LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 24, 2020, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Opinion:
Bylaw 3.12.2 (b) directs the Secretary of the Synod to provide a secure and verifiable
method that will offer opportunity to every congregation of the Synod to submit nominations. The Bylaw
does not stipulate what this secure and verifiable method might be. This same process may be used for the
nominations of the regional vice-presidents. See the answer to Question 1A.
B. Registration of Presidential Voters
Bylaw 3.12.2.3 governs the registration of presidential voters by the congregations-and-parishes
(Pfarrgemeinden) of the Synod. This process involves the collection of name, address, e-mail address,
phone, and a “security question” for the pastoral and lay voters to be registered. Handwriting of this
information on a form and subsequent data entry have proven very error-prone and time-consuming.
Especially the important e-mail address has been a challenge. Improperly completed or signed forms take
a long time to detect and correct, with the consequence that some congregations have difficulty completing
the process in time. An electronic process would reduce the administrative burden and significantly increase
assurance, as well as allowing more timely and accurate reminders to congregations that have not yet
registered. Bylaw 3.12.2.3, created by 2010 Res. 8-17 (Proc. 167, TB 304–5), as modified in 2016 and
2019, reads:
3.12.2.3 The Secretary of the Synod, using lists of delegates in attendance at the prior year’s district
conventions as submitted by the secretaries of the districts, shall compile and maintain the voters
list for the election of the President of the Synod in coordination with the secretaries of the
districts. This list and any of its parts shall not be disseminated.
(a) This voters list shall include two voting delegates from each congregation in attendance at
the previous district conventions who remain members of the congregations they represented:
(1) the pastor of each member congregation or multi-congregation parish (assisting pastors
are not eligible)
(2) a lay person from the congregation or parish
(b) The congregation shall present to the Secretary of Synod 90 days prior to the election a
proper credentials form provided by the Secretary, signed by two of the congregation’s officers.
If a congregation or parish has more than one pastor eligible to vote, the congregation shall
designate on the credentials form which pastor will cast a vote on behalf of the congregation.
(c) If one or both delegates are unavailable, congregations shall be provided opportunity to
select substitute voters up to a deadline designated by the Secretary. [2016 Res. 1103A, Proc. 196]
(d) The registration status of congregations shall be made available to respective district
presidents for the sole purpose of their encouraging registration for greater congregational
participation. The registration status of congregations shall not be further disseminated. [2019
Res. 9-16, Proc. 201]
The process adopted in 2010, because it relied on information from district secretaries, and not on direct
registration by congregations, involved no paper communication with the congregations themselves. In
2016, responding to dissatisfaction that congregations that did not attend the district convention or lost
those who had attended it prior to the presidential vote were not able to vote in that election, the bylaw was
modified to require direct registration of congregations with the Secretary of the Synod. The
implementation specified was along the lines of other official ballot processes: a proper credentials form,
signed by two congregational officers. This process involves a significant administrative burden and mail
delay and data entry time do not readily facilitate timely and accurate reminders to congregations,
especially as now required by subparagraph (d). Prior to the 2016 change, there would have been no
obstacle to a completely electronic registration process; the perhaps over-specified procedure dictated,
however, in 2016, may be construed to present an obstacle—even though the 2016 action evidences no
CCM Minutes – April 24, 2020 – Page 12