LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 26 – 27, 2014, Page 16

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Following any realignment of visitation circuits in the foregoing fashion, it is then the responsibility of
the district board of directors to configure electoral circuits, using then-existing visitation circuits and
pursuant to the provisions of Synod Bylaw 3.1.2 (a).
69. Mid-South District Bylaws Review (14-2735)
With an August 19, 2014 memorandum, officers of the Mid-South District submitted revisions to the
district’s bylaws approved by the district board of directors during its August 17−18 meeting. Upon
review, the commission makes the following recommendations:
•
•
•
•

•

•
•

•

Bylaws 1.2.5 and 1.2.6: The word “agencies” is a technical word defined by the Synod in Synod
Bylaw 1.2.1 (a). The commission recommends the use of the word “entity” in place of “agency”
in Bylaws 1.2.5 and 1.2.6.
Bylaw 1.3.2: The commission suggests that the district may also want to include mention of the
district secretary in the final sentence as another officer excepted from the no-two-members rule.
Bylaw 3.2.2.2: Again here (and any other occurrences throughout the document), “agency”
should be changed to “entity.”
Bylaw 3.2.3.3: The responsibility of the district secretary to certify delegates attending district
conventions and participating in the election of the President of the Synod prior to the next Synod
convention (Bylaws 3.12.2.3; 4.2.2.2 [a]) should also be included in this delineation of duties of
the district secretary.
Bylaw 6.1.1.2: The nominations committee is not to be used for the elections of the president,
vice-president, circuit visitors, and any regional vice-president and board of directors elections.
This paragraph will require change to reflect the provisions of Synod Bylaw 3.12.3.6, in keeping
with Synod Bylaw 4.7.1.
Bylaw 8.2.4: The elections of circuit visitors must also be included in the list of exceptions to the
elective process outlined in this bylaw (see Synod Bylaw 5.2.2 [h]).
Bylaw 8.3.1 (i): The commission suggests that the district may want to reconsider not allowing
floor nominations. Here the Synod’s process (which prohibits changes to the slate) is necessitated
by the election of the President of the Synod two weeks prior to its conventions, which is not the
case for the district. The former process for elections of Synod presidents when such elections
took place at the convention did allow for amendments to the slate of candidates.
Bylaw 8.3.2.1 (a): Here, “from the clergy roster of the Synod” should be changed to read “from
the clergy roster of the district” (see Synod Bylaw 4.3.1).

The commission requested that the district board of directors give attention to these matters in a new
version of its amended Bylaws, identifying these latest changes made, and submitting the document to the
commission along with a clean copy for the commission’s records.
70. Concordia University System Faculty Employment Issues (14-2737)
In an August 30, 2014 email, a faculty member of Concordia University Wisconsin submitted a series of
questions regarding faculty employment issues, noting that pertinent sections in the 2013 Handbook of
the Synod underwent significant revisions intended to allow boards of regents to “govern more
effectively” (2013 Res. 5-06A).
In place of detailed bylaws governing faculty appointments, employment contracts, contract renewal,
contract termination, faculty organization, modified service, sabbaticals, and dispute resolution, Res. 506A required that the Concordia University System “maintain in its policies a list of subject matters that
each college and university board of regents will address in its own faculty policies.” Each board of
CCM Minutes – September 26–27, 2014 – Page 46