LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 3, 2025, Page 8

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

86. Minnesota South District Bylaws, Proposed Revision, Revised (24-3035A)
By an email of Sept. 20, the Secretary of the Minnesota South (MNS) District forwarded for review a draft
revision of the articles and bylaws of his district, revised in response to the commission’s prior review in
Op. 24-3035. The commission notes:
With regard to the articles, changes have been made (not indicated in redline), corresponding to those the
commission required on review. While these changes are approved by the commission, they will need to
be adopted by the district and filed with the State of Minnesota. The commission reiterates its concern that
there is significant unclarity as to the presently adopted state of the language and that the convention needs
to be presented with a clear amendment package (or a complete restatement) as regards the district’s articles.
The commission identifies two items needing attention:
•

Article II, Section 2 d: A comma should be inserted after the first instance of “Governing
Documents of the Synod.”

•

Article III, Section 3 e 5–6: Reiterating from Op. 24-3035, the proposed changes (relative to the
2018 district articles on file with the commission and those reviewed in Op. 20-2959A) appear to
load the district president with ultimate responsibility for establishing new ministries and
congregations and developing mission-focused leaders and congregations. These are not native
responsibilities of the district president under the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. Unlike on
the Synod level—where there is an extensive mission apparatus built under the leadership of the
President—the district board is not excluded by the Bylaws of the Synod from the program side of
the district’s operations. The commission recommends replacing 5–6 (especially since this section
deals with the “business and legal affairs…to be managed by the board”) with “5) To provide for
implementation within the district of decisions of the national and district conventions” and “6) To
allocate necessary funds for the support of the national and district budgets” (cf. Synod Bylaws
4.5.1 [d] and 3.3.4.5). Alternatively, the current language could be retained (or added to the
commission’s suggested 5–6 as 7–8): “5) To facilitate the establishment of new ministries and
congregations within the territorial limits of the Corporation. 6) To facilitate the development of
mission-focused leaders and congregations within the territorial limits of the Corporation.” The
new language proposed by the district, charging the district board to “support and encourage
the District President” in these regards, however, is not approved and is not to be presented
to the convention for adoption.

With regard to the bylaws, the copy sent was also a clean copy. The district needs to ensure that a clear
amendment package is presented to the convention. Nonetheless, the commission was able to review the
bylaw proposal as follows, generally finding changes corresponding to those suggested in its prior review:
•

Bylaw 4.7: “All elections are pursuant to the guidance of Synod Bylaw 4.7.3” must be restated,
“All elections, including the ranking of vice-presidents, are to be conducted subject to the
procedures specified in Synod Bylaw 4.7.3.”

•

Bylaw 4.13: The district should note, in that it now proposes to handle board members under this
provision, that the causes for removal of a board member (Synod Bylaw 1.5.7) are more extensive
than those for removal of an officer (Synod Bylaw 1.5.8). The district could rectify this issue simply
by removing the list of causes and replacing the last sentence as follows: “Cause for removal is as
provided in Synod Bylaw 1.5.7 or 1.5.8, as applicable.” The commission notes again from its
previous opinion that the application of these procedures to non-officers called and/or employed
by the district calls into question, with regard to such employees, the board has “specified
otherwise” than that they “serve at the pleasure of the appointing authorities.”

The commission renews its observation that the district’s proposal still tends to some extent toward a form
of governance in which its current and future district presidents would have to shoulder not only the
ecclesiastical supervisory and instrumental-executive functions described in the Bylaws of the Synod but
CCM Minutes – February 3, 2025 – Page 65