LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 9–10, 2024, Page 15

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

4-11 and 2016 Res. 9-02A), partial revisions notwithstanding—a state of “uncertainty, possibly
contradictions, conflicts, complexities, and definite lack of clarity” (1981 Res. 5-07, first whereas) remains
regarding the requirements for subsidiary corporations.
The commission respectfully suggests that the Board of Directors undertake again, as in 1981, to clarify the
requirements necessary to protect the Synod’s interests at the incorporation or revision of corporate
documents of Synod’s agencies and subagencies, taking into account not only the remaining-in-force
aspects of 1981 Res. 5-07 and 2016 Res. 9-02A, but also, generally, the requirements of Bylaw section 1.5,
many of which have proven problematic for specific types of corporate instruments (for example, foreign
mission corporations) in ways that are both difficult to adjust and outside the very narrow ability of the
board to grant exceptions (see Bylaw 1.5.3.6). Such a project could take into account legal opinions as to
the effectiveness or sufficiency of controls in place and, where conditions do not permit the obvious
mechanism to be implemented as required, provide a framework within which the board could grant studied
exceptions to individual corporations or classes of corporations, providing the Synod with effectively the
same necessary assurances by different means.
This would be a worthy project if for no other reason than that the last, partial attempt to address these
issues will be a decade old by 2026 and that it leaves us to rely in part on a standard that will be 45 years
old, which itself is not documented in the Bylaws. The proliferation of subagencies and their worldwide
projection, as well as decades of change in corporate law provide further urgent motivation. The
commission also found, in researching the history of corporate formation among Synod subagencies since
1981 for its opinion in the instant matter, many other weighty reasons for this undertaking.
Were the fruit of such an effort to be adopted by the 2026 or some future convention, a review and revision
of governing documents under clear standards and with rational and justifiable exceptions could then—
finally—be undertaken, and a clear and useful standard could be established for decades to come. This
would be helpful to the Synod and her agencies, and their continued, well-governed service for and on
behalf of their member congregations.
The commission requests that the Secretary highlight this matter for the attention of Synod’s Board of
Directors.
45. Missouri District Policy Manual (24-3030)
By an email of May 9, the Secretary of the Missouri District forwarded for review the district’s recently
revised policy manual, dated January 12, 2024. The commission noted the district’s communication that its
bylaws, incorporated in the manual, remain under revision. The commission, having referenced Missouri
District Bylaws dated July 2022, noted the following in its review of the district policies (previously
reviewed by the commission in Op. 20-2934):
•

References to the 2019 Handbook require updating.

•

Section II: Items 7 and following do not seem to belong under the same heading as items 1–6. In
Item 8, rather imprecise terms included in the parenthetical (for example, “leadership” and
“policy”) stretch the sense of Bylaw 4.5.1. These additional appointees must be laypersons. Item 9
should be clarified that the last sentence applies only to other than ex officio members.

•

Section IV: Items 5 and 20 suggest a level of staff administration that may intrude on his
ecclesiastical supervisory responsibilities. Item 8 should be revised to remove the archaic category,
“certified church workers, lay.”

•

Section V: (Second) Policy 3.1.3 has the executive committee exercising a function not assigned
in Bylaw 1.5.3.2. Policy 3.3.5 has the board and district president potentially assigning duties to
the Secretary, which is allowable by analogy of Synod Bylaw 3.3.3.2. These assigned duties must
not impinge, however, on performance of Constitution- or Bylaw-mandated responsibilities.
CCM Minutes – August 9–10, 2024 – Page 38