LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 357

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 357

An emeritus member not regularly serving any congregation or
other agency shall continue to hold membership through the Dis-
trict through which membership was held at the inception of the
emeritus status unless a transfer is approved by both the President
of that District and the President of the District to which member-
ship would be transferred.

In determining the District membership of individual members
of the Synod, Bylaw 2.41 j applies in every case:

The District through which an individual holds membership and
the District through which a member is ecclesiastically supervised,
will not be determined in any case on the basis of District mem-
bership of the congregation to which the individual belongs.

On the other hand, laypersons are not eligible to be members of
the Synod. They are eligible to be members of the Board of Direc-
tors by being members of voting congregations of the Synod.
Therefore, a layperson is “from” that “District” of which his or her
voting congregation is a member.

Therefore, the bylaw phrase “from one District” is applied ac-
cording to the District membership of the individual member of the
Synod and the District membership of the congregation to which
the layperson belongs. An individual member of the Synod and a
layperson being members of the same congregation is in itself of no
consequence. The decisive qualification is the District membership
of the individual member of the Synod and the District member-
ship of the congregation of which the layperson is a member.

Further, the Commission has previously stated in Opinion 98-
2127:

The Commission would clarify that while two current members of
the Board of Directors of the Synod may reside in the same state, the
decisive qualification for board membership on the part of church work-
ers is not the place of residence but District membership, as stated in
Bylaw 3.189 of the 1998 Handbook [Bylaw 3.181 of the 2001 Hand-
book}....So long as District membership is held in different Districts of
the Synod, residence in the same state is of no consequence. A board
member may be an emeritus church worker who has upon retiring
changed his place of residency. His synodical membership, however,
ordinarily remains in the District where he last served, in accord with
Bylaw 2.41 e.

It is therefore conceivable that current members of the Board of
Directors can reside in the same state, be members of the same
member congregation of the Synod, and yet not be “from one Dis-
trict’(Bylaw 3.181 a).

While, however, two memberships as defined above may in fact
be held in the same one District, there may not be two persons from
that same District elected to the Board. Bylaw 3.181 states: “No
more than one of these 13 may be elected from one District.” When
persons are elected from two separate Districts and one transfers
to a District that already has a person from that District elected to
the Board of Directors, that does not disqualify either person from
serving on the Board and finishing his or her term of office. The
decisive qualification is the status of membership at the time of the
election.

Question 2: What is the distinction between 3.181 a (“no more
than one of these 13 may be elected from one District”) and 3.407
d (No more than one of these seven members elected by the Synod
in convention can be from the same District of the LCMS)?

Opinion: Bylaw 3.181 relates only to the Board of Directors of
the Synod whereas Bylaw 3.407 relates to the Board for Higher Ed-
ucation.

Question 3: In the case of 3.181 a, members are elected for a
six (6) year term. If under the above circumstance, one current
member’s term ends in 2004, while the other member elected from
a separate District has a term which does not expire in 2004, (but
this person transfers to the other person’s District)—at the 2004
convention, which District may not have any other person nomi-
nated or elected to this Board—the District from which this trans-
ferred member was originally elected, or the District in which this
transferred person would currently hold membership?

Opinion: In answer to the question posed, it is the status of Dis-
trict membership at the time of election that is one of the determin-
ing factors. If a member midterm transfers District membership to

a District from which another Board member has already been
elected and is serving, it is when the term ends/timing of the elec-
tion that is a determining factor.

Assuming that one current member of the Board of Directors
who was elected from a separate District and whose term ends in
2007 transfers District membership midterm to another District
which already has a person elected from that District to the Board
of Directors and whose term ends in 2004, the following is the ap-
plication of the bylaws: A person from the District of the person
whose term ends in 2004 may be nominated and elected from that
given District to the Board of Directors since “no more than one of
these” was “elected from one District” (Bylaw 3.181 a). The person
whose term ends in 2007 (assuming that the previous person was
elected in 2004) may not be nominated and elected from that same
District :in 2007 since “more than one” member would have been
“elected from one District” (Bylaw 3.181 a).

Assuming that one current member of the Board of Directors
who was elected from a separate District as an individual member
of the Synod and whose term ends in 2007 moved midterm to a an-
other state but did not transfer District membership and perhaps
even joined the same congregation of the District which already
has a person elected from that District to the Board of Directors
and whose term ends in 2004, the following is the application of
the bylaws: A person from the District of the person whose term
ends in 2004 may be nominated and elected from that given Dis-
trict to the Board of Directors since “no more than one of these”
was “elected from one District” (Bylaw 3.181 a). The person whose
term ends in 2007 may be nominated and elected from that District
where membership is still held in 2007 since “no more than one of
these” was “elected from one District” (Bylaw 3.181 a).

Adopted April 29, 2003

Use of Bylaws Chapter VIII to Challenge
Board of Regents Decision (03-2324A)

In a February 3, 2003 letter, the member of the Synod who pre-
viously submitted Question 03-2324 submitted a subsequent re-
quest for clarification.

Question: The member of Synod who previously submitted
question 03-2324 indicates that, following the decision of the
Board of Regents to dismiss a complaint against a non-commis-
sioned professor, the complainant wishes to invoke Chapter VIII
of the Bylaws to address what he describes as a dispute with the
Board of Regents as to their action in dismissing the complaint.
The member asked whether Chapter VIII of the Bylaws may be
used to address such a dispute with the Board of Regents itself.

Opinion: As indicated in the Preamble and Bylaw 8.01, Chapter
VIII was established to resolve, in a God pleasing manner, disputes
that involve as parties members of the Synod, the Synod itself, a
District or an organization owned or controlled by the Synod, per-
sons involved in excommunication or lay members of congrega-
tions of the Synod holding positions with the Synod itself or with
the Districts or other organizations owned and controlled by the
Synod, and shall be the exclusive remedy to resolve such disputes.

In other sections of the Constitution and Bylaws, there are spe-
cific duties assigned to various individuals or organizations who
are directed, authorized, and even mandated to make those deci-
sions. Specific checks and balances are detailed throughout the
Constitution and Bylaws with regard to those powers and respon-
sibilities. Disagreement with a decision by a Dispute Resolution
Panel under Bylaw 8.09 d, for example, may be appealed only to an
Appeal Panel and may not serve as the basis of a Chapter VIII pro-
ceeding against the Dispute Resolution Panel or its individual
members. Because the decision of the Appeal Panel is expressly
declared by Bylaw 8.09 e 1 to be final, disagreement with the
panel’s decision would similarly not be subject to a Chapter VIII
proceeding. As recognized in Opinion 02-2324, a decision of the
Board of Regents, in the circumstances described, are final pur-
suant to the terms of Bylaw 6.47 f 5. The decision of the Board of
Regents is not a dispute to which Chapter VIII of the Bylaws ap-
plies. To rule otherwise would allow any action or any decision of

2004 Convention Workbook