LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 243

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION 243

Resolved, That Bylaw 3.1.2 (a) be amended to add after “1,500
to 10,000” the words “as certified by the Secretary of Synod from
Statistical reports on file with the Secretary of Synod from the year
previous to the election of delegates”; and be it finally

Resolved, That Bylaw 3.1.2 (b) be amended to add after “dis-
trict board of directors” the sentence “Any district applying for a
circuit exception must have adopted a realignment plan by their
district in convention in the last six years.”

Board of Directors
Missouri District

To Revise Process for Voting Representation
at National Synod Conventions

Historical Background:

The issue of fair voting representation at national Synod con-
ventions has been debated for over a century. While the initial plan
for convention representation gave each member congregation two
votes, one a layman of the congregation and the other the pastor of
the congregation, the growth of the Synod made it necessary to es-
tablish delegate conventions within 25 years from its founding. Au-
thorization to develop a plan came in the 1869 convention, and the
plan developed was then adopted at the 1872 convention. The new
procedure called for one lay and one pastoral delegate to represent
from two to seven congregations and was to become effective with
the 1875 convention. (This first delegate convention was actually
held in 1874, a year earlier than scheduled.)

In actual practice, significant variation in the size of electoral
circuits developed between the various districts, with some districts
apparently having many electoral circuits of two or three congre-
gations. The 1893 convention attempted to address this variation
by adopting a resolution that called for circuits to number five to
seven congregations [Proceedings, 1893, p. 125]. This requirement
was not made official, however, as Article III of the 1899 Hand-
book continued to read, “The power of this corporation shall be
lodged with the accredited clerical and lay delegates of the congre-
gations in actual membership with this synod. Not less than two
and not more than seven congregations being entitled to one cleri-
cal and one lay representative in this organization at the option of
said congregations, and only such delegates shall be entitled to a
vote at the meetings of this Synod” [1899 Handbook, Fourth Edi-
tion, p. 54].

The report of the Synod President to the 1908 Synod convention
indicated that 77 of the 245 electoral circuits did not conform to
the official rule. He recommended enlarging electoral circuits to at
least ten congregations. However, no action was taken until the
1917 convention, which adopted a new requirement stipulating that
electoral circuits would number between five and ten congrega-
tions, and that the relative size of the congregations should deter-
mine how many were included in a circuit. This new arrangement
took effect for the 1920 convention.

Because the size of the convention was making it difficult to
provide proper housing, in 1944 the parameters were again
changed. Electoral circuits were now to be made up of between ten
to fifteen member congregations. Fractional portions left over were
allowed the same representation as a complete circuit: one pastoral
and one lay delegate.

The current parameters were adopted at the 1967 Synod conven-
tion, which for the first time included a specified number of commu-
nicant members along with a specified number of congregations for
an electoral circuit. One lay delegate and one pastoral delegate were
to represent from 7 to 20 congregations with a membership range of
1,500 to 10,000. Exceptions could be approved by the Synod Presi-
dent based on a request from a district board of directors.

Rationale:

Because this issue of what size groupings of congregations
should be entitled to representation has come up for study over and
over within the Synod, it seems to indicate that there exists some

level of dissatisfaction in the Synod with the current parameters.
Often, ceriain types of congregations will express a concern that
they are underrepresented.

In addition, finding the proper formula is complicated by the
fact that the individual districts of the Synod vary greatly in dis-
trict size, size of the member congregations, and the makeup of the
membership of these congregations. To a large extent these differ-
ences stem simply from the nature of the region being served by
that district. Regions that reflect a great deal of diversity in the gen-
eral population will reflect that in the membership of the district.

The fact that the makeup of the individual districts of the Synod
varies so greatly makes it virtually impossible for a solution to fit
every occasion.

The proposed change would continue to base voting represen-
tation for Synod conventions on the number of congregations and
the number of communicants. However, it would use a formula that
would give each district a pair of delegates, one lay and one pas-
toral, for every specified number of congregations and a pair of del-
egates for every specified number of communicant members. Frac-
tional numbers, which meet the requirements halfway, would
receive an additional pair of delegates. Under this proposal there
would be no exceptions, except that a district could choose to di-
vide itself into fewer electoral circuits than it was entitled to.

The individual districts would then have the discretion to deter-
mine electoral circuits as best fit their circumstances. One district
may want to group its ethnic congregations into one electoral cir-
cuit, or it may want to place three or four of its large congregations
into one electoral circuit. Another district may want to make its
electoral circuits represent a wider range of its membership.

However a district decided to group its congregations into elec-
toral circuits, the actual division would require approval by district
convention.

The accompanying chart illustrates the number of delegate pairs
each district would receive based on the 2004 statistics. Option A
would assign one pair for every 25 congregations and 10,000 com-
municant members; option B one pair for every 20 congregations
and 8,000 communicant members; option C for every 15 congre-
gations and 7,000 communicant members; option D for every 12
congregations and 6,000 members; and option E for every 10 con-
gregations and 5,000 communicant members. The overture speci-
fies the numbers from option C.

District Convention Delegates 9/23/2006

District Del pair fof #of  Delpair Del pair Del pair Del pair Del pair

2004 Cong Comm  OptA OptB OptC OptD OptE
SELC (3) 3 52 13000 3 5 5 6 8
New Jersey (6) 5 61 13000 3 5 6 7 9
Wyoming (7) 7 63 12000 3 5 6 7 8
Montana (6) 6 64 11000 3 4 6 7 8
New England + (9) 9 70 17000 5 6 7 9 10
Oklahoma (8) 9 729 18000 5 6 8 10 12
North Dakota (8) 6 93 18000 6 7 9 i 13
Southern [linois (7) il 97 34000 7 9 ll 4 17
Atlantic (10) 12 102 26000 7 8 lt 13 15
South Dakota ayy oil 4 25000 8 9 12 14 16
Towa East (13) 13 119 46000 9 il 13 16 19
Mid-South aq) 12 ng 25000 8 9 12 14 17
Eastern (4) 16 142 37000 10 12 15 18 21
English (20) 19 155 47000 11 14 17 21 25
Central Illinois (16) 16 156 55000 12 15 18 22 27
Kansas (16) 17 165 49000 12 i4 18 22 27
Southern (14) 14 169 28000 10 2 IS 19 23
Ohio qs) 15 170 53000 42 16 19 23 28
lowa West (20) 20 175 53000 12 16 20 24 29
Rocky Mountain (4) 14 180 44000 th 15 18 22 27
Florida-Georgia (16) 22 183 54000 12 16 20 24 29
Cal-Nev-Hawaii (16) 18 183 40000 12 14 18 22 26
Southeastern (18) 20 201 53000 13 V7 21 26 art
Minnesota North (8) 18 207 51000 13 16 21 26 BH
Wisconsin South (27) 27 213 97000 19 23 28 By 40
Wisconsin North (20) 20 222 82000 17 21 27 33 38
Northern Illinois (25) 26 232 106000 20 25 30 37 44
Indiana (22) 22 237 84000 17 23 28 ee] 41
Nebraska (22) 22 242 84000 18 23 28 ee 4l
Minnesota South (27) 26 245 102000 20 25 32 37 45
Northwest (24) 25 260 57000 16 20 25 32 37
Pacific Southwest (26) 32 274 73000 18 23 28 35 42
Missouri (29) 29 295 108000 23 29 35 43 52
Texas (36) 38 329 103000 23 29 7 44 54
Michigan (44) 44 374 170000 32 40 49 59 71