LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 261

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
met in advance, it may do so by two-thirds vote. Circumstances may
include, for example, the concurrence of the President, the Council of
Presidents, the Board of Directors, the receipt by a certain deadline of
a report from a particular group, or any other condition the convention
itself deems prudent.
A second method described for the calling of a special session
is for the President, under cases of urgent necessity, to call a special
session with the concurrence of two-thirds of the district presidents.
While the convention may by majority vote adopt a resolution encouraging the President to call a special session and suggest that he
should find “urgent necessity” under circumstances the convention
describes, Article VIII B 2 would nonetheless require the President
himself to concur that such urgency exists, and the President could
then call a special session only with the concurrence of two-thirds of
the district presidents.
Adopted May 18–20, 2007
Attendance at Special Sessions of the Synod (07-2495)
On May 21, 2007, a member of a convention floor committee
asked a series of four questions regarding attendees of a special convention of the Synod if one were to be called.
Question 1: With reference to Article VIII, Article IX, Bylaw 3.1ff
and any other pertinent articles or bylaws, in the calling
of a special session of the Synod, who would be required
to be in attendance in addition to voting delegates?
Opinion: The Commission on Constitutional Matters in Opinion
07-2490 has stated in answer to the question: “Is a ‘special session’ of the Synod the same as or different from a convention of the
Synod?” Opinion: “The only difference is terminology. In one case
the term used is a ‘regular meeting’ (Art. VIII A 1) and in another
a ‘special session’ which can be called in different ways (Art. VIII
B). Whether a ‘regular meeting’ or a ‘special session,’ either one
is a convention of the Synod, and the appropriate provisions under
Constitution Art. V, VIII, and IX and Bylaw section 3.1 apply to
both in the same way.” All of those required to attend a regular
meeting would also be required to attend a special session. (Art.
IX 1–3.)
Question 2: In the case that nonvoting, advisory delegates are to be in
attendance at a special session of the Synod, would they
be the same delegates from the prior regular convention
of the Synod as the voting delegates selected by their
electoral circuits who serve a three-year term would be?
Opinion: The Bylaws are silent on this question. Voting delegates
have a specific function to carry out after the regular meeting as set
forth in Bylaw 3.1.2.2, and that same bylaw specifically identifies
their term as three years. No mention is made in the Bylaws concerning such a responsibility or term of service for advisory delegates. By way of clarification the attendance of advisory delegates
at a convention is not determined by an election of the circuit.
Question 3: If nonvoting, advisory delegates do not serve the threeyear term as voting delegates do, would it be up to the
individual district’s determination in the course of time
between the regular convention and the special session
who would represent their advisory members?
Opinion: Advisory delegates and representatives are selected by
various entities or serve by reason of their office according to Bylaws 3.1.3.1–3.1.4.5. This would also be the case for a special session of the Synod.
Question 4: According to the Constitution and Bylaws, is it possible
that any advisory delegates from the districts or national

261

leadership may be excluded from attendance, as a cost
reduction for the special session?
Opinion: The same representation required for a regular meeting
of the Synod is also required for a special session (Art. IX). See
opinion to question 1.
Adopted July 13–19, 2007
Voting Delegate and Restricted Status (07-2497)
On June 13, 2007, the Commission on Constitutional Matters
received a request from the President of the Synod with respect to
a pastor on restricted status serving as a voting delegate to a Synod
convention.
Question: Does such restricted status, imposed after the pastor was
duly elected to be a voting delegate, affect his status as
a voting delegate to the convention?
Opinion: Under the provision of Restricted Status, Bylaw 2.13.3.2
states:
An individual member of the Synod on restricted status is ineligible to
(a)
(b)

perform functions of ministry except in the position of service, if
any, held at the inception of restricted status and otherwise only if
approved by the district president; and
accept a call to any other position of service in the Synod.

This provision (Bylaw 2.13.3.2), unlike the provision under Suspended Status (Bylaw 2.13.5.2), does not explicitly relieve an individual member of the Synod of one’s membership duties (e.g., as
a delegate to a district or Synod convention or as a member of any
district or Synod board or commission).
Thus restricted status does not affect one’s status as a voting delegate to a convention of the district or national Synod.
Adopted July 13–19, 2007
Specific Ministry Pastor Program (07-2499)
A pastor of the Synod, in a letter dated July 9, 2007, asked a question regarding the proposed Specific Ministry Pastor Program to come
before the 2007 convention. After introductory comments regarding
the status of specific ministry pastors and their relationship with other
pastors, he asked the following question.
Question: In view of the foregoing, would not the implementation of the Specific Ministry Pastor Program require a
change of the Synod’s Constitution, and would that not
require a two-thirds majority approval of the congregations of the Synod after the convention?
Opinion: The implementation of the program will not require a
change of the Synod’s Constitution and therefore will not require
a two-thirds majority approval of the congregations of the Synod
after the convention.
Adopted July 13–19, 2007
Specific Ministry Pastor Program (07-2500)
A pastor of the Synod, in a letter dated July 9, 2007, asked the
following question regarding the proposed Specific Ministry Pastor
Program to come before the 2007 convention.
Question: Should not the specific ministry pastor have to be listed
in Article V B of the Constitution? Simply changing
Bylaw 2.13 to accommodate this new category of pastor would seem to be very contrary to the purpose of
Article V—namely, to list every sort of member of the
Synod that there can be. The proposed Specific Ministry
Pastor Program pastors are not envisioned as an existing
category of pastor put on restricted status (the purpose
of Bylaw section 2.13) but a wholly new category of
2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 261

4/15/10 2:40 PM