LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 10–11, 2015, Page 13

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

publishing it six weeks instead of twelve before the convention, with comments on reports and overtures
due three weeks before) could be argued.
Question 2:

To what extent, if any, are the basic requirements for regional elections as articulated in
Synod Bylaw 3.12.2.7 applicable to district regional officer and board member elections
(e.g., use of nominating ballots; number of names on election slates, elective process to be
used, non-allowance of convention floor nominations, ranking by separate ballots, etc.),
given the bylaw’s parenthetical statement, “(This shall also be the process used for all other
regional elections.),” and the final statement of Bylaw 4.7.1 regarding such nominations,
elections, and appointments: “…as long as these provisions do not conflict with the Bylaws
of the Synod”?

Opinion: The degree of latitude allowed districts in ordering their own nominations and elections
procedures is indicated in part by an action of the 2013 Synod convention. It adopted a recommendation
from the Commission on Handbook to amend Bylaw 4.7.1, adding the term “selection” between
“nomination” and “election…of its vice-presidents.” A similar addition was made regarding “any regional
officers or regional board of directors members” (Res. 7-13). Elsewhere in the Bylaws, selection reflects
the procedure for selection (by the circuit) and ratification (by the district convention) of circuit visitors
(Bylaw 5.2.2). Bylaw 4.7.1 thus allows district regulations specifying that regional officers are selected
by their respective regions and then ratified by the district convention as a whole, to which “final
determinations in elections to all district positions rightly belong” (Bylaw 4.7.3). Since this legitimate
procedure is not the one laid out in Bylaw 3.12.2.7, said bylaw is not to be understood as necessarily
binding on regional officer and board member elections at the district level. (A district could, of course,
infer its procedure from Bylaw 3.12.2.7, if it so wished.)
There are limits on what procedures a district can adopt, as imposed by the Constitution and Synod
Bylaws other than 3.12.2.7. In this example, the election of regional officers and board members may not
be by regional election, without final involvement of the district convention. “A majority of all votes cast
by a district convention shall be required in every election to all elective offices and elective board
positions” (Bylaw 4.7.3). (It is also implied that where a region selects a single candidate, the district
convention must have the right to amend the electoral ballot. The principle of the Synod bylaws that the
convention as a whole must have at least the opportunity to make a meaningful choice [election] must be
respected. The matter of how this long-standing principle that all elections must have at least two
candidates applies to regional selection processes has been referred to the Commission on Handbook for
clarification.) In another example (CCM Opinion 05-2425), the commission determined that district
regulations may not allow a district board of directors to restrict a ballot, as Synod bylaws do not assign
this activity to a board of directors.
Question 3:

When districts inadvertently overlook or misapply bylaw requirements and fail to recognize
such errors until it is too late to reverse course and remedy the oversight or mistake, what,
if any, are the expectations of the Synod for remedying such situations?

Opinion: A district that finds that it has acted on a mistaken understanding of the Synod’s requirements
should immediately consult with the Office of the President of the Synod. Such situations fall within his
area of administration (Bylaw 3.3.1.2; Constitution Art. XI B 2).
The commission “exists to interpret the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of Synod and ensure that
the governing instruments of the Synod and its agencies are in accord with the Constitution and Bylaws of
the Synod” (Bylaw 3.9.2). In cases of uncertainty, districts are advised to consult the commission.
99. Council of Presidents Manner of Conducting Business (15-2757)

CCM Minutes – April 10–11, 2015 – Page 75