LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 1–2, 2016, Page 14

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

In its opinion, the commission noted that the five geographic regions were created “for representational
purposes to improve communications and coordination of function…serving to establish stronger
connection links between the congregations, districts, and Synod, …[enabling the Synod to] benefit from
improved representation from all areas of the nation.” The commission opined that where an individual
had voluntarily relocated outside the region of his/her election, he/she “must resign from the officer or
board member position.” Where an individual found himself/herself midterm in a region other than that
to which he/she had been elected through no fault of his/her own but rather due to changed regional lines
determined by the Synod (Bylaw 3.12.1), this person could serve out his/her term.
Therefore, looking at the rationale set forth concerning regionally elected members and members whose
elections require specific district relationships, it is apparent that the regional members (who were also
subject to the district relationship proviso) were specifically elected for representational purposes.
Creation of the provisions which gave rise to their positions occurred after the only-one-member-perdistrict requirement had been in place for some time and specifically for the purpose of improving
representation. Had the Synod wished to make clear that the only-one-member-per-district requirement
was also a representational provision, it could have done so. It did not, making it apparent that this
provision was different than that covered by the regional provision. There is nothing in the documents
creating the only-one-member-per-district requirement to suggest that the Synod anticipated the necessity
of an individual who changed their district relationship after election such that it violated this rule would
be expected to vacate his/her position, and the commission finds no basis for saying so now (see CCM
Opinion Ag. 232, April 24–25, 1969).
Question 2: May an officer of the Synod be nominated for and elected to a position on the Board of
Directors of the Synod if the term of his current office expires before the term on the Board
of Directors begins?
Opinion: Aside from the provisions of Synod Bylaw 1.5.1.2, which states limitations on holding multiple
elected offices, there are no other provisions in the Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws that speak on this
subject, and therefore none which would preclude what is being asked, assuming that the officer is not
otherwise disqualified by reason of not meeting an election qualification. The bylaw provides:
1.5.1.2 No one, either in the Synod or a district, or between the Synod and a district, shall hold more than one
elective office; or hold more than two offices, although one or both be appointive; or ever hold two
offices of which one is directly responsible for the work done by the other.
(a) An office shall be regarded as elective only if it is an office filled through election by a national
or a district convention, even though a vacancy in such an office may be filled by appointment.
(b) Doubtful cases shall be decided by the President of the Synod.

Where such an individual’s election would precede the termination of his current office but his taking
office in the new position would occur subsequent to the termination of his old position, there is no
violation of the bylaw as there would be no holding of more than one office at any point in time.
163. Bylaw Section 2.17 Expulsion Process Opinion Request (16-2788)
An individual member of Synod whose expulsion case is being heard under Synod Bylaw 2.17 posed a
number of bylaw-related questions through the hearing panel (Bylaw 2.14.7 [l]). These questions are
extensive and to a large degree deal with factual matters and issues which are primarily the focus of the
panel considering the proceeding at this stage.
At the outset the commission must note that the structure of the bylaws under which a Synod Bylaw
section 2.17 proceeding takes place is designed to ensure that due process is protected and preserved for
the parties involved. In this regard, the process is structured to make certain that it be fair to the parties
involved, that their right to be fully informed of the charges be handled adequately, and that the rights of
an accused to be presented with an opportunity to mount a defense be assured, preserved, and protected to
CCM Minutes – April 1–2, 2016 – Page 128