# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1932_S116
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

158. Proceedings of Thirty-Fifth Regular Convention,

Resolved, That the English Proceedings be made to conform to
the German report, namely, that on page 128 the words “the recom.
mendation of the committee was adopted and the” be stricken.

This resolution was stricken from the report, and Synod resolyeg
instead that the Proceedings of 1929, page 128, under “Action” should
read: “The recommendation of Committee 14 was adopted,” ete. (thus
making it clear that the recommendations of the memorial [No. 414]
were rejected and merely this recommendation of Committee 14 was
adopted).

Regarding Memorial 401, 2, Committee 15 brought in the follow-
ing resolution : —

Wuereas, The constitution of the Synod demands that the “Presi.
dent, the Vice-Presidents, and the Secretary must be ministers of the
Church and, like the Treasurer and the members of the Board of
Directors, members of voting congregations” (X, B, 1); and

Wuereas, The constitution further declares that the constitution
of the Synod “is also the constitution of each District of the Synod”
(XIT, 2); therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod declare that the stipulation in regard
to the officers of the Synod shall apply also to the officers of each
District..

This resolution was adopted by Synod.

As to Memorial 401, 8, Committee 15 submitted the following
resolution : —

Wuereas, It has repeatedly happened that overtures concerning
changes of, or amendments to, the constitution and by-laws of the
Synod or its rules and regulations were made directly to the
Synod; and .

Wuenrsas, Such overtures according to our Synodical Handbook,
page 99, 2, should first “be submitted to the standing Committee on
Constitutional Matters in order that it may examine them (contents
and language) as to their constitutionality or their agreement or dis-
agreement with existing regulations”; therefore be it

Resolved, That the attention of members of the Synod wishing
to make such overtures be called to this regulation concerning the
course to be pursued. ;

This resolution was adopted by Synod.

Memorial Regarding the Office of District School
Superintendent.
(Extracts from Memorial 204.)

This memorial was sent in by a committee of the Eastern Pas-
toral Conference of the North Wisconsin District according to a reso-
lution of the District. It was brought out that Synod has endorsed
the appointment of school superintendents on the part of the Districts,

Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. 1932. 159

but that this office is nowhere mentioned in the constitution and by-
laws of Synod. Therefore Synod was asked to take official action
regarding this office and its powers and duties.

Is the Office of the School Superintendent Constitutional?

The memorial held that certain stipulations of the Constitution
and By-laws seem to deny this.

1. The Synod of 1929 empowered the School Board to employ
a full-time secretary, who was under the supervision of the School
Board, not the Synod. This official is not a school superintendent,
but the “executive secretary” of the School Board.

2. When Synod in 1929 created a General Board for Christian
Education with the stipulation that this board be empowered to call
executives, the School Board and the Sunday-school Board were
abolished. No regulations were set up regarding the call and the
duties of these executives.

3. Although Synod has advised the Districts to call school super-
intendents, if possible, the Constitution has not been amended to de-
fine this office and its duties.

4. Most duties that would be referred to a school superintendent
have already been referred to the local pastor, the District President,
and the Visitors.

a. The pastor is ex officio a supervisor of the school as far as
religion is concerned.

b. Synod expects the District Presidents and the Visitors to super-
vise the doctrine, the life, and the official administration on the part
of the pastors and the teachers of their District. This would merely
leave the supervision of the instruction in secular branches and ex-
ternal methods to the school superintendents.

ce. Under present circumstances conflicts between the officials of
the Districts and the school superintendents seem unavoidable if all
will do their duty, as, for example, in call matters, supervising the
curriculum, including religious instruction, school discipline, ete. In
such matters a conflict might easily occur if both the school super-
intendent and the Visitor insist on doing their duty.

5. If the Districts, in calling school superintendents, refer certain
duties of the District Presidents and the Visitors to the school super-
intendent, they go beyond the Constitution, and such action would be
unconstitutional.

6. It is not denied that Synod has the right to institute the office
of school superintendents for the Districts, but only by officially in-
stituting this office and defining the rights and privileges of a school
superintendent to avoid any conflicts with the rights of the District
officials. This would require a change in the Constitution, its By-laws
and regulations.