LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 336

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Nand
Nand
nN

Questions re Elections (00-2195)

The Scerctary of the Nebraska District in a letter dated March
29, 2000, requested two opinions from the Commission. In the first
case, he explained that a pastor has been nominated for a vice-pres-
idential position (which is also a Board of Directors position) from
a congregation of an existing lay member of the board. Because
the Bylaws of the District require that each elected member of the
board must be from a different congregation, he requests an opin-
ion regarding the eligibility of the pastor to stand for election. The
Secretary also asked for advice to facilitate the voting process of
the convention. The Commission responds as follows:

Question 1: Both the teacher member of the Board of Directors
and the pastor nominated for Vice President are from the same con-
gregation. Does this then nullify the nomination of the pastor who
was nominated for the position of Vice President so that his name
cannot be placed on the ballot for election at the June, 2000, Dis-
trict convention?

The Commission responds that the membership of the teacher
member of the Board of Directors in the congregation in question
disqualifies any further membership on the board of Directors from
that congregation, including its pastor as Vice President. So long as
the teacher remains in an elected position on the Board and a mem-
ber of the congregation in question, the Bylaws do not permit con-
sideration of another election to the Board from that congregation.

Question 2: \f two of the candidates for either President or Vice
President decline the nomination, can we go with the names of
those candidates who have said yes to the nomination even if there
may be only two or three names on the ballot, or do we have to
bring up additional names so that the ballot consists of five and
four candidates? Quite often there are a Jarge number of pastors re-
ceiving only one nomination, which can make the ballot have ten
names on it, which in turn prolongs the election process.

The Commission notes that one of the proposed Bylaw changes
to be considered by the Nebraska District convention will resolve
this question by requiring that if any of those candidates receiving
the highest number of nominations “decline or are declared ineli-
gible, the next highest nominee shail be placed on the ballot.” This
is in keeping with synodical Bylaw 4.127 which permits Districts
to adopt such regulations. The Commission further suggests, in re-
sponse to concerns regarding a prolonged election process, that the
District reduce the number of ballots required when there is a long
list of names by limiting the number of names to be included on
the second ballot.

Adopted May 8, 2000

Question re the Validity of Conference
Call Meetings (00-2197)

The President of a synodical school in a letter dated April 18,
2000, raises the following question regarding meetings of the
Board of Regents of his school:

Question: If the Bylaws of Concordia University neither per-
mit nor prohibit it, is it permissible to conduct legal business with a
portion of the Board in attendance and the remaining participating
in the meeting via telephone conference call?

Already in 1974 the Commission on Constitutional Matters
ruled regarding conference calls, stating “that such a meeting, al-
though irregular, could be permitted.” The Commission further
stipulated that all parties to the meeting should be “agreeable to the
arrangement” and that the conference call should be “conducted in
such a fashion as to provide for full and complete discussion and
Opportunity for statements and for the raising of questions,” mak-
ing certain “that the rights of all parties are respected and pro-
tected.”

The Commission, which itself conducts much of its business by
conference call, sees no reason to contradict this ruling. This holds
true also for the conduct of legal business, provided that there is
full agreement on the part of the entire board to this manner of
doing business; provided that appropriate care is taken to respect
and protect the rights of all parties, which is to include opportunity

2001 Convention Workbook

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

for full and complete discussion; and provided that such practicc
does not contradict state law.

Adopted May 8, 2000

Role of Vice Presidents in Reinstatement
Process (00-2198)

In a April 17, 2000, letter a pastor inquired regarding Bylaws
2.31 and 2.33 and the role of the Vice Presidents of the Synod in
the Council of Presidents’ vote in the reinstatement process:

Question 1; When Bylaw 2.31 says that the Council of Presi-
dents has the sole discretion in reinstating an individual member of
the Synod, while Bylaw 2.33 says the reinstatement is done through
a 75 percent or more majority of the District Presidents present and
voting, if the necessary 75 percent majority is achieved when the
District Presidents vote, can the six votes of the Praesidium (as-
suming they vote against reinstatement) negate the vote of the Dis-
trict Presidents?

The Commission notes that Bylaw 2.31 establishes that “the de-
cision as to whether to accept or deny a request for reinstatement
shall be at the sole discretion of the Council of Presidents.” Bylaw
2.33 adds that “procedures for investigating and processing re-
quests for reinstatement ... shall be the responsibility of the Coun-
cil of Presidents.” Such reference to the Council as a whole is con-
sistent with all other Bylaws relating Council roster responsibilities.
In no case is a vote or other action of District Presidents distin-
guished from the vote and action of the Praesidium, including, for
example, the vote to extend candidate status (Bylaw 2.19 a).

The Commission therefore rules that when Bylaw 2.33 stipu-
lates that “a decision to reinstate shall require an affirmative vote of
at least 75 percent of the District Presidents present and voting,”
the Bylaw intends to include the President and Vice Presidents of
the Synod in the voting. The Commission concludes that the
drafters of the Bylaw, in the interest of carefully delineating the
percentage vote needed, referred in particular to the District Presi-
dents but had no intention of excluding the Praesidium from the
vote. To decide otherwise would labor against other statements in
these same Bylaws which clearly place decisions regarding rein-
statement into the hands of the Council of Presidents.

The answer to the above question, therefore, is “yes.” Hypo-
thetically speaking, the vote of the Praesidium could, as suggested
in the question, negate the vote of the District Presidents by affect-
ing the percentages.

Question 2: When 75 percent of the total vote results in a whole
number plus a fraction of a percent, may the fraction of a percent be
dropped when determining whether a necessary percentage has
been achieved?

When a fraction is involved, it must be rounded to the next
whole number if the necessary percentage is to be achieved. To
drop the fraction of a percentage would result in a failure to obtain
the total percentage that is required.

Adopted May 8, 2000

Questions re Lack of Time Frames
in Bylaw 2.27 b (00-2196)

The President of the Synod in a letter dated April 10, 2000,
noted the lack of time frames in Bylaw 2.27 b to govern the oppor-
tunity for a complainant to appeal a decision of a District President
in response to his or her complaint and to govern the length of time
allowed for a District President to complete his investigation of a
complaint.

The Commission agrees that the time frame in which a com-
plainant may appeal a decision of a District President is at present
open-ended and recommends that an appropriate Bylaw change be
proposed to a national convention of the Synod.

In the case of the second concern, the Commission calls atten-
tion to its May 1998 opinion which stated the following regarding
the interpretation of the “90 days” stipulation for a District Presi-
dent to take action on a complaint: