LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — December 10, 1976, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

3.

May a) uncertified Seminex graduates, b) members of the AELC, or c) members of ELIM
serve as delegates to the synodical convention? Answers: a) no; b) yes; c) yes

4.

Is an election valid if any of the above voted in it before the September 30 deadline?
Answer: The answer addresses itself only to 3-a above. If the Seminex graduate actually
participated in the election, the election is declared null and void. Since the October 15
deadline now is past the vacancies must be filled by appointment on the part of the District
president in consultation with the respective counselors. See the enclosed opinion which was
published officially well before any District conventions were held.

205. Protest Re Legitimacy of Special Atlantic District Convention (AR. 1150): The Secretary shared
with the Commission a letter of protest which he had received as Secretary of the Synod from Rev. Arthur
W. Geidel of Staten Island, New York, protesting the Atlantic District convention of December 4, 1976
and demanding that all action taken at this meeting be declared null and void on the basis of the fact that
Seminex graduates had been given recognition by the District in a convention resolution as members of
the District with full rights to function as pastors of the District. Since this communication had not been
addressed to the Commission, the Commission merely took note of the matter.
206. Eligibility of AELC Members as Synodical Delegates (Ag. 1130): C.R.M. Glenn Bitter had raised
several questions regarding the eligibility of AELC members to be involved in the delegate election
process. The Secretary had replied that if membership is continued, then all privileges of membership
must also be continued for the time being, but that in most areas men who had joined or intended to join
the AELC were doing the honorable thing by declining to participate in the delegate election process. The
Commission ratified this reply.
207. Status of Delegate Elections (Ag. 1143, 1143A): Both Rev. Donald Frerichs of Pasco, Washington
and President Emil Jaech of the Northwest District had raised similar questions. The Commission
formally ratified the replies sent by the Secretary but also resolved to send President Jaech a copy of the
1975 ruling on the participation of Seminex graduates in District conventions which had been issued prior
to such conventions. It was acknowledged that the Seminex situation is different from that of the AELC
member.
208. District President Ruling on Bylaw (Ag. 1027): Rev. M. H. Lehnhardt had written a letter regarding
the alleged ruling of the Southern District president to the effect that Bylaw 4.01 did not apply because of
confessional reasons. The Secretary under date of July 7 had written for more information. Since no reply
had been received from Rev. Lehnhardt the Commission decided to remove the item from the docket.
209. Improper Balloting at Circuit Meeting (Ag. 1121): The Secretary of the Eastern District, Rev.
Richard L. Hoemann, had written in October concerning a circuit meeting in which the chairman ruled
that an original ballot was invalid because of a blank ballot. This had been discussed by the CCM already
in an earlier telephone conversation. The Secretary had pointed out that according to Robert's Rules of
Order the chairman had been in error, that the first ballot had been indeed valid. The Commission now
decided to remove this item from the agenda.
210. Task Force Questionnaire (Ag. 1129): The Task Force on Constitution, Bylaws, and Structure had
sent to every unit in the Synod a questionnaire. The Secretary read proposed replies to the nine sections. It
was suggested that bylaw references be inserted for all of the statements in Section I on "Tasks." The
Commission also felt that an extensive essay should be developed under Section IX "Limitations,"
reminding the Task Force especially of the convention's charge to the Task Force to de-emphasize
centralization and to emphasize the role of the congregation. In that connection the Commission felt it
should point out certain developments toward more and more centralization in the Board of Directors of