# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_October 26 2000_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The answer to this question, however, remains “no.” It will be necessary to first establish that the faculty
member has been guilty of advocacy of false doctrine or failure to honor and uphold the doctrinal position
of the Synod, without which there is no basis for determining whether the president has been negligent in
his supervisory duties.
175. Question Regarding Electoral Circuit Exceptions (00-2210)
A District President in a letter dated August 23, 2000, refers to Bylaw 3.03 which defines the constitution
of electoral circuits of the Synod and underscores the final sentence of the Bylaw: “Exceptions to these
requirements and limitations can be made only by the President of the Synod upon request of a District
Board of Directors.” He raises the following question regarding the nature of those exceptions:
QUESTION: “When a District Board of Directors has requested the granting of such exceptions
and when the President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has granted
such exceptions, are such exceptions perpetual or is there a time limitation to
them?”
Opinion: Bylaw 3.03 (and corresponding Bylaw 5.03) offer no suggestion that exceptions granted by the
President of the Synod extend beyond their immediate purpose and use. To the contrary, the every-threeyears nature of the entire “Chapter III, Section A Conventions” section of the Bylaws indicates that this is
a process to be undertaken in its entirety in preparation for each convention of the Synod. In addition,
membership statistics regularly change, requiring regular reconsideration of the requirements of the
Bylaws to assure proper representation. Finally, voting delegates also serve three-year terms of office,
beginning with each convention (Bylaw 3.07). Exceptions granted, therefore, are not perpetual but are
limited to three years.
176. Question Regarding the Propriety of a District Convention Resolution (00-2211)
The Chairman of a Board of Regents of a synodical university in a letter dated August 28, 2000, requests
the opinion of the Commission regarding an action taken by a District of the Synod to memorialize the
convention of the Synod, specifically, to direct the President of the Synod to formally investigate the
doctrine and practice of the university. The chairman, on behalf of the Board of Regents, makes the
following request, suggesting that the Commission declare the resolution null and void and direct the
President of the District that is memorializing the Synod to so inform the constituency of the District:
QUESTION: “On behalf of the board, I respectfully request a ruling on the propriety of a district
resolution in apparent conflict with the by-laws of Synod.”
Opinion: Bylaw 3.19, a, 2, allows that a convention of a District may submit overtures to a convention of
the Synod. The Commission is neither able nor responsible to discern the relevance or advisability or
truth of the content of any overture submitted to a convention. This is the concern of the floor committee
that is given the responsibility for responding to the overture and for recommending one of several
convention actions in response.
The Commission calls attention to Bylaw 3.19, c, which prescribes those kinds of overtures that shall not
be accepted for convention consideration, namely, “overtures with reference to a case in which a member
has been suspended or expelled and which is at present in the process of or subject to appeal, as well as
overtures which, upon advice of legal counsel, may subject the Synod or the corporate officers of the
Synod to civil action for libel or slander.” The overture in question does not fall into any of these
categories.
177. Question Regarding the Propriety of an Action Taken by a District (00-2212)

186