LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 6–7, 2010, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

12. English District Bylaws (10-2578)
The commission noted that its review of the English District’s Bylaws adopted in June 2009 will be aided
by receipt of a copy of the district’s immediately preceding Bylaws. The Secretary was asked to obtain a
copy of the district’s Bylaws leading up to its 2009 convention, and also a copy of the district’s
“Corporate Operations Manual” referred to in the Bylaws received for review.
13. Minnesota North District Bylaw and Constitution Committee Minutes Review (10-2582)
With an October 15, 2010 e-mail, the secretary of the Minnesota North District submitted the responses of
the district’s Bylaw and Constitution Commission to questions it had received, as well as proposed
amendments to the district’s Bylaws for review by the Commission on Constitutional Matters. As already
noted by the district secretary, the responses of the district commission are not subject to review by the
Commission on Constitutional Matters. The commission did, however, give attention to the proposed
bylaw amendments. After discussion, the commission asked the Secretary to obtain from the district
secretary a copy of the district’s current Bylaws to assist the commission in its review of the proposed
amendments.
14. Constitutional Amendment Ratification Process (10-2583)
In a letter dated October 19, 2010, a pastor of the Synod questioned whether the requirement for
submission of constitutional amendments to the congregations of the Synod “by means of three
announcements in the official periodical within three months after the close of the convention”
(Constitution, Art. XIV 3) was followed in the ratification process of 2010 convention constitutional
amendments. He questioned the interpretation of the Secretary of the Synod that Reporter and Reporter
Online may be used to satisfy the constitutional requirement, not only because such interpretation may be
wrong but also because it may “be robbing our members of a good opportunity for informed decision
making.”
Question 1: Is Constitution Art. XIV, which at the time of its adoption according to Secretary Hartwig’s
September 23, 2010 letter referred solely to The Lutheran Witness, now to be interpreted by
Bylaw 3.8.5.2.3 (2007 Handbook) to include also Reporter, even though the Constitution
speaks of a singular publication?
Opinion: For many years Der Lutheraner and its English counterpart The Lutheran Witness were
considered the “official organs” or “official synodical organs” or “official publications” of the Synod. The
1966 Handbook (Bylaw 11.81) added for the first time: “Official reports and notices shall be published in
The Lutheran Witness Reporter.”
Additional changes were made in the 1971 Handbook, as described in its “Foreward” by Secretary
Herbert Mueller:
The convention authorized certain language changes in the Constitution with the stated provision
that these changes are not to be regarded as constitutional amendments. The singular verb in
Article VIII A 2 was therefore changed to plural; “official organs” and “official publications” were
changed to “official periodicals in Article XI B 9 and Article XIV, 3 and 4; and the definite article
“the” was uniformly inserted before the word “Synod” in 82 instances. [emphasis added]

133