LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 119

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SYNODICAL REPORTS 119

8-32

To Amend Bylaws re COP Responsibilities

Resolved, That the synodical Bylaws be amended as proposed:
CURRENT

3.29 Time and Place of Next Convention

c. Prior to submitting an invitation a host group sha]! determine
the minimum requirements from the convention manager and shall
then submit a proposal to the Council of Presidents for evaluation
and recommendation to a convention.

d. The President may also submit a site to the Council of Presi-
dents. Prior to submission, the District President for the area in
which the site is located shall be made aware of the submission and
agree to provide any needed local support.

3.903 Membership [of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters]

a. 4. Appointments to the commission become effective upon
ratification by the Council of Presidents through a majority vote.

6.01 Membership [of Boards of Regents]

a. The Board of Regents of each theological seminary shall con-
sist of the following voting members:

3. A District President other than the President of the geo-
graphical District in which the seminary is located, elected by the
Council of Presidents

6.85 Vicarage

An academic year of supervised internship (vicarage) is re-
quired of all seminary students before graduation. Every vicar shall
be assigned by the Council of Presidents, acting as the Board of
Assignments.

12.03 Editors [of Official Periodicals]

The director of news and information services, who also serves
as executive director of the Synod’s official periodicals, shall be
appointed by the Board for Communication Services from a list ap-
proved by the Council of Presidents.

PROPOSED

3.29 Time and Place of Next Convention

c. Prior to submitting an invitation a host group shall determine
the minimum requirements from the convention manager and then
shall submit a proposal to the synodical Board of Directors of the
Synod for evaluation and recommendation to a convention.

d. The President may also submit a site to the synodical Board
of Directors. Prior to submission, the District President for the area
in which the site is located shall be made aware of the submission
and agree to provide any needed local support.

3.903 Membership [of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters] ,

6.01 Membership [of Boards of Regents]

a. The Board of Regents of each theological seminary shal] con-
sist of the following voting members:

3. The District President of the geographical District in which
the seminary is located

6.85 Vicarage

An academic year of supervised internship (vicarage) is re-
quired of all seminary students before graduation. Every vicar shall
be assigned by the faculties of the seminaries acting jointly and in
consultation with the respective District Presidents.

12.03 Editors [of Official Periodicals]

The director of news and information services, who also serves
as executive editor of the Synod’s official periodicals, shall be ap-
pointed by the Board for Communication Services from a list pre-
pared by that board and approved by the Council of Presidents.

District Realignment

Purpose and Formation of Districts. Art. X11 t of the Constitution states that “the Synod is divided into Districts, the geographical
boundaries of which are determined by the Synod and are altered by it according to circumstances.” Bylaw 4.01 explains that the reason that
the Synod divides itself into Districts is “more effectively to achieve its objectives and carry on its activities.” Bylaw 4.03 a raises the
prospect that this process will be ongoing, that the Synod “decides when and whether a District shall be formed, divided, realigned, or
merged with another or other Districts, or dissolved.” Bylaw 4.03 b provides that any such “proposal calling for the formation, division,
realignment, merger, or dissolution of a District or Districts may be initiated by a national convention of the Synod or the synodical Board
of Directors.” Bylaw 4.03 c delineates the process to be followed.

Role of the present TF. The present TF has pursued its charge to study the relationship of the Synod to its Districts. The division of the
Synod into Districts is a good and useful structure, and the TF recommends no change in this cornerstone principle of our polity. It has not
devoted a great deal of attention to the number of Districts or the aptness of their boundaries. However, it has noted that the functions of a
District are affected by its size and configuration. Further attention to District alignment is therefore being recommended.

English and SELC Districts. Responses to the TF’s preliminary report contained a great deal of reaction to its discussion of the Synod’s
two nongeographical Districts. Some of the reaction was based on misinformation. The TF did not then and does not now recommend the
amalgamation of these Districts in 2001. It is recommending that a study of all of the Synod’s Districts, including these two, be conducted
by anew committee after the 2001 convention.

In this final report, the TF limits itself to one observation regarding the English and SELC Districts, one arising not from the nongeo-
graphical nature of these Districts but from the fact that they have resulted from mergers into the Synod of smaller church bodies. The TF
believes that the following point can and should be acknowledged and affirmed: The Synod does not relate to any of its Districts in the way
it relates to another church body. If it can be shown that the Synod gave the English or Slovak Synods, separate church bodies, its assur-
ance that after their respective mergers the resultant English or SELC Districts would have to initiate or approve their amalgamation into
geographic Districts, such promises are to be honored still today. But if, on the other hand, there is no evidence that such promises were
made to these other church bodies prior to or at the time of the mergers of 1911 and 1971, respectively, nothing prevents the Synod from
relating to the English and SELC Districts the very same way that it relates to any of its other existing Districts. {t can decide on their di-
vision, realignment, merger, or dissolution (see Bylaw 4.03 a and b). In short, the Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws recognize no privileged
“categories” among its Districts, nor may Districts as such withdraw from the Synod. These are fundamentals of National/District Synod
relations, and the TF strongly supports them.

2001 Convention Workbook