LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1983, Page 229

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

STRUCTURE AND CONSTITUTION 229

Board of Regents of each college shall consist of the following
voting members:

1. two pastors, two teachers, and four lay persons elected by
the convention of the Synod; and

2. the President of the geographical District or a District
Vice-President as his standing representative’; and be it
further

Resolved, That the new 6.01 b be implemented beginning
with the 1986 convention of the Synod; and be it finally

Resolved, That members of the Boards of Regents elected in
1982 under the Bylaw adopted in 1981 be asked to serve a
four-vear term rather than the term specified by the transition
plan to implement the numerous changes in governance
adopted at the 1981 convention.

Board for Professional Education Services
Walter L. Rosin, Executive Secretary

5-63
To Amend Nominating Procedures

By a vote of 564 to 392, the Synod in convention, 1981,
adopted a resolution to provide each District with represen-
tation in the nominating process. The following recommen-
dations were approved (2-12):

1. That each District elect. through its regular election proce-
dures at the District convention, one member of the Committee for
Convention Nominations plus an alternate;

2. That one-half of the Districts (in alphabetical order) elect a
professional church worker and one-half elect a layman, with the
roles reversed every three years:

3. That although subcommittee structures would be emploved as
in the past, the entire committee must determine each slate:

4. That nominations from the floor will still be received:

4. That the Secretary of the Synod handle the preliminary work.

Previously, the Bylaws of the Synod called for the election
of a 15—person committee representing various geographical
areas of the Synod.

Resolutions 2-17 and 5-14 (1981) required that “all suggested
names and information for consideration by the Committee for
Convention Nominations shall be submitted to the committee
no later than eight months prior to the synodical convention.”
(Nov. 8, 1982, deadline for July 8, 1983, convention)

Bylaw 2.941 b requires the Committee for Convention
Nominations to take office on September 1 following the
District conventions in the year immediately preceding a
synodical convention. Solicitation of names and convening the
first meeting of the committee are the responsibility of the
Secretary of the Synod (2.9435 a).

The Secretary of the Synod extended the call for nomi-
nations in the April issue of the Lutheran Witness. Submitted
were 890 names. However, an additional call for nominations
had to be made in the Oct. 4 Reporter to fill 25 positions and to
provide an adequate supply of alternates—a total of 288
persons declined to serve, or failed to return their consent to
serve forms.

The Committee for Convention Nominations was convened
by the Secretary of the Synod on Sept. 23, 1982. Thirty-eight
District representatives met for orientation, and then elected a
chairman and a vice-chariman. This was the first opportunity
for most of the members of the Committee for Convention
Nominations to serve the Synod in this capacity. Therefore,
much of the first meeting was devoted to orientation, organi-
zation, and procedural matters.

A plan for organization submitted by the Synod’s Secretary
was adopted. The Districts were listed according to size and
then counted off (1-2-3-4) to form four sections. Each section
elected a chairman and divided into three subcommittees.
Section chairmen drew three program board assignments and
three Board of Regents assignments. In this way the work was
divided.

Each subcommittee had two slates to prepare. Their order of
preference for each board was later submitted to the entire
section for review and revision, and finally also to the plenary
committee, where the slate was reviewed, revised, and finally

adopted. Only tentative approval could be given to two slates,
because all “consent to serve forms” had not yet been sub-
mitted.

This matter, and the selection of several alternates and a
reserve list of nominees, were delegated to a committee of eight
members, comprised of the committee officers, section chair-
men, and two members-at-large. With 98% of the work of the
plenary committee finished at the close of its second meeting,
Dec. 9—10, 1982, the committee did not deem it wise to spend
another approximately $20,000 to gather all 38 persons for the
finish-up tasks that remained.

The committee found itself in a dilemma. In order to obey
the letter of the Bylaws, the entire Committee for Convention
Nominations should have been convened to complete the
remaining 2": of the committee's business. In addition, the
entire committee should be called upon to attend the con-
vention full time. in order to prepare and approve any slate
which might be needed or required as a result of convention
action. The average cost to bring one person to convention full
time is estimated at approximately $1,450. Multiply this by 38,
and the total amount of money required to fulfill this portion of
the Bylaw requirement is $55,100. Thirty-five of the committee
voted in favor of delegating this final responsibility to the
subcommittee of eight, mentioned above. Three voted against,
including the Reverend Paul H. Blunck of Montana, whoasked
that his negative vote be recorded.

The committee itself believes that the spirit of the Bylaws
has been fulfilled, and would respectfully ask the convention to
concur in its decision, in the interest of economy, namely, to
allow the subcommittee to prepare any ballot that may be
required at this convention.

With no known exceptions, the members of the committee
appreciated the opportunity to represent their District in the
nominating process, and believe that they had a hand in
selecting the best candidates available for the various slates.
The short period of time in which the committee actually
functioned made it difficult to achieve the kind of geographic
distribution of candidates that may have been envisioned.
Obviously, the election itself may minimize any effort made in
that direction.

The committee proposes that in the future the Nominating
Committee should be convened no later than February 15 in
the year preceding the synodical convention. This will enable
members to become acquainted with their duties and with the
needs of various boards of the Synod in time to help solicit
names within their own Districts. Under the present arrange-
ment. by the time District representatives are elected and then
(after Sept. 1) learn what their duties are and what the needs of
the Synod are, it is too late to be of much help to their Districts
in the task of soliciting names of suitable persons for various
boards and commissions.

Weare not opposed at all to the involvement of the Secretary
of the Synod in the matter of soliciting names, but we believe
that the District representatives can and should be more
actively engaged in this phase of the process, if slates are to be
truly representative of all Districts.

A number of recommendations were made by the Committee
for Convention Nominations which guided the committee’s
action and which may be helpful for future committees.

Nominating Committee Recommendations

1. That no more than one person from a District appear on the
ballot for any board, the Boards of Regents being an
exception.

2. That incumbents should be excluded when applying the
above rule.

3. That no name should appear more than once on the total
ballot.

4. That an earlier activation of the Committee for Convention
Nominations is desirable for effectiveness and to assure its
independence of operation and performance.

The following resolution was adopted, namely:

Resolved, That each District’s Board of Directors shall
elect a member and alternate to the synodical Nominating
Committee prior to January 1 of the year preceding the
general synodical convention. The Secretary of the Synod