LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 2–3, 2018, Page 10

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

•

Bylaw 2.09 [c]: The district president’s responsibility to maintain the roster is not an annual but a
regular endeavor. The language of this paragraph should be generally updated to reflect LCMS
Bylaw 4.4.7.

•

Bylaw 2.12 [a]: The bylaw could more clearly indicate that the standard for regional membership
is residence, applicable at time of election and throughout the term of service. In [b], “must vacate”
should read “vacates,” as his removal from office requires no action on his part.

•

Bylaw 2.15 [b]: This manner of selecting a second vice-president seems to constitute an election
by less than a majority, which is not an election under Const. Art. VIII C. The commission suggests
that appointment by the district president, by the board of directors, or by some other means would
be a more appropriate mechanism. Compare LCMS Bylaw 3.3.2.4.

•

Bylaw 2.17 [c]: Voters in the Synod presidential election are now registered apart from the activity
of the district secretaries.

•

Bylaws 2.18, 2.22[a]: The insertion of voting results in a requirement more restrictive than that of
Synod (LCMS Bylaw 4.3.3), that officers and board members simply be members of member
congregations.

•

Bylaw 2.29 [c]: The assignment of this responsibility to the circuit visitors is outside the purview
of their office (likewise, Bylaw 2.36 [c]). It is also unclear why the circuit lay delegates (elected
for the purposes of Synod convention representation) would play this role in the district’s financial
affairs. Perhaps a vote of the district congregations would be a more appropriate mechanism, if this
is to be desired.

•

Bylaw 2.45 [a]: The requirement that circuit visitors be members of congregations in the circuits
they serve goes beyond the requirements of Synod’s bylaws. This requirement should be removed.

•

Bylaw 2.48 [c]: A balloting procedure as described can have unintended mathematical
consequences (may not have the same result as serial, single elections). It would be better to do as
Synod does and vote for one position at a time, although this would of course take more ballots.

•

Bylaw 3.04: No distinction is made between electoral (LCMS Bylaws 3.1.2–3.1.2.1) and visitation
(LCMS Bylaws 5.1.1–5.4) circuits. This should be clarified. Bylaw 3.04 [d], for example, deals
exclusively with electoral circuit forums.

•

Bylaw 8.01 [i][iii]: The commission is uncertain about the meaning and implication of the phrase,
“or when considering calls which their pastors have received.” Furthermore, with regard to the
sentence, “If the congregation acts contrary to such advice, etc.” the district is advised to give due
consideration to CCM Op. 05-2437 (Oct. 16–18, 2005), regarding the involvement of districts in
the call process of mission congregations. In part, the opinion reads: “assuming that the
congregation in question has sought the counsel of its district president during the calling process,
a district (or one of its staff persons) may not coerce the congregation relative to the calling of its
pastor nor may it coerce a pastor upon receipt of the congregation’s call, since the right and
responsibility to call the pastor rests solely with the calling congregation. Should a district threaten
to withhold its financial support of the subsidized congregation unless the calling congregation
and/or the called pastor adhere to the wishes of the district relative to the call of the pastor, the
congregation may utilize the Synod’s dispute resolution process to determine if such a threat is
coercion and a violation of Article VII of the Constitution of the Synod.”

•

Bylaw 8.01 [i][v]: Congregations, whether subsidized or not, cannot be required by the district to
participate.

•

Bylaw 13.01 [b]: The district may wish to incorporate the mechanism provided in LCMS Bylaw
3.9.2.2.3 [b].
CCM Minutes – February 2, 2018 – Page 98