LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 295

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

NATIONAL/DISTRICT SYNOD RELATIONS 295

pastor with sufficient experience to serve as Circuit Counselor;
therefore be it

Resolved, That Proposed Bylaw 5.01 read, “Each visitation Cir-
cuit shall consist of +te26 5 to 10 adjacent member congregations ...”

Board of Directors, Southern Illinois District; Metro North
Circuit Forum, Southern Illinois District

8-28

To Amend Bylaw re Assignment of Congregations
to Visitation Circuits Ratified by District Conventions

WHEREAS, Bylaw 5.01 proposed by the Task Force on Na-
tional/District Synod Relations states in the last sentence, “The
final assignment of congregations to specific visitation Circuits
shall be subsequently reported to the District Convention”; and

Wuereas, This places total authority for the assignment of con-
gregations to visitation Circuits in the hands of the District Presi-
dent; and

Wrereas, This leaves a congregation that might prefer to be in
a different visitation Circuit without recourse; therefore be it

Resolved, That the words “ratified by” be substituted for the
words “reported to” in the final sentence of proposed Bylaw 5.01.

Board of Directors, Southern Illinois District; Metro North
Circuit Forum, Southern Illinois District

8-29

To End Parallel Structure of District
and Synod Boards and Staff

Please refer to the Report of the Task Force on National/Dis-
trict Synod Relations for the text of this overture, p. 111.

8-30

To Reject Proposed District Budget Consultation

WHEREAS, Bylaw 9.09 proposed by the Task Force on National/
District Synod Relations requires an annual regional consultation
by representatives of al] the District Boards of Directors in that re-
gion for the purpose of reviewing the proposed budgets of each of
the individual Districts; and

WHEREAS, Such a consultation would require a significant
amount of work on the part of the representatives of each individual
Board of Directors, as they would have to be thoroughly familiar
with the opportunities, challenges, and needs of each of the Dis-
tricts so that they can make intelligent recommendations regarding
what is or is not appropriate; and

WHEREAS, Such a consultation would require a significant
amount of work and expense on the part of each individual Dis-
trict, as they would be required prior to the meeting to provide
copies of their proposed budget and supporting data to all of the
other Districts in their region; and

WHEREAS, Assuming that there are three representatives from
each individual board, such a consultation would involve signifi-
cant travel, lodging, and food expenses for as many as twenty-five
people for a two or three day meeting per region; and

WHEREAS, Whatever recommendations are made at this consul-
tation would not be binding on the individual Districts anyway, but
Districts should only “strongly consider this input in finalizing their
budgets”; and

WHEREAS, The justification given for this proposed change, “A
better approach would be for Districts to consult with other Dis-
tricts before making final decisions involving expenditures for per-
sonnel or programs, short- or long-term” (p. 31, lines 21—23), offers
no explanation as to why this would be a better approach; there-
fore be it

Resolved, That the District Budget Consultation in proposed
Bylaw 9.09 be declined.

Board of Directors, Southern Illinois District; Metro North
Circuit Forum, Southern Illinois District

8-31

To Elect Area Vice-Presidents for Synod

Please refer to the Report of the Task Force on National/Dis-
trict Synod Relations for the text of this overture, p. 115.

8-32

To Amend Bylaws re COP Responsibilities

Please refer to the Report of the Task Force on National/Dis-
trict Synod Relations for the text of this overture, p. 119.

8-33

To Restructure Council of Presidents

Wuereas, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod began with a
constitutional stipulation that the clerical vote should never exceed
the lay vote; and

WHEREAS, The Council of Presidents (COP) is composed only
of District Presidents, the President of the Synod, and the Vice-
Presidents of the Synod with no lay representation; and

WHEREAS, The Council of Presidents (COP) is a new entity and
is not part of the traditional polity of the Synod, according to which
District Presidents are representatives of the President of the Synod
(Bylaw 3.930 b); and

Whereas, The Council of Presidents was originally set up to
serve as the Board of Assignments and Certification; and

WHEREAS, Through the years the COP has accumulated enor-
mous powers for itself, defined as follows: They appoint members
of the Concordia University System, members of the Conference
of Congregational Services, members of the Council on Mission
and Ministry, members of the Board of Regents of colleges and
seminaries, one-quarter of the members of the Commission on The-
ology and Church Relations, and all the members of the Commis-
sion on Constitutional Matters (CCM). This means that the CCM is
definitely a subordinate agency of the COP whose control thus ex-
tends to the final decision in all appealed dispute cases and to the
approval of congregational constitutions; and

WHEREAS, District Presidents have been allocating their time
and energy in discharging their responsibilities in the foregoing ac-
tivities to the detriment of the duties they have been elected to per-
form in the District; and

WHEREAS, The COP has become more pronounced in promot-
ing many theological dilutions; and

Wrereas, The President of the Synod is to advise and counsel
his representatives, the District Presidents; and

WuereEAS, The District Presidents are in turn to give counsel
and advice to the President of the Synod; and

WHEREAS, The President of the Synod is to oversee the doctrine
and practice of and in the Synod, which he accomplishes in part
through his representatives, the District Presidents; therefore be it

Resolved, That the President of the Synod be the chairman of
the COP and that he as chairman set the agenda for and direct the
meetings of the COP; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod eliminate all powers of the COP at
the national Synod level except for its role as the Board of Assign-
ments and Certification. The Synod should eliminate particularly
its powers of appointment to synodical offices.

Mount Hope
Casper, WY

2001 Convention Workbook