LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 6–7, 2026, Page 13

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

•

Policy 2.2.5.4: it may be worth noting the requirements of Synod Bylaw 1.10.10 (or referencing
that Bylaw) that there are to be four reconcilers and no more than two may be ministers of
religion—ordained.

•

Policy 2.2.6.1: The reference to SW Bylaw 1.26 (e) appears to be incorrect. Perhaps SW Bylaw
1.25(e) was intended. The word communicant should likely be removed to harmonize with Const.
Art. X B 3 and Bylaws 1.5.1 and 4.3.3.

•

Policy 2.2.6.5: It should be clarified that for the Concordia University Wisconsin (CUW) Board of
Regents the district board only fills vacancies in a position that was previously filled at a district
convention (Bylaw 3.10.6.2.3).

•

Policy 2.2.6.5.2: Synod no longer has a Board for Higher Education Services. This reference
should be removed or updated.

•

Policy 2.2.6.5.2.1: It would seem the items listed in clause (a) would not be applicable to CUW
Board of Regents nominees. It should be noted that the qualifications for CUW Board of Regents
nominees must be reviewed and verified by the Concordia University System (Bylaw
3.10.6.2.1[a]).

•

Policy 2.2.6.5.3, 5: Electronic ballots are only permitted under Synod Board of Director Policy
4.1.3.1 if all board members cast a vote and the result is unanimous. (It is unclear to the commission
in 2.2.6.5.5 whether this is an action intended to be taken in, or outside of, a meeting.)

•

Policy 2.2.7: The reference to SW Bylaw 1.42(c), along with many subsequent references, appears
to be incorrect. It appears that the district bylaw numbering in the policy manual is off from the
numbering in the current district bylaws; each reference should be checked. The obligatory
standards and process for removal of a director or officer other than the district president are
provided in Bylaws 1.5.7–1.5.7.1 and 1.5.8–1.5.8.1. Bylaws of the Synod do not provide for
removal of a district president from office (apart from as consequence of his removal from the
roster of the Synod under Bylaw section 2.15) and the district board is not empowered itself to
determine a procedure to effect this. These provisions therefore conflict with the Bylaws of the
Synod. The district in its bylaws may, and may have, defined provisions for temporary disability
of its officers along the lines of Bylaw 3.3.1.4, but that is to be distinguished from removal, which
is permanent. See also Policy 2.13.4.2.1.

•

Policy 2.2.7.1: As Policy 2.2.7 refers to officers and directors, it adds unnecessary confusion to
consider directors officers in their own right. For example, would Bylaw 1.5.7 or 1.5.8 apply to a
board member who by virtue of that fact alone (and the district’s Bylaws making them such—the
policy itself can’t do this) would also be an officer? (See also Policy 2.2.9.1, where “non-officer
member” is used.)

•

Policy 2.2.8.4: The district board’s role is not simply to “affirm” an annual budget presented by the
district president, which language may minimize the board’s role. The board is vested with the
ultimate responsibility for the district’s business and legal affairs, including adoption of the budget.
The district board may request assistance from the district president (if the district president is
willing to undertake such work and such work does not interfere with his duties prescribed in the
Synod Bylaws), but the district board bears ultimate responsibility for that budget. It must review,
discuss and make changes as it determines is necessary.

•

Policy 2.3: “Board members are expected to:” may be better than “Board members shall:” as some
elements described here go beyond what is required by Synod Bylaws of directors (see, e.g., Bylaw
section 1.5).

CCM Minutes – February 6–7, 2026 – Page 147