LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 210

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

210 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

that regardless of where the responsibilities would be placed,
adequate provision for the discharge of their responsibilities
would nevertheless have to be made.

In view of this, the committee, in terms of further work it
intends to do with respect to the potential merger of boards
and commissions, recommends that the convention adopt New
Orleans Res. 4-29 (Proceedings. 1973, p. 156).

12. Res. 5-22 Election of Vice-Presidents and
Involvement of District Presidents

Two similar memorials presented to the New Orleans con-
vention asked that a special study committee be established
to investigate whether possible ways of electing the Vice-
Presidents and ways of involving the District Presidents in all
the affairs of the church could be provided. The New Orleans
Floor Committee, in Res. 5-22, recommended to that convention
that the overtures be declined: however, lack of time did not
allow the convention to act upon them and hence this resolu-
tion, too, was transferred to the committee via the route of the
omnibus resolution assigned to the Board of Directors. The
committee reviewed the overtures and the proposed resolution
and consequently recommends to the Anaheim convention that
it adopt New Orleans Res. 5-22 (Proceedings. 1973, p.171),
thereby declining the overtures.

13. Res. 5-24 Appointment of Commission on Constitutional Matters

The Milwaukee convention assigned to the committee several
matters dealing with the Commission on Constitutional Matters.
These included the appointing authority, tenure of office and
membership, serving on additional boards and commissions of
the Synod and its Districts. The committee studied all of these
issues, checked for possible conflict of interest, considered
additional suggestions which had been made in specific over-
tures, including that the Council of Presidents appoint the
commission and whether the commission should be elected by
a convention. It presented its findings together with an appro-
priate resolution to the New Orleans convention. The Floor
Committee concurred in these recommendations and proposed
Res. 5-24 for adoption. As in the case of other resolutions, this
one could not be acted upon and via the Board of Directors was
referred back to this committee. The committee reopened all
of the issues, studied the role of the synodical Secretary and
the tenure and pedigree of the commission members. After
reevaluating all of these matters, the committee recommends
to the Anaheim convention that New Orleans Res. 5-24 | Proceed-
ings, 1973, p. 171) be adopted.

14. Res. 5-26 Clarifying Bylaws 1.57 and 1.61

The committee studied the terminology of Bylaws 1.57 and
1.61 because questions of interpretation had arisen. In order
to clarify the terminology, the committee had proposed revisions
in both of these sections to the New Orleans convention. The
Floor Committee had formulated Res. 5-26 which, however,
could not be acted upon. In Omnibus Resolution 4-47 it was
referred to the Board of Directors, which in turn referred it
back to the committee. The committee extensively reviewed
the issues, which included the following considerations: that the
Constitution and Bylaws grant advisory members of the Synod
the right to be represented at conventions of the Synod, that
advisory members should not have tuo opportunities to be
selected as delegates to a convention, that the main thrust of
the proposal was to clear up the difficulty involved, and that the
differences between advisory delegates and advisory represen-
tatives need to be sharpened in the Handbook terminology.

The committee, in its review, was determined to eliminate
the intermingling of delegates as constituted by 1.57 and 1.61,
or vice-versa, particularly in three areas: (1) in determining
the number of advisory delegates from a District, (2) in specify-
ing the participation in the selection of such advisory delegates
or representatives, and (3) in determining the eligibility to serve
as advisory delegates.

In view of all these considerations, the committee resubmits
to the Anaheim convention for adoption New Orleans Res. 5-26
(Proceedings, 1973, p. 171—72}.

15. Res. 5-34 District President Elections

Two New Orleans overtures (5-78 and 5-79: Workbook. 1973,
p. 234) suggested that the District Presidents be elected at
synodical conventions. The committee felt that the election of

District Presidents, though at one time held at synodical con-
ventions, ought to remain one of the primary points of business
of the Districts. Having determined this, the committee recom-
mends to the Anaheim convention that it adopt New Orleans
Res. 5-34 (Proceedings. 1973, p. 173).

16. Res. 5-42 Limit Binding Nature of Opinions

New Orleans Res. 5-42 had emanated from several overtures
(Workbook. 1973, pp. 237-38). The New Orleans Floor Com-
mittee had proposed Res. 5-42, but no action could be taken
in response for lack of time: thus it too was referred to the
Board of Directors in Omnibus Resolution 4-47 and hence to
this committee. Res. 5-42 encourages the Commission on Con-
stitutional Matters “to publish such of its opinions which it
deems of general interest and effect in carrying out the work and
administration of the Synod.” The Committee examined all
aspects of the overtures and also of the proposed resolution.
In terms of these ramified considerations, the committee recom-
mends to the Anaheim convention that it adopt Res. 5-42 (Pro-
ceedings. 1973, p. 175).

17. Res. 5-36 Youth Representation and Student Participation

Several overtures had come before the Milwaukee conven-
tion dealing with these issues. That convention referred these
matters to the Board of Directors, which in turn referred them
to the committee. In response to that assignment, the committee
made its proposals to the New Orleans convention, which the
Floor Committee adopted and presented to the convention in
Res. 5-36. The resolution, regrettably, could not be adopted
for lack of time and thus it also was referred in Omnibus Resolu-
tion 4-47 to the Board of Directors, which referred it back to
this committee.

Elements which the committee reviewed for a second time
included: that floor-speaking privileges should be limited to
the voting and advisory delegates and representatives: that
the ‘advisory representatives” detailed in Bylaw 1.61 represent
the working force of the Synod reporting to the Synod on how it
has carried out the Synod's directives: that representation from
our colleges and seminaries should come from those who are
responsible for the operation, namely from the Boards of Con-
trol and the faculties rather than the student body: that both
youth and student representatives would appear inconsistent
with logic and with the constitutional philosophy of the Synod:
that the responsibilities of the youth and students do not at all
measure up to those of the many board and commission mem-
bers and executives who are engaged in the work of the Synod
and of the Districts: that these young people are members of
congregations and, with the lowered voting age, this makes it
possible for many young people to be chosen by their congrega-
tions as delegates of the congregations to the conventions of
the Districts and of the Synod.

In view of this, it does not seem logical and in harmony with
the policy principles of the Synod to grant these young people
special privileges or status on the floor of the convention:
nevertheless, your committee strongly believes that the atten-
dance at the convention of these young people (students and
youth representatives) is beneficial.

Therefore, in order to provide this opportunity for them and
in order to be consistent with the constitutional principles of
the Synod, your committee recommends the adoption New
Orleans Res. 5-36 (Proceedings. 1973, p. 174).

18. Res. 5-37 Study Office of District President

The New Orleans Floor Committee in formulating Res. 5-37
responded to Overture 5-62 (Workbook, 1973, pp. 228—29),
which had suggested that a study be made of the office of the
District President in order to make his service more realistic
to the whole church. Regrettably, the Floor Committee’s resolu-
tion could not be adopted at New Orleans for lack of time and
it too was referred to the Board of Directors in Omnibus Resolu-
tion 4-47. The Committee for Reorganization received this matter
by referral from the Board of Directors.

In reviewing the issues recommended in the original overture
and examining the response of the Floor Committee, particularly
in light of the recommendation already made by the Committee
for Reorganization with respect to New Orleans Res. 5-21 (see
10 above), the committee believes that it logically follows Over-
ture 5-62. The committee proposes to the Anaheim convention
that it adopt Res. 5-37 (Proceedings. 1973, p. 174).