LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 10–12, 2012, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

93. English District Bylaws Review (11-2613)
With an email dated August 29, 2011, the secretary of the English District submitted his district’s
proposed amended Bylaws in response to recommendations provided by the commission after an earlier
review. The commission agreed to bring the following additional recommendations to the attention of the
district secretary and board of directors for their attention prior to their submission of the proposed
amended Bylaws to the convention.
•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•

Preamble, first paragraph, final sentence: After the statement that the Constitution of the Synod
is also the Constitution of the district, it should also be stated that “the Bylaws of the Synod are
also primarily the Bylaws of the district.”
Preamble, second paragraph: Since this is intended to be a direct quote of Article III of the
Synod’s Constitution, care should be taken that it is quoted entirely accurately.
Article I, paragraph B: The change proposed, which replaces the words “in harmony with” with
“through” is hard to understand and appears to be an unnecessary change.
Article II, paragraph B, et al.: It may be helpful when referencing the Handbook of the Synod to
omit reference to the year of the Handbook (i.e., 2010) to avoid the need to revise the entire
Handbook after every Synod convention.
Article IV, paragraph A, subparagraph 4: Because the Bylaws of the Synod also serve primarily
as the Bylaws of the district (Synod Bylaw 4.1.1.2), the deviation from Synod Bylaw 3.2.4.2 (a)
by changing the interval between service from the Synod’s three years to the proposed “two
years” prompts the question whether this is an intentional departure from the Synod’s bylaw. It is
best to mirror the Synod’s Bylaws when possible (see Synod Bylaw 4.1.1.2 [a]).
Article V, paragraph A: The commission finds this stated board function (arranging for the
official conferences of district professional church workers) ordinarily to be outside the business
of a district board of directors, given that this is an ecclesiastical area and function. The
commission recognizes that the English District may have reason for this but brings it to the
district’s attention.
Article VII, paragraph S: This paragraph will require additional attention, since the stated
provision requiring a two-thirds vote of the members of the board is not in harmony with Synod
Bylaw 1.5.7.1 (c) (1).
Article X, paragraph A: In addition to the Constitution, mention should also be made of the
Bylaws of the Synod.

The commission expressed its appreciation to the secretary and board of directors of the district for their
diligence and cooperation in working through this bylaw review and revision process. Due to its work
load and press of time, the commission will review the district’s operations manual and handbook at a
later time.
94. Indiana District Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws Review (11-2619)
With an October 15, 2011 email, the secretary of the Indiana District submitted his district’s Bylaws with
proposed changes approved by the district board of directors for review approval by the commission prior
to submission to the district convention. After careful review, the commission agreed to bring the
following to the district’s attention.
•

Chapter I, Preamble: The commission suggests adding an appropriate opening paragraph as a
true preamble, using content from Synod Bylaws 1.3.1–1.3.6.
241