LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 210

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

10. ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
candidate’s report shall include current contact
information and address the criteria for remaining on
candidate status.
(c) Among criteria for determining whether candidate
status should be granted or continued areThe district
president shall determine whether or not to grant or,
upon annual review, continue candidate status based on
the following criteria:
(1) The health of the applicantmember’s health;
(2) A spirit of cooperation in anyThe member’s efforts
to address any unresolved issues involving fitness for
ministry;
(3) The extent of current involvement on a part-time
and assisting basis in his/her respective ministryThe
member’s current involvement in ministry; and
(4) A demonstrated willingness to consider a call or
appointmentThe member’s written statement
addressing any impediments to consideration and
acceptance of a call to any of the offices of ministry
specified in Bylaw section 2.11. ; and
(5) The member’s cooperation in keeping personnel
documents up to date.

Action: Adopted (5)
After discussion, the question was called. Before this proceeded to
a vote, a delegate contested the ruling of the chair that a single
prior non-queue speaker sufficed to render calling the question
in order. The ruling of the chair was sustained by a vote [Yes: 532;
No: 403], but closure of debate failed [Yes: 607; No: 356].
It was moved to amend the resolution by restoring, in Section A,
the original language of Bylaw 2.12.1.5. After clarification by the
Secretary that reverting this single bylaw would result in an
inconsistency, and as the revision had not been reviewed by the
CCM as required, the chair ruled this amendment out of order.
It was moved and seconded to separate Section C of the resolution
from Sections A and B; the motion failed [Yes: 286; No: 666].
After additional discussion, it was moved to refer the resolution
back to the committee to address the language of Bylaw 2.12.1.5
and its impact on workers whose service may cross district lines.
With the orders of the day called, the chair opted to continue,
whereupon a motion to end debate was made, seconded, and
carried [Yes: 891; No: 75]. The motion to refer failed [Yes: 230;
No: 747]. The chair put to a vote the ending of debate on the
main motion; this carried [Yes: 868; No: 101]. Res. 10-02A was
adopted as presented [Yes: 875; No: 110].

210 | PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2019 (67TH) LCMS CONVENTION

To Give Thanks to All who Worked to
Complete the Process Outlined by 2016
Resolution 12-14, “Regarding the Right of an
Accuser to Appeal When a District President
or President of the Synod Fails to Act or
Declines to Suspend”
RESOLUTION 10-03A
Overtures 10-02–03, 16–27 (CW, 520–22, 528–35)

Preamble
Shortly before the 2016 Synod convention, the chairman of
Floor Committee 12 (Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute
Resolution) asked the Commission on Constitutional
Matters (CCM) a historical question that would eventually
have larger ramifications. The CCM was asked, “In the
event that a district president did not take action in matters
of expulsion, was the process operative in the bylaws
between 1956 and 2004, enabling the President of the
Synod or the Praesidium of the Synod to initiate
proceedings and present charges in an expulsion matter, in
violation of the Constitution of Synod?” The CCM’s answer
(Opinion 16-2791) showed that not only was the President
of Synod not in violation of the Constitution in such a case,
but also that the President of Synod’s authority and
capacity to act was inherent in the Constitution of the
Synod. The 1956 Synod convention (Resolution 6-11)
explicitly recognized this constitutional authority and
capacity. To forbid the Synod President from acting in such
a situation is contrary to the Constitution Article XI B 1.
Therefore, the bylaws existing at the time when a CCM
opinion was requested were not in agreement with the
Constitution. It is not permissible for bylaws to contradict
the Constitution.
The need for the bylaws to be brought into agreement with
the Constitution was the basis for 2016 Res. 12-14,
“Regarding the Right of an Accuser to Appeal When a
District President or President of the Synod Fails to Act or
Declines to Suspend.” The resolution authorized the
Secretary of the Synod to draft amendments to the Bylaws,
to be reviewed by the CCM and the Commission on
Handbook (COH), after consultation with the Council of
Presidents (COP). Prior to the passage of this resolution, the
Council of Presidents had unanimously approved of this
proposed plan and the convention passed it by a margin of
Yes: 996; No: 67.
The stipulations contained in Res. 12-14 were the subject of
thorough consultation and review by the COP, the
Secretary, the CCM, COH and Board of Directors (BOD).
The revised bylaws drafted by the Secretary were passed by
more than the necessary two-thirds majority by the BOD.
This Bylaw is 2.14.5 in the current Handbook:

Resolutions