LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — May 5–6, 2017, Page 10

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

•

II G 1: Noted is the absence of a provision for installation / assumption of office for the newly
created council.

•

VIII C f: The commission will need to review the procedures for election of the remaining vicepresidents, as contained in the noted manual. Furthermore, the commission notes LCMS Bylaw
4.7.1, that “each district may adopt regulations for the nomination and election of…[district
officers].” The essential provisions for these elections must be specified in the bylaws. Should the
district’s bylaws not provide such provisions, since the bylaws of Synod are primarily the bylaws
of the district (LCMS Bylaw 4.1.1.2), the district would have to follow the Synod bylaw procedures
for election of vice-presidents.

The commission thanks the Missouri District for submitting its documents for review, and requests
resubmission of the proposal when the noted items have been addressed, so that its prior approval can be
given as required under Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 [a]. The commission also requests a clean copy of the bylaws as
amended by the convention, for its files, and notes the new procedure of Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 [b], which may
be of use to the district, should the convention wish to amend the proposal at the time of the convention.
53. Northern Illinois District Bylaw Changes (Including Circuit Realignment Provisions) (17-2825)
The Secretary of the Northern Illinois District sent its current bylaws, together with an overture being
proposed to authorize the board of directors to reconfigure the circuits of the district, for review under
Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 [a]. The commission notes the following points requiring attention:
•

III D 2 b: Changes to a district’s bylaws require either adoption by the convention or an action of
the board of directors consonant with LCMS Bylaw 7.1.2.

•

V B 5: The reference to LCMS Bylaw 5.2.2 [g] should be to LCMS Bylaw 5.2.2 [g] and [h].

•

VI: Note 2016 changes to LCMS Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3’s provisions for CCM review of district bylaw
revisions, namely, the provision for finalizing adoption of a preapproved bylaw revision changed
in the course of a convention.

The commission thanks the Northern Illinois District for submitting its documents for review and requests
resubmission of the proposal when the noted items have been addressed, so that its prior approval can be
given as required under Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 [a]. The commission also requests a clean copy of the bylaws as
amended by the convention, for its files, and notes the new procedure of Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 [b], which may
be of use to the district, should the convention wish to amend the preapproved proposal at the time of the
convention.
54. Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) Policy Review (17-2816)
At its February 23–25, 2017, meeting the CTCR adopted a new revision of its policies, in part to comply
with the 2016 convention’s requirement that the CTCR have policies in place for responding within 30 days
to requests for opinions presented by ecclesiastical supervisors or panels. The CTCR Executive Director
forwarded the policies for review under Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3. They were examined and found to be in harmony
with the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod. The commission notes the following:
•

B 1 d: expulsion panels should be included in the list of those entities that can request opinions.

•

VIII 6: The CCM notes Bylaws 1.10.18.1 [d] and [g], 2.14.7.8 [j], 2.14.7.9 [d] and others, which
protect records of dispute and expulsion proceedings. The commission also notes the virtual
necessity of Synod being able to evaluate binding opinions relied upon in its dispute and expulsion
processes, and that the Standard Operating Procedures Manuals require at least those requests
generated by panels, “as much as possible,” to be posed in non-case-specific ways. The CCM notes
that, unless a panel decision itself has been publicized by those with authority to publicize it (e.g.
Bylaw 2.14.8 [e]), the CTCR must not release any case-specific information in publicizing such an
opinion.
CCM Minutes – May 5–6, 2017 – Page 37