LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — October 16–18, 2005, Page 20

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

•

Article IV A 1 (p. 10) – No mention is made of licensed deacons, which are to be included under
the supervisory responsibilities of the president of the district.

•

Article IV D 5 (p. 13) – This statement is in conflict with Article II B 2 (p. 3) where the position
of Director of Financial Planning and Control has been removed.

•

Article V B (p. 14) – A section heading in bold type is missing for this section.

•

Article V C 5 (p. 14) – The Bylaw reference should read “Article V C 2” and include reference
also to Article III D 15.

•

Article VI B (p. 17) – An erroneous phrase in bold-faced type from Article V B 4 found its way
into this section: “life, youth, parish education, singles, and older adults ministries;”

•

Article VII A (p. 17) – Reference should be to Bylaw section 1.10 of the Bylaws of the Synod
rather than chapter VIII.

•

Article VII B 1 (p. 17) – Reference might be made to Synod Bylaw 1.10.2 which is the source of
the quoted material.

•

Article VII B 2 (p. 18) – Reference should be to Bylaw section 1.10 of the Bylaws of the Synod
rather than chapter VIII.

92. Implementation of Circuit Realignment (05-2447)
In a letter dated October 5, 2005, a district president asked the Commission to review a proposal of his
district’s Circuit Realignment Committee that establishes a schedule for implementation of the
realignment of circuits in his district should proposed actions to that effect be adopted by the 2006 district
convention.
Question:

Is the proposed schedule for the implementation of circuit realignment as stipulated in the
enclosed resolution acceptable? As you will note, because of the schedule of the conventions
of the district and the Synod, we are proposing that circuits be realigned so that the new
configuration of circuits takes effect for the 2007 convention of the Synod and for the 2009
convention of the district.

Opinion: Article XII 3 c gives responsibility to districts to establish visitation circuits by including
among district officers “as many circuit counselors as each district may determine upon.” Bylaw 1.3.2
expands upon that understanding: “The Synod divides itself into districts and authorizes the districts to
create circuits.” Accordingly, Bylaw 4.3.1 includes “a circuit counselor for each circuit established by the
district” in a list of officers to be elected by each district, with Bylaw 5.2.2 providing the process to be
used for such elections.
The Bylaws also authorize the creation of a second kind of circuit. While Bylaw 5.1.1 establishes the
criteria for creating the visitation circuits provided for above, Bylaw 3.1.2 establishes the criteria for
creating electoral circuits from those existing visitation circuits to provide delegates to conventions of the
Synod. In both cases, the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod are silent regarding the manner in which
the implementation of these bylaw requirements is to take place.
The implementation schedule proposed by the district’s Circuit Realignment Committee, advocating that
the electoral circuits in question be realigned for the 2007 Synod convention with the realignment of
visitation circuits waiting until the 2009 district convention is not workable, given the requirement of the
Synod’s Bylaws that the establishment of electoral circuits depends upon existing visitation circuits. To
change electoral circuit configurations prior to changing visitation circuit configurations is not possible or

52