LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 9–10, 2024, Page 1

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

MINUTES
COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
Marriott St. Louis Airport, St. Louis, Mo.
August 9–10, 2024
38. Opening Devotion and Adoption of Agenda
Chairman Peters called the meeting to order with all members present, Rev. Vandercook offering an
opening devotion, on Friday, on the readings for the Vigil of St. Lawrence, Sirach 51:1–6a, 8b and Matt.
16:24–28; and on Saturday, for St. Lawrence, 2 Cor. 9:6–10 and John 12:24–26. The meeting’s agenda,
having been distributed, was adopted as follows:
39. Correspondence
The commission reviewed an email correspondence from a pastor of the Synod regarding the ability of a
district president, or an investigative panel assisting a district president, to compel production of evidence
or testimony when investigating a matter under Bylaw sections 2.14 or 2.17. (The pastor observed that
Bylaw 2.14.7.8 [d] applies only to the part(s) of the process in which a hearing panel is operative.) The
commission noted Bylaws 4.4.6 and 2.14.1, 3. It reviewed a reply of the Secretary and had nothing to add,
other than the possibility of a change to Bylaw 4.4.6 to make explicit what is now implicit—that documents
and testimony need to be produced by members of the Synod to further such investigations. The Secretary
will communicate this to the pastor who has been in contact.
40. California-Nevada-Hawaii District Bylaws, Review (24-3032)
By an email of July 24, the Secretary of the California-Nevada-Hawaii (CNH) District forwarded his
district’s bylaws for review.
The commission noted previous reviews Op. 21-2968 and 22-2989, certain aspects of which, having not
yet been addressed, still require attention:
•

•

•
•

CNH Bylaw Article III A 3 a: The board is “vested with general management and supervision
of…business and legal affairs” (Synod Bylaw 4.5.1 [b]). Outcome-based governance cannot be
adopted by the district to such a degree that the more concrete responsibilities of Synod Bylaw
section 4.5 and the model of the Synod Board of Directors are excluded. This emphasis should at
least be balanced with that material.
Article III A 3: These bylaws seem to reflect a “Policy Governance” or “Carver” model that
understands the District President as “chief executive officer” under the board. This is problematic
for a few reasons. Synod Bylaws expect the Board to provide for handling of business and legal
affairs (Bylaw section 4.5; see also Const. Art. XI E and XII 6 and Bylaw section 3.3.4). The
President has ecclesiastical supervisory responsibilities (see further in paragraph following bullets).
He may assist the board with its responsibilities but (1) the board may not impose policy on the
president’s sole responsibility for ecclesiastical supervision and (2) the demands on the district
president’s time for administrative duties as assigned by the board must not impinge on his ability
to perform his ecclesiastical supervisory work. The exclusive delegation of all non-policy authority
to the district president (CNH Article III A 3 d) does not conform to the constitutional and Synod
bylaw relationship of board and president. The district president serves principally for reasons other
than administering the board’s affairs; likewise, the board needs the flexibility, at least, to delegate
otherwise.
Article III A 3 g needs to exclude explicitly the ecclesiastical supervisory duties of the district
president, over which the board does not have supervision (likewise, in CNH Article III A 3 o,
where the board’s acceptance of responsibility is unwisely broad).
Article III B 2 c–i and III G d: These subparagraphs continue to reflect a “Policy Governance”
model, whereby a great deal of responsibility that is natively the work of the board is delegated,
CCM Minutes – August 9–10, 2024 – Page 24