-Georgia Bylaws must be modified to be in conformity with the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod relative to the nomination of officers as indicated.
122. Constitutionality of Eastern District Resolution (Ag. 2082, A): A member of the Eastern District
had asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters to provide an opinion regarding the constitutionality
of a resolution adopted at the 1997 convention of the Eastern District. After stating the motion as adopted,
he expressed the view that the district had fundamentally and substantively changed the relationship of the
district to the congregations by referring to the restructuring of the district structure toward "greater
partnership with congregations." He stated that on the basis of the Bylaws of the Synod, there is no
statement to the effect that the district is in partnership with congregations. His question was whether the
resolution, in effect, altered the Bylaws of the Synod without benefit of a synodical resolution in convention
and, if so, was the resolution and subsequent action of the convention null.
A second question which was raised was with regard to the authorization given to the Board of Directors to
"exercise responsible flexibility" in regard to existing regulations. His question was whether a district bylaw
is different than a district regulation and if there is no difference, was the Board of Directors, by this
resolution, being granted the authority to exercise responsible flexibility regarding Bylaws of the district.
He further asked whether, if this was the case, the resolution left the district open to the possibility of
litigation, whether the resolution was then constitutional, and if not, whether the resolution was null.