LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 120

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

120 SYNODICAL REPORTS

To Initiate Evaluation of District Structure of Synod

Rationale: The Synod’s Districts currently have as few as 54 congregations (with 13,806 communicants) and as many as 367 congregations
(with 172,260 communicants). The number of full- and part-time District staff ranges from 4 to 21 persons. In many cases the smallest Districts
are becoming stil] smaller, while the largest Districts continue to grow in size. Expectations of what a District can or should do for its congre-
gations vary widely from District to District.

At this start of a new century, the Synod has an opportunity to assess the impact of these variations. District size should figure significantly
in such an assessment, but still more basic is this question: Under its prevailing circumstances, can a particular District—whatever its size—carry
out the two functions that are required of all Districts: ecclesiastical supervision and providing services to/with/for congregations? Both of these
functions, it might be noted, involve building relationships. Factors such as communicating optimally, operating economically, and wisely uti-
lizing people resources such as officers and staff will no doubt come into play in these considerations as well. In the interest of such an assess-
ment the TF proposes the following action. Therefore be it

Resolved, That a proposal calling for an evaluation of the existing District structure of the Synod be initiated by the 200! convention of the
Synod, such evaluation to incorporate the guidelines and procedure provided by Bylaw 4.03; and be it further

Resolved, That the President of the Synod, in consultation and mutual concurrence with the Board of the Directors of the Synod, appoint a
committee to conduct this evaluation over a period of six years; and be it further

Resolved, That this evaluation include all such options as division, realignment, merger, or dissolution of the Synod’s current Districts and/or
the formation of new ones; and be it further

Resolved, That this committee consult with leaders of each current synodical District and cooperate with the Department of Planning and Re-
search of the Synod in conducting its evaluation; and be it further

Resolved, That this evaluation also take into account the viability standards for Districts set forth by the Synod in 1969 Res. 4-03; and be it
further

Resolved, That an interim report be provided by the committee to the 2004 convention of the Synod; and be it further

Resolved, That the completed evaluation and any draft proposals be provided to the Board of the Directors of the Synod and all District
Boards of Directors at least 18 months prior to the 2007 convention of the Synod; and be it finally

Resolved, That the final evaluation and proposals by the committee be submitted along with its own evaluation and recommendations by the
Board of Directors of the Synod to the 2007 convention of the Synod for action.

Delegate Election

Throughout its history, our Synod has had to consider the subject of representation at conventions. While certain basic principles un-
derlying the representation of congregations have been in place since the formation of the Synod, from time to time the Synod has revised
its guidelines for electing convention delegates.

1998 Res. 7-02A directed the TF “to study ... the manner of electing delegates.” Accordingly, the TF has considered these questions:
« Should each congregation continue to elect two delegates (one clergy, one lay) to every District convention?

* Should each electoral Circuit continue to elect two delegates (one clergy, one lay) to every national synodical convention? Should the appor-
tionment of delegates or of Circuits be changed?

The TF has concluded that there is no need to make any change in the election of voting delegates to District conventions, since every
congregation has equal standing in the number of voting delegates. The stipulation of Constitution Art. V A, “At the meetings of the Dis-
tricts of the Synod every congregation or parish is entitled to two votes, one of which is to be cast by the pastor and the other by the lay del-
egate,” should remain intact.

While the same kind of individual congregation representation at synodical conventions may be desirable, such an arrangement would
be almost impossible to implement in practice. The Synod has found it so for most of its history. Until and including 1872, congregations
were represented at the synodical convention by two delegates (one pastoral, one lay). Starting in 1874, delegates to synodical conventions
were sent by groupings of 2 to 7 congregations. In 1893, the grouping for election of convention delegates was established at 5 to 7 con-
gregations, and the 1917 constitutional revision set the Circuit size at 10 churches minimum.

Prior to the Synod’s 1967 New York convention, the size of an electoral Circuit was based only upon number of congregations, with-
out regard for the number of communicant membership of the parishes involved. At that time the criterion was as follows:

An electoral circuit shall comprise from 10 to 15 member congregations. Each electoral circuit shall be represented by one pastor and one
layman. Large congregations shall form small circuits, and small congregations shall form large circuits. A fractional portion remaining after the
circuils have been formed shall be entitled to the same representation as a complete circuit.

In an overture to the Synod in 1967, the Commission on Constitutional Matters said that electoral Circuits “have often been artificially
created entities, with little cohesiveness, hindering effective post-convention action in implementing resolutions and even in transmitting
information.” The CCM added:

We propose a method based on both number of congregations and number of communicants, with a wide enough spread between minimum
and maximum requirements in each category to take care of most situations and with a prescribed procedure which permits the President of the
Synod to deal with those cases which still prove to be exceptional (1967 Ov. 5-09, emphasis orginal).

Based on this recommendation the Synod in convention adopted 1967 Res. 5-18, establishing the current parameters of an electoral Circuit:

Voting delegates shall consist of one pastor and one layman from each electoral circuit. An electoral circuit shal! consist either of one or two
adjacent visitation circuits, as shall be determined by each District, on the basis of the following requirements: each pair of delegates shall rep-
resent from 7 to 20 member congregations, involving an aggregate communicant membership ranging from 1,500 to 10,000. Exceptions to these
requirements and limitations can be made only by the President of the Synod upon request of a District Board of Directors.

This wording still exists in the synodical Bylaws as Bylaw 3.03.

These past revistons of the criteria for selection of delegates to the synodical convention reflect the Synod’s response to its demo-
graphics as they have shifted over time. But the changes have remained consistent with the thought expressed in Constitution Art. V A,
which states that “At the meetings of the Synod a number of congregations shall form a gronp which shall be represented by two voting del-
egates, one a pastor and one a lay delegate” (emphasis added).

Bylaw 3.03 gives particular guidance regarding the criterion for the selection of voting delegates to synodical conventions and defines
the term “group” as utilized in the Constitution. Specifically, the Bylaw differentiates an electoral Circuit from a visitation Circuit. In

2001 Convention Workbook