# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_undated_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Opinion: The answer is “no.” Bylaws 3.961, f and g, provide a mechanism whereby the convention shall
have the right to alter the slate of candidates at the proper time by amendment. Briefly, the procedure is:
(a) A delegate makes a motion to amend the slate of candidates for President by the
addition of another ordained minister.
(b)
The motion is seconded.
(c) The delegates, by vote, adopt the motion to add the ordained minister to the slate of
candidates for President, deliberately excluding verbal characterizations and discussion
of the motion.
(d) After all such amendments have been voted on, the convention then ratifies the slate of
candidates prior to the election for President.
However, the Bylaws require that any delegate making a nomination from the floor shall have secured prior
written consent of the candidate to be nominated. Such delegate shall immediately submit to the Secretary
of the Synod this document and written pertinent information concerning the nominee as detailed in Bylaw
3.961, e.
203. Request for Clarification of Secretary’s Reporting Responsibilities (01-2226)
In the interest of clarification of duties pertaining to the reporting of results of the nominating process for
President and First Vice-President, the Secretary of the Synod requested the following opinion from the
Commission.
Question:
Is the Secretary of the Synod required to divulge prior to the publication of the
convention manual (Workbook) the names of the candidates for President and First
Vice-President of the Synod and/or the number of nominations each candidate
received?
Opinion: Bylaw 3.963, d states that “The Secretary of the Synod…shall report to the convention by means
of the convention manual the names and tallies of all clergymen who have received nominating votes for
the office of President and First Vice-President.” The Bylaws do not require the Secretary of the Synod to
divulge this information to any other person prior to its publication in the convention manual nor do the
Bylaws prohibit such prior dissemination. Thus the matter is left to the discretion of the Secretary of the
Synod.
204. Request for Reconsideration of Agenda Item 00-2211 (01-2227)
In a letter dated April 9, 2001, the President of Concordia University, Portland asked the Commission to
revisit its opinion rendered in agenda item 00-2211. This item concerned a resolution passed by the Iowa
District East (3-06) memorializing the convention of the Synod. Titled “To Promote Better Doctrine and
Practice at Concordia Portland,” it calls for the President of the Synod to “formally investigate the doctrine
and practice of Concordia University, Portland with a view toward addressing the concerns about false
doctrine at that institution….” The Commission’s prior opinion found that Bylaw 3.19 did not prohibit such
an overture being presented to the convention.
The April 9 letter raises two additional questions: (1) whether the resolution (now listed in the Workbook
for the 2001 Synod convention as Overture 5-11) is contrary to Art. XII, 2, of the Synod’s Constitution
because it is in conflict with the procedures outlined for dealing with complaints against members of a
college’s faculty or administration in Bylaw 6.47; and (2) whether, now that it has notice of the complaints
of false doctrine through publication of Resolution 3-06, the Board of Regents of Concordia, Portland must

202