# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S209
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 209

touch with the Board of Directors and consequently has ascer-
tained that the board is suggesting to Anaheim that a mandatory
retirement age of 65 be adopted for all synodically appointed
staff. In view of this, the committee recommends additionally
to the Anaheim convention that the following resolution be
adopted:

“WHEREAS. It is highly desirable that uniform retirement
ages be established by the Synod for all of its salaried personnel:
and

“WHEREAS, Actuarial tables, pension policies, and experience
demonstrate that age 65 is the universal choice for universal
retirement: therefore be it

“Resolved, That Bylaw 2.07 a be amended by changing ‘First
Vice-President’ to ‘Vice-Presidents’ and to insert ‘of the Trea-
surer’ and further by adding the following after ‘reelection’:
‘salaried elected officers of the Synod shall not be eligible for
election or reelection to the term of office in which they pass
their 68th birthday,’ so that the entire amended paragraph
reads:

a. The offices of the President, of the Vice-Presi-
dents, of the Secretary, and of the Treasurer of the
Synod shall be without limitation as to the number of
terms: however, these elected officers shall not be
eligible for election or reelection to a term of office in
which they pass their 68th birthday.
and be it further

“Resolved, That the recommendations of the Board of
Directors re mandatory retirement at age 65 for the synodical
staff also be applied to the faculty of synodical educational
institutions, and that Bylaw 6.82 e be amended and combined
with 6.82 f to read:

e. Faculty members shall be retired by action of the
Board of Control at the end of the calendar year in
which they reach age 65. Any further service beyond
the mandatory date shall be on a contract basis not
to exceed 1 year in duration, upon medical certifica-
tion, with a provision for annual review to age 70.”

8. Res. 5-08 Bylaws re Staff Officers in Elective
and Appointive Positions

Here is another resolution which remains uncompleted since
the 1971 Milwaukee convention. The committee studied Milwau-
kee Overture 4-42 after Milwaukee Res. 4-42 could not be acted
upon in 1971. The overture requested that all conflicts of interest
incurred by a staff member’s service between a synodical and
District board be eliminated. The committee believes that
adequate safeguards have already been provided by Bylaw
2.15 a, b, and c. In view of such consideration, the committee
recommends to the Anaheim convention the adoption of New
Orleans Res. 5-08 (Proceedings. 1973, pp. 166 —67).

9, Res.5-40 Conflict of Interest

This is the third time that a synodical convention is dealing
with a conflict of interest resolution. Res. 5-40, “‘To Decline
to Define Conflict of Interest” is a carry-over resolution which
was initially brought before the Milwaukee convention in Over-
ture 5-86 (Workbook. 1971, pp. 274-75). The overture requested
that the Synod reaffirm Bylaws 2.12 and 3.37 as applying to all
elected and appointed officials of the Synod and Districts in
all matters “including participation in divisive activities, pro-
grams, and publications,” and that the Board of Directors be
authorized, when aware of such a violation, to ‘‘request that the
offending official either immediately cease his participation in
the divisive activities, program, or publication, or immediately
submit his resignation from the position to which he was elected
or appointed.”

The Milwaukee convention Floor Committee formulated
Res. 5-43 (Proceedings. 1971, p. 169), which was not acted upon
because of lack of time. Through the route of the Board of
Directors, it subsequently came to the committee, which in turn
resubmitted the resolution to New Orleans. That convention,
too, did not have sufficient time to adopt it, and as a result it
appeared before the committee again. The committee reviewed
it a second time. In this review the committee believes that addi-
tional steps are necessary to avoid any potential interlocking
directorates and internally competitive programs. In view of
this, the committee recommends to the Anaheim convention the

adoption of New Orleans Res. 5-40 (Proceedings. 1973, p. 174),
thereby declining Milwaukee Overture 5-86.

At the same time the committee nevertheless respectfully
calls the attention of the Synod to the problem of the existence
of parallel or competitive programs involving the synodical
membership as well as interlocking directorates, both of which
may pose potential conflicts of interest in some areas.

10. Res. 5-21 Function of the Council of Presidents

The Committee for Reorganization, given the assignment
prior to the New Orleans convention to study the role and
function of the Council of Presidents, notes again that the term
“Council of Presidents” does not appear in the Constitution.
Joint action of the District Presidents is, nevertheless, indicated
in several instances both in the Constitution and the Bylaws.
Further, the committee reiterates several considerations: that
the Districts comprise the Synod in their respective geographical
areas, that the office of the District President is an extension
of that of the synodical President, and that the District President
is the executive head of the District which elected him.

In terms of these principles the committee reported to the
New Orleans convention that the role of the Council of Presi-
dents, as historically carried out in our church, would be one
in which the council exists in an advisory capacity to the synod-
ical President and that it have the prerogative to offer sugges-
tions to the President, assist him in carrying out his duties, and
finally that it perform those duties which the Synod would
prescribe from time to time and allocate to it.

The New Orleans Floor Committee concurred in the recom-
mendation of the committee, but because of lack of time, its
resolution could not be considered. Subsequently it was there-
fore turned back to the Board of Directors, which in turn
reassigned it to this committee. The committee reviewed the
issues involved as well as the Floor Committee's proposed
Resolution 5-21 to New Orleans and hereby submits to the
Anaheim convention for adoption its original proposals, which
state:

WHEREAS. The District presidents are historically the arms of
the synodical President and responsible to him (Handbook 3.41): and
WHEREAS. The role of the Council of Presidents, as historically
carried out in our church, would be one in which the Council exists
in an advisory capacity to the synodical President, that the Council
of Presidents would have the prerogative to offer suggestions to the

President, would assist the President in carrying out his duties,

and would perform those duties which the Synod would prescribe

from time to time and allocate to it: and
WHEREAS. Such functions of the Council of Presidents should be
enumerated in the Bylaws: therefore be it

Resolved. That the last sentence of Bylaw 3.41 be deleted, which
reads: “The District Presidents, together with the President and
Vice-Presidents of the Synod, shall form the Council of Presidents”:
and be it also

Resolved, That a new Bylaw Section 3.53 be adopted as follows:

3.53 Council of Presidents

The President and Vice-Presidents of the Synod and the
District Presidents shall form the Council of Presidents. The
Council shall meet at the call of the President:

a. To enable the President to advise and counsel his
representatives in the Districts:

b. To enable the District Presidents in turn to give counsel
to the President:

c. To counsel with one another on matters regarding the
doctrine and administration of the Synod and its Districts:

d. To edify and support one another in the work they
share;

e. To carry out such assignments as the Synod may give
to the Council from time to time” (Proceedings. 1973, pp.
170-71)

11. Res. 4-29 Deferring Merger

Overture 4-36 (Workbook. 1973, p. 196) was submitted to the
New Orleans convention suggesting that the Commission on
Organizations be merged with the Commission on Theology
and Church Relations. The Floor Committee had proposed
Res. 4-29 declining the overture in view of the pending review
of the Synod’s organizational restructuring. The committee
checked into the implications of the proposed merger, both
with the Commission on Theology and Church Relations and the
Commission on Organizations, and found that the proposals
would not provide any savings in staff, space, or finances, and