LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 189

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

189

hearing—which includes a panel of necessity drawn from various
parts of the country—within 45 days or a “short delay” (Bylaw
2.17.7.6). In such a case, the interest of timely resolution begins to
weigh against the customary safeguards of a fair and full hearing
afforded by an in-person meeting. Even so, for a hearing to be conducted by electronic means, suitable procedures would first have to
be devised to ensure, in light of the many practical concerns noted
above, the panel’s ability to conduct a fair and equitable hearing by
such means.

tions of the pastoral office, not to “service” in some purely secular
sense. A divine call cannot be extended by any of the listed calling
entities to any person not listed under Bylaw 2.5.2’s (1), (2), or
(3). Furthermore, such a calling entity cannot be “served by,” in
the sense of any exercise of distinctive functions of the pastoral
office, any person not listed under Bylaw 2.5.2’s (1), (2), or (3).
The convention’s inclusion of recognized service organizations in
the list of calling entities in Bylaw 2.5.2 renders this restriction applicable to such.

The commission is not in a position, by itself, to develop such
procedures and render such safeguards, which would need to be
incorporated into the appropriate “comprehensive” SOPM (Bylaw
2.14.10.3, etc.). It cannot, therefore, authorize such a hearing at
this time.

The commission does not object to the Commission on Handbook’s
relocation of the material or references thereto for clarity’s sake, or
to clarification of the above meaning with regard to Bylaw 2.5.2
and its application to recognized service organizations.

Circumstances and perceptions of electronic means of procedural
meeting, along with the technology available, have changed rapidly
as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and continue to evolve.
The commission has noted previously, however, the danger that the
change of means of a deliberative proceeding may very well change
the essential character of a deliberative proceeding. The commission, being charged, together with the Council of Presidents, with
maintaining “comprehensive” SOPM for Bylaw sections 1.10 and
2.14–17 (e.g., Bylaw 2.14.10.3), is open to a conversation with the
Council about the wisdom and propriety of the use of electronic
means for hearing processes, but finds that—as suggested by Robert’s Rules (12th ed., 9:30–32)—if such “are to be authorized, it
is advisable to adopt additional rules pertaining to their conduct.”
The commission does not here opine on whether such might, given
suitable rules, be authorized without unacceptable jeopardy to the
process set forth in the Bylaws.
The commission does here opine that the SOPM as presently
amended, with the concurrence of the Council of Presidents, do
not contemplate a fully electronic meeting of a Hearing Panel in
a Bylaw section 2.14 or 2.17 procedure, much less provide comprehensive procedures for the same. This being the case, the use of
fully electronic means for a hearing is not consistent with procedure in place at this time. The panel thus needs to seek—in keeping with law and prudence, and adopting all necessary reasonable
safeguards, but also being mindful of the gravity of the matter at
hand—to conduct a hearing in the accustomed fashion in as timely
a manner as circumstances will allow.

Requirements for Call Processes by Agencies,
Auxiliaries, and Recognized Service Organizations
(20-2957)
Minutes of October 30–31, 2020
Dr. Gude and the Secretary have been assigned Commission on
Handbook (COH) Issue 19-005 (COH minutes of Oct. 18, 2019),
dealing with the inclusion of material dealing with call processes
by agencies, auxiliaries, and recognized service organizations in
Bylaw section 2.5, which has to do (otherwise) with “Membership”
(agencies, auxiliaries, and recognized service organizations not being members of the Synod), as well as with the related issue of
the meaning of the convention’s having placed recognized service
organizations under the rule that they “call and be served by” only
those ordained ministers (or candidates) listed in Bylaw 2.5.2.
With regard to the question of interpretation involved in the latter
item, the commission understands that with regard to Bylaw 2.5.2,
“served by” refers to service in the sense of the distinctive func-

Synod Convention Deferral Vote under Const. Art.
XI B 8 (20-2960)
Minutes of Nov. 23, 2020
By a memorandum of Nov. 12, 2020, prepared at the request of the
President of the Synod and leadership of the Council of Presidents,
the Secretary of the Synod requested the commission’s opinion on
the following questions.
Background: With a coronavirus pandemic continuing to significantly impact gatherings and accommodation planning for the foreseeable future in most parts of the country, many districts are either
experiencing difficulty scheduling and obtaining facilities for any
reasonable district convention compliant with the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod and CCM Op. 20-2938, “District Conventions, Circuit and Advisory Meetings, and Coronavirus Contingencies,” or are dissatisfied with the arrangements they have made
or understand themselves likely to be able to make. Some district
presidents have expressed uncertainty that their own districts will
be able, within calendar year 2021, to convene at all, or to facilitate
an accustomed and salutary churchly deliberative assembly that
will be well attended by the pastoral and lay representatives of district congregations and parishes. Others have expressed concern for
districts other than their own, that prevailing circumstances should
not be allowed to preclude any district from likely meeting in regular convention during this triennium.[1] The extensive preparations required for district and Synod conventions, and their lengthy
prior processes, have also been noted—preparations complicated
at present by significant timeline uncertainties (some districts already have multiple possible convention dates laid out, accounting
for lower-than-usual probabilities of successfully convening and
achieving quorum).
It has therefore been suggested that the 2022 Synod convention
be delayed one year, stretching the 2019–2022 triennium to 2019–
2023, and that the window for district conventions to meet prior
be extended from calendar year 2021 to include also calendar year
2022, to allow selection of meeting dates apparently more likely to
be realized without significant complications.
The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not provide specific,
explicit mechanisms for the rescheduling of a scheduled convention or for the alteration of the triennial schedule laid down for the
Synod in Const. Art. VIII A 1: “The Synod convenes every three
years for its regular meeting,” and for the districts in Const. Art. XII
13: “The regular sessions of the districts are held in the year immediately preceding the general convention of the Synod.” Moreover,
no provision is made for alteration of the Constitution or Bylaws
outside of a convention or its specific direction (Const. Art. XV;
Bylaw section 7). Finally, it is unrealistic to suggest the calling of
2023 Convention Workbook