LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — December 14, 1989, Page 9

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

After reviewing the congregational constitution which had been forwarded, the Commission concluded
that on the basis of Article X, which refers to a two-thirds majority of those present, the constitutional
amendment which was proposed had not passed.
Since it does not believe that it should become involved in dealing with individual congregational
constitutions and bylaws, the Commission asked that St. Paul Lutheran Church refer this question which
it may have and any which would still exist to the Iowa East District Committee on Constitutional
Matters.
20. Commission on Appeals Response to Recommendation Prepared by Judge Groh : The
Commission on Appeals had prepared a response to the recommendation prepared by Judge Groh for
dealing with procedures for preventing conflict between the Commission on Appeals and the Commission
on Constitutional Matters. The response does not appear to be adequate or acceptable and it is the belief
of the Commission on Constitutional Matters that this matter must be discussed first by the Commission
on Constitutional Matters in a face-to-face meeting. Ultimately, it may be necessary to have an additional
joint meeting with members of the Commission on Appeals.
21. Scheduling of District Convention (Ag. 1883) : A request had been received from the First Vice
President of the Atlantic District, stating that the District Board of Directors had indicated that it felt that
it might be appropriate to conduct its next district convention beginning on or near January 12, 1991, at
which time a president would be elected and also, to change its district ruling, that he take office in
September immediately following the convention. After this action, the convention would be recessed
until June, 1991. It stated that the reason for the request was that Concordia College would not have
housing available for the district in January and there was a desire on the part of the district Board of
Directors to have a full-time president beginning January, 1991. The request was being made because
president Fink, who had resigned his position to accept a call to Florida, had been replaced by Vice
President James Zwernemann on a part-time basis.
The request also stated that there was a need to know whether it would be necessary to mobilize all of the
floor committees for the January convention session or whether it would be possible to wait until the
convention resumed after recess in June, 1991. It was understood that nominations for the president
would have to be received from congregations and that this would be done in accordance with the
timetable set by the Handbook. The request was also made as to whether it would be necessary to elect all
officers at the time of the election of the president or whether it would be possible to simply elect a
president.
Responding to this request, the Commission pointed out first that it would be necessary to determine
whether the bylaws of the district would permit or prohibit actions such as that which had been
contemplated. It was further noted that the district does have a constitutionally elected president serving at
this time and therefore found it difficult to understand the need for the conduct of a convention such as
that which was proposed.
Nevertheless, the Commission concluded that neither the Constitution or Bylaws of the Synod would
prohibit conducting a convention such as had been proposed by the Board of Directors. It was noted,
however, that the decision to recess could not be the decision of the district president, the board of
directors, or any other group. If the convention were to be convened in January, only the delegate body
could decide if it wished to recess. If it made that decision, there is nothing in the Constitution or Bylaws
of the Synod which would prevent this.