LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 190

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

190

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

a special session (Const. Art. VIII B 2) to amend the Constitution
or Bylaws to craft a remedy, as such a session would be impossible
to conduct in a timely manner, being subject to the same in-person
attendance requirements as a regular convention (Op. 20-2938).
However, the Constitution of the Synod does make provision for
the member congregations to take action outside of a convention on
specific matters that are “of such a nature that action thereon cannot
be delayed until the next convention.” This provision is as follows:

Article XI Rights and Duties of Officers
B. Duties of the President
8.

When matters arise between meetings of the Synod
in convention which are of such a nature that action
thereon cannot be delayed until the next convention, the
President is authorized to submit them to a written vote
of the member congregations of the Synod only after
full and complete information regarding the matter has
been sent to member congregations by presidential letter
and has been published in an official periodical of the
Synod. If such matters are related to the business affairs
of the Synod, such a vote shall be conducted only after
the President has consulted with the synodical Board of
Directors. In all cases at least one-fourth of the member
congregations must register their vote
In 1944, this provision was used to authorize postponement of the
Synod convention due to the government’s wartime urging to conserve fuel. By a majority vote, the congregations approved delaying the convention that had, three years before, been scheduled to
meet that year. (Circumstances ultimately changed and the convention was—the vote to postpone notwithstanding—held in 1944; the
first act of the convention was to ratify and confirm the president’s
calling of the convention on schedule.)[2] In 1944, the agreed-upon
(but ultimately reversed) deferral of the Synod convention would
not have impacted the schedule of the prior district conventions
(though there is some evidence in that period of districts at least
contemplating an inability to meet on schedule due to wartime fuel
restrictions). In the present situation, the timing of both district and
Synod conventions is involved; indeed, the full accommodation of
the former is the principal impetus for the questions posed.
At present, it would be impossible to complete a vote of the congregations before the first district convention may open in January
2021. Some districts may now or, by that time, will have made
definite arrangements to meet in calendar year 2021 that may yet
succeed. Thus, it has been suggested that instead of deferring all
district conventions to 2022 (the year before a Synod convention
rescheduled to 2023), district conventions be allowed to occur any
time in calendar 2021 and 2022, as noted above.
Implications of the Articles of Incorporation and Missouri Nonprofit Law (RSMo. 355) have been explored separately in an opinion from Synod’s legal counsel. The commission is now asked to
determine whether the measure proposed is compatible with the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.
Question 1:

Is it consistent with the Constitution and Bylaws for
the President of the Synod to submit to a written
vote of the congregations of the Synod, as detailed
in Const. Art. XI B 8, the following: Shall the upcoming convention of the Synod be delayed one
year, in effect stretching one triennium to four years’

2023 Convention Workbook

duration?
Opinion: It is the opinion of the commission that the question
whether to delay the upcoming convention of the Synod by a year
is self-evidently a matter “of such a nature that the action thereon
cannot be delayed until the next convention” and therefore falls
within the standard set by Const. Art. XI B 8. Such a question may,
consistent with the requirements of Const. Art. XI B 8, be put to the
congregations for their vote. The congregations in response have
the right to approve or reject any proposal made by the President,
a determination that involves not only the substance of the question put to them but also their assessment of whether the facts and
circumstances necessitate action without delay.
Question 2:

Is it consistent with the Constitution and Bylaws
of the Synod for the congregations, through such a
vote as described in Question 1, and under circumstances as described, to extend the length of a triennium?

Opinion: An action of the member congregations under Const.
Art. XI B 8 must be otherwise constitutional. Const. Art. VIII A 1
specifies a three-year duration to the triennium. The purpose of this
provision is to preserve the right of the member congregations to
govern the Synod and its agencies with the desired regularity and
periodicity.
Circumstances could conceivably and ultimately, as a matter of
probabilities the commission is neither equipped nor empowered
to assess, subject to futility the member congregations’ meeting in
regular convention either as a Synod within the triennial schedule
or as their respective districts within the allotted calendar year of
that triennium. Looking back from such an outcome, mechanical
submission of the congregations to the triennial meeting provision
might be found to have more significantly impaired their right to
govern their Synod and their districts than it would have to have
offer them the ability, by the proposed vote, to manage the risk that
they would be unable to meet on schedule by expanding the triennium. While it is possible, on the other hand, that expanding the
triennium may ultimately delay the member congregations’ governance of Synod or of their respective districts—perhaps, ultimately,
unfavorably or unnecessarily—their rights under the Constitution
are not diminished by granting them the choice, under the properly actuated mechanism provided in Const. Art. XI B 8, of how
best to maintain that right in the face of a risk not contemplated in
the constitutional language—namely, the risk that their inability to
meet legally, prudently, and reasonably on schedule could submit
their triennial governance opportunity, at least on the district level,
to futility.
When unforeseen circumstances arise that threaten the member
congregations’ ability to realize, legally, prudently, or reasonably,
regular conventions (Synod or district) on the triennial schedule, it
is consistent with the purpose of Const. Art. VIII A 1 for the member congregations of the Synod, using the mechanism of Const. Art.
XI B 8, to manage that threat by reaching the determination and
effecting the outcome proposed.
Question 3:

Is it consistent with the Constitution and Bylaws of
the Synod for the congregations, by such a Const.
Art. XI B 8 vote, also to extend the interval of an
expanded triennium within which the districts of the
Synod are allowed to hold their district conventions
to include the two calendar years prior to the deferred Synod convention, thereby not invalidating