LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 205

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

10. ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
decision. Notwithstanding the provisions of any such
policy, any person connected with an institution who is a
member of Synod shall also remain under the ecclesiastical
supervision of the Synod, and nothing in any such CUS
institution policy shall be construed to limit or constrain
any action that may be taken, or the rights or
responsibilities of any party, pursuant to the Synod’s
Handbook with respect to a member of Synod.

D. BLIND DRAW BY SECRETARY OF COUNCIL OF
PRESIDENTS (COH 16-033)
Rationale
In its review of the Bylaw section 2.16 Standard Operating
Procedures Manual (SOPM; Op. 17-2840, Nov. 10–11, 2017),
the CCM noted that the blind draw in this bylaw should, for
consistency with the rest and in avoidance of any potential
appearance of conflict, be conducted by the secretary of the
Council of Presidents (COP) (who is functioning as “process
administrator”) instead of the chairman of the COP (who is
functioning in the place of a “suspending ecclesiastical
supervisor”). This is consistent with 2.16.7.2 and the
section, generally—and it has been the approach recommended in the SOPM, even contrary to the standing bylaw.
Therefore be it
Resolved, That Bylaw 2.16.7.1 be amended as follows:
PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
2.16.7.1
A Hearing Panel consisting of three district
presidents, excluding the chairman of the Council of
Presidents and any district president that is party to the
matter, shall conduct the hearing. The Panel shall be
selected as follows:
…
(c) The third district president selected by the other two
Hearing Panel members. If the two Hearing Panel
members cannot agree on the third Hearing Panel
member, then such third member shall be chosen by
blind draw from among the remaining district
presidents, with the blind draw administered by the
chairmansecretary of the Council of Presidents and
audited by witnesses.

Action: Adopted (4)
It was moved and seconded to strike the addition of “except in a
matter of sexual misconduct or criminal behavior” in proposed
Bylaw 3.10.5.7.9 (a). CCM Chairman George Gude noted that
continuing to omit this language would leave a serious
inconsistency between this Bylaw and Bylaw section 2.17. It was
moved to postpone consideration of this amendment for the CCM
to consider the matter; the chair ruled this out of order, CCM
Chairman Gude having already spoken for the commission.
Noting the orders of the day, the chair put close of debate on the
amendment to a vote; this carried [Yes: 791; No: 97]. The
amendment failed [Yes: 112; No: 813]. The chair put close of
debate on the main motion to a vote; this carried [Yes: 822; No:
88]. Res. 10-01 was adopted as presented [Yes: 879; No: 52].

Resolutions

To Amend Bylaws to Clarify
Call and Roster Matters
RESOLUTION 10-02A
Overture 9-38 (CW, 507–11)

Preamble
The Council of Presidents (COP), and in particular its
Clergy, Call, and Roster committee, have noted a variety of
unclarities in the bylaws dealing with district membership
and ecclesiastical supervision of individual members of the
Synod. Bylaws have not taken into account the increasing
number of members whose calls simultaneously involve
multiple calling bodies, or even multiple types of calling
bodies, those whose call(s) may involve multiple districts,
etc. Accumulation of changes to related bylaws over the
years have created redundancies and left gaps, and have
dispersed across multiple bylaw sections the answers to
simple questions like “to what district will this member
belong?”
Certain other items, such as the criteria for obtaining and
retaining candidate status, and the administrative
procedures associated with such status, were also noted as
requiring attention.
The Clergy, Call, and Roster Committee, working with the
Secretary of Synod and Commission on Handbook (COH 16003), and in consultation with the plenary COP, has
therefore produced a bylaw proposal intended to rearrange
and restate the contents of several bylaw sections, which
changes treat three broad topics:
A. DISTRICT MEMBERSHIP
AND ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION
Rationale
Bylaw 2.11.1 and Bylaw section 2.12, together in certain
circumstances with Bylaws 2.10.3 and 4.4.3, have all come
to deal with district membership and ecclesiastical
supervision of members of the Synod, in some instances in
a confusing or conflicting manner. Workers having calls
involving multiple calling entities, multiple types of calling
entity, or multiple districts are not handled with clarity.
Bylaw changes are necessary to restore order, so that Bylaw
2.11.1 will deal in a more orderly way and exclusively with
categories of active roster service, and Bylaw section 2.12
will deal exclusively and conclusively with the question of
to which district a member will belong.
For some time there have been confusing instances in
which a member’s membership and ecclesiastical
supervision have rested with different districts. It is
proposed that, except for those few members under the
ecclesiastical supervision of the President of the Synod, a
member should be supervised by the president of the
district to which he or she belongs. Changes of district
membership imposed by these changes are designed to be
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2019 (67TH) LCMS CONVENTION | 205