LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 10–11, 2015, Page 12

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

(d) Where the Synod’s Bylaws deal with the Synod’s nominations and elections (and do not
elsewhere deal directly with the same matters regarding a district), Synod Bylaws shall by default
govern “insofar as these may be applicable” (see above). However, Synod Bylaw 4.7.1 allows
each district “to adopt regulations for the nomination and election of its president; the
nomination, selection, election, ranking, and succession in case of vacancies of its vicepresidents; and the nomination or selection of any regional officers or regional board of directors
members, so long as these provisions do not conflict with the Bylaws of the Synod.”
These may to a limited extent provide different procedures for the district than exist on the Synod
level, without conflicting with the Constitution or Bylaws of Synod, because Synod Bylaw 4.7.1
grants that bylaws governing Synod-level nomination and election procedures may be overridden
by district bylaws. For example, the adoption of a new process for election of the Synod President
(2010 Res. 8-13) did not obligate districts to elect their presidents by an electronic method prior
to their conventions. They had pre-existing versions of their own rules and regulations, which
take precedence over inferences from Synod-level nomination and election regulations under
Bylaw 4.7.1.
The overarching principle to be respected in each and every case is that “[t]he Synod is not merely an
advisory body in relation to a district, but establishes districts in order more effectively to achieve its
objectives and carry on its activities…A district is the Synod itself performing the functions of the
Synod” (Bylaws 4.1.1–4.1.1.1). Districts shall conceive their regulations in a manner that honors and
respects the general expectations of all Synod’s congregations, as embodied in Synod’s Constitution and
Bylaws, for its conventions, nominations, and elections. The principles evident in Synod’s regulations
always govern district regulations. When in doubt, it is appropriate to assume that the procedures of
Synod’s regulations apply. Ultimately, the Synod interprets its own Constitution and Bylaws and their
applicability to its districts’ conventions, nominations, and elections.
The CCM, recognizing that this is a long-standing point of confusion, has asked Commission on
Handbook to explore the possibility of bylaw changes to give districts more clear, comprehensive, and
consistent guidance in developing appropriate regulations governing their conventions, nominations, and
elections.
Question 1:

Bylaw 4.2.1 (a) requires that district conventions “be governed by the bylaws adopted by
the Synod for its conventions, insofar as these may be applicable.” To what extent, if any,
do the words “as these may be applicable” provide latitude to districts to take what they
believe to be reasonable exception to Synod bylaw requirements for its conventions (e.g.,
the Bylaw 3.1.8 [b] requirement that printed copies of convention workbooks be provided
to all official delegates and representatives)?

Opinion: The commission’s ongoing review of existing and proposed district bylaws and regulations
provides guidance to the districts as to: (1) the applicability of Synod-level regulations by inference to
district-level procedures (Bylaw 4.2.1[a]); and (2) whether districts’ “other regulations” (Bylaw 4.2.1[e])
are or are not “contrary to the Constitution and Bylaws of Synod.” Authoritative interpretation of the
Constitution and Synod Bylaws rests with the Synod convention and with the commission. This question
does not admit a concise and general answer.
As to the example, Bylaw 3.1.8 (b) indicates that the Synod has determined in principle that the full
participation of delegates, alternates, and officers, as well as that of all board, commission, and council
members, requires that they receive advance printed copies of the Convention Workbook. There seems to
be no compelling reason that the same requirement would not be applicable also at the district level, so
the requirement applies (CCM Opinion 14-2705). Whether a district might, given the relatively smaller
size of its workbook, operate procedurally on a different timetable than the Synod in this regard (perhaps
CCM Minutes – April 10–11, 2015 – Page 74