LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 8–9, 2022, Page 10

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

•
•
•

VI K 2: It should be explicit here, in addition to what is stated, that “the incoming President and
other District Officers shall assume office on July 1 following the Convention.”
VII 1–2: Handbook here should be replaced with Bylaws.
VIII A, B: It should be included that “Changes proposed by the district are reviewed and approved
in advance by the Synod’s Commission on Constitutional Matters [CCM].” And (in A only) that
“further changes adopted without CCM approval take effect only upon such approval.”

That said, the district proposal makes significant progress in bringing the district bylaws into harmony with
the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod, and so far as this proposal goes, it is approved for
presentation to the convention. The district and its secretary are thanked for significant effort expended in
this regard, and the commission looks forward to work continuing in the areas identified above.
B. Amendment of CNH Bylaw VI F 3b, regarding election of regional vice-presidents and
C. Amendment to allow the CNH Board of Directors to adopt required bylaw changes
The commission finds these proposals to be in harmony with the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of
the Synod and approves them for presentation to the convention.
D. Amendment to the CNH Articles of Incorporation regarding relationship language required by Bylaw
1.5.3.6 and 2016 Res. 9-02A
The commission notes here that the language of Bylaw 1.5.3.6, to be incorporated correctly in the district’s
articles, would need to be restated slightly as follows:
All provisions of these Articles of Incorporation and associated Bylaws are subject to the provisions
of the Constitution, the Bylaws, and the resolutions of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in
convention.
The commission presumes this amendment to be intended relative to the district’s articles, the last
amendment to which was filed on June 18, 2003. The commission finds the addition, stated as it proposes
above, to be in harmony with the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod and to render the
district’s articles, so amended, compliant with the requirements of Synod Bylaw 1.5.3.6 and 2016 Res. 902A. This amendment, too, as proposed above, is approved for presentation to the district convention.
The district and its secretary are thanked for this submission and reminded to file with the Office of the
Secretary, for the commission’s records, a clean copy of the Bylaws as finally adopted by the convention,
and of the district’s Articles of Incorporation as finally adopted and filed with the State of California.
129. Southeastern District Bylaws, Proposed (22-2987)
By an email of February 22, the Executive Director of the Southeastern (SE) District forwarded the district’s
proposed bylaw revision for review. The commission notes the following:
•

SE Bylaw III 5: With regard to the sentence, “The Officers and Board of Directors of the District
shall … hold [the District President] accountable for the execution, implementation, and reporting
of plans, programs and budget,” the district should take care that it does not so emphasize the
executive function of the President on behalf of the district and its board (in which is vested the
general management and supervision of the district’s business and legal affairs, Synod Bylaw 4.5.1
[b]) that it deprives him of time and space for his primary ecclesiastical supervisory functions, or
for his other duties as assigned by the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. The commission
offers no specific language but suggests the district consider revision in a subsequent proposal.

•

SE Bylaw V 1: The commission understands the role of the nominating committee to be nondiscretionary (that is, to be assisting with a strictly numerical process and not making choices of
candidates) with regard to the president and vice-president offices of the district. So long as this is
the case, it would not constitute an actual conflict with Bylaw 4.7.2’s prohibition of the committee’s
involvement in such elections.
CCM Minutes – April 8–9, 2022 – Page 97