# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_undated_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Question 2:

Does any entity other than the one that actually adopted a proposed overture have the
authority to revise it? In this case, may anyone other than a convention of Iowa
District East (such as the District’s Board of Directors) make the changes necessary to
bring the Iowa District East action “into conformity with the Constitution and Bylaws
of the Synod before it is presented” (your language) to the synodical convention?

Opinion: Yes. The floor committees appointed by the President of the Synod have the responsibility to
review overtures. Bylaw 3.19, f, provides that “After due consideration of the matters referred to it, each
committee is to report its findings and recommendations to the convention.” This language has traditionally
been understood to allow the floor committees to modify individual overtures or even combine several
overtures into one for consideration by the convention.
206. Commission on Constitutional Matters Comments on Proposed Handbook Prepared by the
Commission on Structure (01-2229)
The Commission on Constitutional Matters is charged to "examine all reports and overtures to the Synod
asking for amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod or which in any manner affect the
Constitution and Bylaws, to determine their agreement in content and language with the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod" (Bylaw 3.905, a). Pursuant to that responsibility, the Commission has, on an ongoing
basis, briefly reviewed various drafts of a proposed comprehensive revision of the Synod's Handbook (its
Constitution and Bylaws) prepared by the Commission on Structure pursuant to Resolution 7-01 of the
Synod's 1998 convention.
The CCM recognizes that the task undertaken by the Commission on Structure was monumental, and that
many long hours of labor and thought have gone into the various drafts of the proposed revisions. The
Commission on Structure is to be commended for its hard work, diligence and industry. The CCM has
expressed concerns on an ongoing basis over certain aspects of the proposed revisions (00-2206). The latest
draft of those proposed revisions was distributed throughout the Synod over a period of a week ending
approximately May 3, 2001. Because of the extent of the revisions proposed, and the short time for which
the latest version of the proposed revisions has been available for review, the CCM has had a limited
opportunity to carefully review the latest draft on a word by word basis. Nonetheless, the CCM has
reviewed the proposed draft sufficiently to make the following comments:
I. Policy-Based Management
Initial drafts of the proposed revisions distinguished between bylaws which were essential to define the
structure of the Synod and bylaws which defined "policy and procedure," implying that eventually those
bylaws which dealt with policy and procedure could be removed from the Bylaws and made part of a policy
manual to be prepared, and modified at will, by each individual board, commission or other entity within
the Synod. The CCM expressed concern over this distinction, finding that it did not have support within the
existing Bylaws, and that delegating the "policy and procedure" portion of the Bylaws to be administered by
the various entities which were governed thereby would work a fundamental shift in the governance of the
Synod away from the individual congregations and the Synod in convention and toward the Board of
Directors and the professional administrators who handle the day to day affairs of the Synod. The
Commission on Structure responded by explaining in the forward to the latest draft of the Proposed
Handbook that "[b]oth categories [of bylaws], the result of prior convention action, remain Bylaw material,
are therefore binding for all synodical entities, and will require convention action if changes are to be
made." However, the distinction between "structural" and "policy and procedure" bylaws is maintained in
the latest draft. The CCM is unaware of any reason for this distinction other than to eventually propose to
remove the "policy and procedure" bylaws to procedure manuals. If this apparently logical step from the
Proposed Handbook were implemented, it would have profound implications for the governance of the

205