LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 281

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Appendix I
Opinions of Commission on Constitutional Matters
Questions Submitted by Review Panel (10-2579)

As noted in the question, Bylaw 3.1.2.1(i) directs the circuit counselor to report the results of the election to the secretary of the district
in writing immediately after the election, and Bylaw 3.1.3.2 then
requires the secretary of the district to certify those elected to the
Secretary of the Synod before the announced registration deadline,
which deadline is not specified in the Bylaws. As such, the fact that
the certification went to the secretary of the Synod by the arbitrary
deadline set by him does not affect the validity or invalidity of the
circuit’s election. Rather, the validity of the election is dependent on
compliance with the provisions of Bylaw 3.1.2.1.
Bylaw 3.1.2.1(j) allows appointment by a district president in
some instances of defective elections. However, in each of those prior
instances considered by the CCM where that right was recognized,
an election was held in a timely manner, but was defective in some
other respect. In those instances where an election was not even held
before the deadline, no “vacancy” has been previously recognized,
and in fact a number of prior opinions reflect an express recognition
that forfeiture of representation would be the natural result of failure
to hold the timely election.
The failure to call the circuit meeting necessary to elect delegates
is the responsibility of the circuit counselor and may be beyond the
control of an individual congregation. However, each congregation
should also be aware of the time deadlines set forth in the Bylaws,
and, in order to assure its representation through the circuit, it is
incumbent upon a congregation to encourage and cooperate with its
circuit counselor to act in a timely fashion. While the Synod has
covenanted with each congregation to allow representation through
the process as set forth in the Bylaws, it is expected that member
congregations will fulfill their obligations in order to preserve that
representation.
Question 2: Bylaw 3.1.2.1(j) states, “If neither the delegate nor the
alternate (pastoral or lay) can serve, the vacancy shall
be filled by the district president in consultation with the
respective circuit counselor(s).”
If the delegates mentioned above are not able to serve
due to the late election (the failure of the counselor to
carry out the provision of Bylaw 3.1.2.1 [a] in a timely
fashion), does the district president have the right to
appoint (fill the vacancy) under Bylaw 3.1.2.1(j)? If not,
what alternative does the circuit have for representation?
Opinion: As discussed above, the Bylaws provide no direct remedy, and representation may be forfeit. The Synod in convention
operates under accepted parliamentary rules, and the Committee
for Registration, Credentials, and Elections is charged to review
the credentials of delegates. Should a circuit not have properly credentialed delegates, any remedy is under the rules of parliamentary
procedure, not the Bylaws themselves. In 1971, for example, when
the SELC joined the LCMS after the deadline for selecting convention delegates, the issue of representation of the newly joined
congregations was addressed by special resolution at the start of
the convention.
(Adopted June 18, 2010)

In a letter received via e-mail on May 5, 2010, the hearing facilitator of a dispute resolution Review Panel submitted on behalf
of the panel (Bylaw 1.10.18 [h]) two questions for response by the
commission.
Question 1: Is it mandated that an LCMS congregation go through the
reconciliation process of the Synod before the removal of
a servant from his divine call?
Opinion: The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not require
a congregation to go through the “reconciliation process” before
the removal of a called worker (“servant”) from a divine call. This
subject is not addressed in either the Constitution or the Bylaws.
Bylaw 1.10.9 states in part: “The congregation’s right of selfgovernment shall be recognized. However, when a decision of a
congregation is at issue [i.e., already made], a Dispute Resolution
Panel may review the decision of the congregation according to the
Holy Scriptures and shall either uphold the action of the congregation or advise the congregation to review and revise its decision.”
The purpose of the dispute resolution process is not to give advice
prior to the making of a decision but rather to assist in resolving or
reviewing disputes involving decisions or actions of parties after
decisions have been made and/or actions taken.
Question 2: Does the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, or procedures
provide guidelines for the removal of a called worker
while he/she is on medical disability?
Opinion: The Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and Standard Operating Procedures Manual for Bylaw section 1.10 do not provide
guidelines (requirements) for a process of removal of a called
worker on medical disability.
(Adopted May 17, 2010)

Circuit Representation at National Conventions
(10-2580)
In a June 1, 2010, e-mailed letter to the chairman of the commission, a district president submitted two questions regarding circuit
representation at national conventions:
Question 1: Bylaw 3.1.2.1 (a) states, “Each electoral circuit shall
meet at the call of the counselor(s) to elect its delegates
not later than nine months prior to the opening day of
the convention.”
If a circuit meets and elects its delegates after the deadline (in this specific instance, about one week after the
deadline) and immediately reports its election to the
district secretary according to Bylaw 3.1.2.1 (i), and
if the provisions in Bylaw 3.1.3.2 were met, and if the
reporting deadline set by the Secretary of the Synod
to report delegates to his office is met, are the elected
delegates eligible to serve?
Opinion: Bylaw 3.1.2.1 contains a series of requirements for the
valid election of delegates to a national convention of the Synod.
Prior opinions of the CCM have affirmed that an election failing
to follow any of the requirements, including the time restrictions,
is ineffective in the election of a delegate. One of the requirements
for election of a delegate is that such election take place not later
than nine (9) months prior to the opening day of the convention. An
attempted election after the time deadline is therefore ineffective to
elect a delegate.

Nominations Issues
During the Wednesday afternoon session (Session 8), questions
arose regarding the appropriateness of floor nominations of individuals to positions for which the Synod in convention does not now have
information with which to confirm the nominees’ qualifications to
281

2013 Convention Workbook