LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 1-2, 1973, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINION RE BYLAW 1.27c
Questions have been raised regarding the interpretation of Bylaw 1.27c. To what extent may
certain overtures be rejected? When must they be declined for consideration? Is the bylaw
sufficiently clear? Is it in harmony with the Constitution? Or does it need to be rewritten?
BASIC CONSIDERATIONS
1.

All bylaws must be in harmony with the basic principles set forth or implied in the
Constitution. Bylaws must be interpreted in the light of these basic principles. If the
language of a bylaw does not permit an interpretation which is in harmony with the
basic principles, the bylaw must be declared unconstitutional.

2. The dominant role of the convention in the governmental philosophy of the Synod must
be kept firmly in mind. The Articles of Incorporation (Article III) state: "The power of the
corporation shall be lodged with the accredited clergy and lay delegates of the
congregations" (see also Article IV). The Constitution of the Synod also emphasizes the role
of the synodical convention, especially in Articles V, VIII, IX and even in XII, 9a. Bylaw
1.21 states: "The delegate convention of the Synod shall be the Synod's chief legislative
assembly. It shall establish policies, programs, and procedures to carry on the Synod's work."
Bylaw 1.27a requires all officers, boards, and commissions of the Synod to report on their
performance to the conventions. The same bylaw also reserves to members the right to
present overtures to the convention. Bylaw 2.14 sets forth the accountability of officers,
boards, and commissions and states explicitly that any decisions of such officers, boards, and
commissions may be appealed to the delegate convention of the Synod. From all this, two
facts are evident: (1) the authority of the convention and (2) the right of the membership to
approach the convention with work proposals, grievances, etc.
APPLICATION TO BYLAW 1.27c
1.

Bylaw 1.27c states that among overtures that are not to be accepted are "overtures
requesting the Synod to take action which is in conflict with the Constitution or Bylaws
of the Synod." If this is taken to mean that a member cannot ask the Synod to change its
Constitution or Bylaws, the statement is obviously unconstitutional. If the statement is
taken to mean that no unconstitutional action can be taken without amending the
Constitution or Bylaws, it would seem that the provision is superfluous. Perhaps at best
the statement should be rewritten to read: "Overtures requesting the Synod to take
action which is contrary to the Constitution or Bylaws of the Synod must provide for
the specific revision of such articles in harmony with the provisions set forth in the
Constitution or Bylaws for amending the Constitution and Bylaws."

2.

Bylaw 1.27c also states that among overtures which are not to be accepted are overtures
"in matters for which the Constitution or Bylaws have provided specific procedures." A
literalistic interpretation of these words would, in effect, deny the right of access on the
part of the membership to the convention of the Synod as indicated above. Almost all
overtures submitted to the recent New Orleans convention of the Synod could have
been referred under a literalistic interpretation of this clause to various officers, boards,
and commissions of the Synod. It may well be that in a given case a convention might
refer the petitioner to a certain procedure to be followed before making his appeal to the