LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 4-5, 1994, Page 8

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

be a caucus by region at the Board of Directors' meeting after which the entire Board would ratify the
results of the election by regions on behalf of the California-Nevada-Hawaii District.
After carefully reviewing all of the material available to it, the Commission decided to respond as follows:
You have asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters to review and provide an opinion on the
election of officers and directors to a newly reorganized Board of Directors of the California-NevadaHawaii District. It is the understanding of the Commission that you and others consider the election
illegal and a violation of the resolution adopted by the district convention relative to this matter.
The Commission has carefully reviewed the requests received, the rehearsal of procedures as provided
through communications from the district president to those who have forwarded objections, and to
various other documentation including reports of nominating votes of congregations as well as their
election votes. It recognizes the differing views and perceptions provided as being sincere efforts to
avoid difficulties as a new district structure is implemented under bylaws adopted by the convention.
After reviewing all the information the Commission understands that the following procedure was
followed:
1. Congregations in the regional areas nominated persons to serve in various positions
representing the three regions of the district. Congregational nominations were made for
each region only by congregations in that region.
2. All names submitted by congregations in a region became the nominating ballot for that
region.
3. On September 1, 1994, the Secretary forwarded to each congregation an election ballot for
that region accompanied by a letter which indicated the process which would be followed
in case no majority of election votes was received.
4. In some cases the election did not result in a majority vote. In those cases the procedure
announced by the Secretary was implemented, that is, two representatives from each circuit
in a region caucused to carry out the election.
5. The election was then ratified by the Board of Directors as provided in the district resolution.
With this understanding, the Commission draws the following conclusions and offers the following
opinion:
1. A void existed in the procedural rules adopted by the convention. No provision was made for
a lack of a majority election by the congregations.
2. A remedy for filling this void in the case of non-election was proposed, reported to the Board
of Directors and shared with all of the congregations.
3. No objection to the procedure was lodged prior to election by the circuit caucuses.
4. The remedy proposed for filling the void could have been
a) election by means of a plurality