# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1973_S209
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

208 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

has gained majority support, whereupon he shall
be declared the alternate delegate.

b. Prior to the meeting of the electoral circuit,
each congregation shall nominate a layman, either
from its congregation or from the circuit, the name
to be submitted to the circuit counselor. All con-
gregational nominees shall be eligible for election.
The election shall follow the same procedures as in
paragraph “a” above, until a lay delegate and a lay
alternate delegate shall have been chosen.

c. The Counselor(s) shall report the results of
the election to the Secretary of the District in
writing immediately after said election. If neither
the delegate nor the alternate (pastoral or lay) can
serve, the vacancy shall be filled by the District
President in consultation with the respective Cir-
cuit Counselor (s).

The Committee is of the opinion that these proposals not
only expedite procedures but they also enable the circuit to
choose the lay delegate by name instead of merely choosing
a congregation which in turn would elect the lay delegate.
It is the committee's conviction that this would be an im-
provement in democratic procedure.

Clarification of 1.57 and 1.61

The Committee on Organization had recommended to
the Milwaukee convention Bylaw changes on 1.57 and 1.61.
Since, however, questions of interpretation have arisen on
these changes, the committee has reviewed the issue.

The Constitution and Bylaws grant advisory members of
the Synod the right to be represented at conventions of the
Synod. However, the Committee on Organization concluded
in the biennium prior to the Milwaukee convention that ad-
visory members should not have two opportunities to be
selected as delegates to a convention. The committee ac-
cordingly made a recommendation to the Milwaukee con-
vention for a Bylaw change designed to apply this principle.
The recommendation was accepted. However. the Committee
on Constitutional Matters subsequently ruled that the lan-
guage was not clear enough and therefore suggested that the
Committee on Organization should return to the New Or-
leans convention with a more precise wording for the pur-
pose of clarification.

The committee, therefore, recommends to the New Or-
leans convention that Bylaw 1.61f be deleted. but that in-
stead a new paragraph be added to Bylaw 1.57 (Advisory
Delegates) to read:

b. Advisory members of the Synod who are eli-
gible to serve as advisory representatives to the
convention under the terms of Bylaw 1.61 shall not
be counted in determining the number of advisory
delegates from a District; neither shall they par-
ticipate in their selection nor be eligible to serve as
such advisory delegates.

Further, the committee recommends to New Orleans that
Bylaw 1.57 be further amended to increase the number of
advisory clergymen and teachers by decreasing the ratio
from 30 to 20 of such representation. The paragraph would
be revised to read:

a. Each District shall send one advisory delegate
for every unit of 20 advisory clergymen and one
advisory delegate for every unit of 20 teachers on
the roster of the Synod. These selections shall be
made by the respective groups meeting at the call
of the District Secretary during the District con-
ventions. Fractions of less than half a unit shall be
disregarded except that each District shall be en-
titled to at least one advisory delegate in each
category.

Youth and Student Body Representation

Three overtures to the Milwaukee convention (5-18, 5-19,
5-20) called for student representation from our synodical
campuses to the conventions of the Synod. The Milwaukee
convention decided by means of Resolution 5-37 (Proceed-
ings, 1971, pp. 167—~168) that these concerns were to be re-
ferred by the Board of Directors to a committee to study this
and related matters. The Board in turn has referred this to
the Committee on Organization.

Also, Resolution 15-02 (Proceedings, 1971, p. 217) at Mil-
waukee granted the privilege of speaking from the floor in
an unrestricted way to the accredited youth representa-
tives and resolved that the matter of unrestricted speaking
at future conventions be referred to the Board of Directors
for referral to a committee appointed to study this and re-
lated matters. Under this provision the Board of Directors
referred this matter to the Committee on Organization.

With respect to the request that our synodical student
bodies be represented at the conventions of the Synod, your
committee calls attention to the fact that the “advisory rep-
resentatives” detailed in Bylaw 1.61 represent the working
force of the Synod which is reporting to the Synod in con-
vention on how it has carried out the Synod's directives. In
the light of that fact, it would seem that representation from
our colleges should come from those who are responsible for
the same. This would be the Board of Control and the fac-
ulty rather than the student body. It would therefore not
appear consistent with logic or with the constitutional phi-
losophy of the Synod to include students among such rep-
resentatives,

With respect to “youth representatives,” the committee
calls attention to the fact that at New Orleans the Districts
will be officially represented at the synodical convention for
the first time in history, through one or two members of the
District Board of Directors or its executive staff (Bylaw
1.6le). It hardly seems feasible that young people should
be accorded a similar distinction because their responsi-
bilities do not at all measure up to those of the many board
and commission members and executives who are doing the
work of the Synod in the Districts.

Furthermore. these young people are members of con-
gregations. Lowered voting age makes it possible for many
young people to be chosen by their congregations as the dele-
gates of the congregations to the conventions of the Districts
and of the Synod. It would therefore not seem logical and
in harmony with the polity principles of the Synod to grant
these young people special status or speaking privileges on
the floor of the convention.

Your committee believes that the attendance at the con-
vention of these young people (students and youth repre-
sentatives) is beneficial. Therefore, in order to provide this
opportunity for them and in order to be consistent with the
constitutional principles of the Synod, your committee rec-
ommends that Bylaw 1.65 be amended to read as follows:

1.65 Youth Participation

Each District may invite one or two young peo-
ple to attend the convention under District spon-
sorship with guest status, without floor speaking
privileges. The synodical Board of Youth Ministry
shall be responsible for arranging a program of
meaningful activity for the young people during
the convention.

Further, it recommends that a new Bylaw on Student
Participation be added to the Handbook as Section 1.67 to
read as follows:

1.67 Student Participation

Each educational institution of the Synod may
invite one member of its student body to attend the
convention under its sponsorship with guest status,
without floor speaking privileges. The synodical
Board for Higher Education shall be responsible
for arranging a program of meaningful activity for
these students during the convention.

Voting Rights

Two resolutions (5-09 and 5-11, Proceedings, 1971, p. 155)
adopted by the Milwaukee convention referred quite a num-
ber of overtures (5-05, 5-06, 5-07, 5-09, 5-10, 5-11, 5-14, 5-16,
9-17, 5-21, 5-65) to the Committee on Organization for study.
All of these dealt in one way or another with the voting
rights at synodical conventions. Suggestions made included
the following:

1. Tc arrange for a more equitable distribution of dele-
gates among the Districts;

2. To permit larger congregations to have several lay
votes;