LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 15–16, 2021, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

•

•

•

Bylaw 3.01 (d): The commission understands that the language both inserted and struck out is
intended to be included, as it seems to be necessary, if the district’s intention is to limit the president
to a choice of candidates on the ballot for vice-president with membership in a region congregation,
should such a candidate exist. If the district’s intention is to give free choice to the district president
to appoint any eligible ordained minister of the region, the word “candidate” should be replaced
with “an eligible ordained minister.” (Either solution is possible, but one should be undertaken.)
Bylaw 4.03 (d): The commission believes this paragraph should read: “All non-voting ordained
members of the Synod within the district and all commissioned members of the Synod within the
district are advisory delegates; the members of the board of directors not representing their
respective congregations as voting delegates, and the members of the district staff shall serve as
advisory delegates representatives. Advisory delegates and representatives are entitled to voice and
vote on a floor committee, if appointed, and to voice in the convention.
Bylaw 6.04 (a): There is a typographical error in the language the commission proposed;
“...considered by a convention floor committee; adopted by…” should read: “...considered by a
convention floor committee, and adopted by…”

With the above minor corrections attended to (assuming they meet with the intentions of the district), the
commission finds the bylaw proposal to be in harmony with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod and
approves it for presentation to the convention, reminding the district of its request for a clean copy of the
district bylaws when adopted by the convention. The district is thanked for submission of these documents
for review.
The commission notes that the district filed restated articles with the State of Wisconsin on Oct. 19 and
thanks the district for sending the commission a copy for its files.
74. Indiana District Bylaws, Revised Proposal (20-2942A)
By an email of Nov. 10, and in response to the commission’s previous review in Op. 20-2942, the Indiana
District Secretary forwarded a revised version of his district’s bylaw proposal, along with some explanatory
comments. The commission finds the present draft to have addressed all the commission’s concerns and
approves it for presentation to the district convention. The district and its secretary are thanked for diligent
attention to these matters and for submitting the documents for review. The district is reminded to submit
a clean copy of the district’s bylaws when amendments have been adopted by the convention.
75. Texas District Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, Revised Proposal (20-2943A)
By an email of Nov. 12, and in response to the commission’s previous review in Op. 20-2943, the Texas
District Secretary forwarded a revised version of his district’s bylaw proposal, noting also, in regard to the
district’s articles of incorporation, that the district has requested authorization by the Synod Board of
Directors to incorporate the language required by 2016 Res. 9-02A and Bylaw 1.5.3.6 into the district’s
bylaws instead. The Secretary of the Synod noted that this has been brought to the attention of the board,
which is again in contact with the district on this matter. In any case, the commission notes that the present
draft of the Texas District Bylaws does not incorporate the language required by Bylaw 1.5.3.6, perhaps
because the district is awaiting the board’s reply.
Apart from that outstanding item, the commission notes that its concerns with the previous draft have been
addressed. (In Article I: “THE DISTRICT: Organization and Administration,” the commission notes that
the paragraph beginning with “The Bylaws of…” should be marked as an insertion.)
With regard to the proposed language of Bylaw 14.009, “extend calls or contracts to those members of our
Synod who may be called or contracted to serve a specialized ministry endorsed by the district in these
organizations,” the commission notes that the ability of a district to “endorse a specialized ministry” (LCMS
Bylaw 2.11.1 [i]) is intended to allow a minister to be installed as active in that position while being in the
actual employ or under contract of an organization that is not an eligible calling entity (that is, while not
being called by the district or any other eligible calling body). This is a somewhat different situation than

CCM Minutes – January 15–16, 2021 – Page 58