LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 30, 1990, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

b) The temptation is there, if not for the official periodical, then for others, to "try" the matter in
the public arena rather than before the properly constituted body.
c) It seems improper to single out specific cases and ignore others. The question arises as to why
one should be publicized over the other. The conclusion could well be drawn that the
Commission on Adjudication is not required to provide the information and for the sake of
consistency might well refuse to do so in all instances.
d) The bylaw does not specifically preclude the chairman from providing status reports.
However, following the logic stated above, he might exercise judgment and refuse to do.
Bylaw 8.51,m certainly implies that only parties to the case are eligible to request status
reports. This statement is in the context of not giving publicity to the issues in the case.
e) The limit which Bylaw 8.51 places on the release of information is that which the chairman
of the Commission or the Commission on Adjudication wishes to place on the matter. He or it
may exercise his/its judgment as to that which it considers to be inappropriate if improper
publicity is not to be given or the public arena unduly expanded.
39. District President-Eligibility (Ag. 1895) : The California-Nevada-Hawaii District has a bylaw which
states:
Each voting congregation of the District is entitled to nominate as candidate for the office of District
President two clergymen from the clergy roster of the District.
The Handbook of the Synod states in Bylaw 4.51,a:
The following officers shall be elected from the clergy roster of the Synod by each District: a
President, two or more Vice-Presidents, a Secretary, and a Circuit Counselor for each Circuit
established by the District.
The question has been raised as to whether the District Bylaws, by limiting nomination to clergy members
of the district, is in conflict with the Bylaws of the Synod which allow for nomination from the clergy
roster of the entire Synod.
After considerable discussion, the Commission concluded that Bylaw 4.51,a must be applied and
therefore the limitation placed upon the nomination by the District Bylaws is of no effect. The
Commission did note, however, that before a clergyman outside the district could possibly accept and
serve in the position of district president, he would have to join a congregation of the district.
40. Board of Regents Membership (Ag. 1896) : The Rev. Harold Reiss, editor of the "Peaks and
Valleys," publication of the Rocky Mountain District had addressed four questions to the Commission
relative to membership on Boards of Regents. The first question dealt with the fact that at a meeting of the
Board of Regents, a resolution had been adopted stating that the members of the Board of Regents who
were appointed by the Board of Regents would not be allowed to vote on either their reelection or
replacement when their term expired and that only "elected" members could vote. The question was asked
as to whether this was a proper resolution.
The second question posed was as follows: When does the term of these two men expire? The college
president had stated, that they would continue to serve until such time as they were replaced.