LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — December 13, 2003, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

bylaw that explicitly approves, forbids, or addresses the timing of these appointments with the exceptions
of interim authority in Bylaw 3.67 c and appointments to the Commission on Structure in Bylaw 3.917 a.
It is reasonable to advocate that no appointments should be made for a new triennium by an outgoing
Board of Directors prior to those positions becoming vacant at the end of the triennium. It is also
reasonable to conclude that it would be difficult for the Board of Directors to make informed
appointments upon taking office on September 1st and expect those appointees also to take office on
September 1st (cf. Bylaws 3.59 b and 3.65). Therefore, the Commission recommends that this matter be
referred to the Commission on Structure for the development of a convention action that will resolve this
question.
224. Board of Directors Special Legal Opinion and Report (03-2372, 03-2373)
In letters dated October 20 and 23, 2003, two pastors of the Synod asked questions regarding the special
legal opinion obtained by the Board of Directors and discussed in the Board’s September, 2003 “Board of
Directors Report for Responding to Financial and Legal Matters.” After brief discussion, it was agreed
that a final opinion should be postponed.
225. Challenge to Circuit Forum Election Procedure (03-2374)
A Circuit Counselor in a November 6, 2003 e-mailed letter asks the Commission’s opinion regarding
procedure to be followed in the case of a mistake in the procedure used to elect delegates to the 2004
convention of the Synod.
Question:

We have a person in our Circuit who wants to protest the vote for the lay delegate on the
following bases: one of our churches placed two names from their church to be the lay
delegate for the 2004 convention. We did not find out until it was too late and the voting was
done and I had sent off the names to the District. The lay delegate was one of the two names
given by [the congregation]. With the October 10th [elections] deadline here and gone and
with November 7th being the deadline for me to have the names in, we are unable to make a
change. What is the proper way to correct this problem before we send off the money or get
to the convention and have someone protest the person who is our lay delegate to the
convention?

Opinion: Bylaw 3.05 details the process to be used by electoral Circuits to elect delegates to the
conventions of the Synod. Should errors occur, they must be corrected during the course of the meeting or
by calling another meeting, provided that such a meeting is possible. The bylaw includes no provision for
corrections following the meeting if it is not possible to call another meeting.
Bylaw 3.11 provides that the names and addresses of elected delegates are to be forwarded by the
Secretary of the District to the Secretary of the Synod and that this process constitutes certification.
Bylaw 3.25 requires that conventions of the Synod be conducted according to parliamentary law, which
allows for challenges to the report of the credentials committee of the convention at the time that it makes
its report to the convention. In the present case, therefore, the matter may be challenged at that time, in
which case the delegates (other than those whose credentials are challenged) will decide the matter.
226. District Funding of Relief Agency (03-2375)
In a letter dated November 10, 2003, a pastor of the Synod submitted a question regarding the action of a
District related to the start of a new congregation affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America.
160