LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — July 19, 2022, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

152. Montana District Bylaw 2.2.1.4 (22-2995)
By an email of May 10, the Secretary of the Montana (MT) District forwarded a change proposed to his
district’s Bylaw 2.2.1.4, which was adopted by the district convention (convened June 13) before it could
be reviewed by the commission. Having been made aware of the potential amendment, prior to the
convention, the Secretary suggested this approach, the provision proposed being essentially identical to the
one used at the Synod level, but also requested the complete district bylaws for review.
As to the amendment of MT Bylaw 2.2.1.4 (c), submitted for the commission’s after-the-fact review under
Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 (b), the commission finds the change to be in harmony with the Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions of the Synod and gives its approval, allowing it to become effective as adopted by the district
convention. The district and its secretary are thanked for submitting this change for review and are asked
to forward a clean copy of its bylaws as adopted for the commission’s files.
As to the remainder of the Montana District Bylaws, last reviewed in Op. 17-2847, the commission
identifies the following as needing attention in the district’s next revision of its bylaws:
•

•
•
•

MT Bylaw 1.3.1 (d): The commission notes, without completely understanding the district’s
practice of this provision, that attendance and participation of validly credentialed delegates cannot
be contingent on the payment of a “registration fee” or “assessment [required to be] paid by all
congregations.”
MT Bylaw 1.3.2 (m–r): For elections other than that of the district president and vice-presidents,
the procedure of (Synod) Bylaw 4.7.3 should be used.
MT Bylaw 2.1.3.3: It should be noted that the responsibility of stewardship cannot be left
unassigned (Bylaw 4.6.1)
MT Bylaw 3.1: The district is reminded of the possibility, which it does not have to exercise, of
including an amendment provision reflective of Synod Bylaw 7.1.2, but on the district level.

The commission also inquires with the district whether it has filed its most recently revised articles of
incorporation, last reviewed and approved by the commission in Op. 14-2700, with the State of Montana.
The district is asked to forward a copy of these as filed with the state for the commission’s records.
153. Missouri District Bylaws as Adopted (22-2991A)
By an email of July 7, the Secretary of the Missouri (MO) District forwarded a clean copy of the bylaws of
his district as adopted by the convention, noting one change requiring retrospective review and approval by
the commission under Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 (b), regarding the restoration of term limits for circuit visitors, in
MO Bylaw II F 2. The commission finds the change to be in harmony with the Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions of the Synod and gives its approval, allowing it to become effective as adopted by the district
convention. The district and its president are thanked for sending the clean copy of its bylaws for the
commission’s files and for noting these changes for the commission’s retrospective review.
154. Nebraska District Bylaws, Adopted as Amended (22-2998)
By an email of July 19, 2022, the President of the Nebraska District forwarded a clean copy of his district’s
bylaws as adopted by the convention, noting changes made at the time of the convention to NEB Bylaws
IV.A.4.l and IV.H.1, which are subject to the commission’s after-the-fact approval under Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3
(b). The commission finds the adopted language to be in harmony with the Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions of the Synod and gives its approval, allowing it to become effective as adopted by the district
convention.
The commission does note its impression that the purpose of the ability of a district board of directors to
reassign congregations to visitation circuits—namely, to allow circuits to be restructured as needed without
waiting for a district convention—would seem to be frustrated if that realignment would not be in force and
effect until ratified by the district convention (Bylaw IV.A.4.l; cf. ratification in Bylaw 5.2.2 [h] or as in
Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised [12th ed.] 10:54). The precise sense of the mechanism adopted—
CCM Minutes – July 19, 2022 – Page 117