Comments on: Gathering the Force in Dearborn (1 of 2), by Glen Piper

By: Rev. Steven Bohler

Rev. Steven Bohler — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:57:45 +0000

I received a response from the CCM today to my request. Basically they said that these meetings are being held under the authority of Bylaw 3.1.9 which gives the President of Synod responsibility “for the overall organization and operations of the conventions of the Synod”. I have sent a follow-up to Dr. Hartwig with some clarifying questions, but again due to the timing I doubt anything will happen. I have also sent a request to Dr. Kieschnick, asking how much money these regional gatherings are costing and how much adding the additional days to the convention in July will cost. It seems that it may be helpful to know how much money we are spending on all this.

By: jim_claybourn

jim_claybourn — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:30:51 +0000

@John #22

maybe there’s no changing them, but there could be ignoring them by the CCM.

On the scholia site : http://www.scholia.net/files/lcms/04%20CCM%20Opinions%20of%20Note.PDF

Pastor Pauls refers to an amendment that “required” a 2/3 approval by congregations:

“Although an amendment to the LCMS constitution failed to receive the required 2/3 vote in favor by responding congregations, the CCM ruled that it would implement the effect of the amendment anyway.”

By: Rev. Steven Bohler

Rev. Steven Bohler — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:33:34 +0000

Yes, I requested an opinion from the CCM back in October. I have heard nothing yet as to any decision — and since the gatherings have already started, I doubt that anything will come of that request.

By: John

John — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:26:47 +0000

The thing is, you can’t change the requirement for ratifying constitutional changes to apply to what’s proposed at the upcoming convention. The current constitution rules on what is required to change it. Nothing the convention does in 2010 can change the standards for amending the constitution now in force. (By the way, Article XIV remains the same in the BRTFSSG proposals, except that it changes to Article XV because of a new XIV being proposed.)

It’s certainly worth looking very carefully at the proposed changes and what they would do going forward, but the only way they can come into effect is by a 2/3′s yea vote at the convention followed by 2/3′s of the congregations that vote voting to approve them. There’s no changing that at this point.

As to the “questionable legality” of the “gatherings”, I’ve heard that prior to the Denver gathering a pastor requested a ruling from the CCM concerning them. So someone has said a word. As far as I know, there’s been no word back from the CCM.

By: helen

helen — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:47:57 +0000

So you got special mini conventions in 2009! With questionable legality, since the NEXT group of delegates is invited,not the last ones who presumably serve “until the next convention”.

But nobody says a word, at least, not out loud.

If the “restructuring” passes convention, there will be a sleeper somewhere that eliminates the congregational 2/3 vote because if it got down to the pewsitters, it would fail.
Been there once with a resolution; it won’t be allowed to happen again.

By: John

John — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:29:41 +0000

The simplest reason to have decisions concerning structure BEFORE the elections is that if the changes are adopted some of the elections need not be held, or certain “regional” aspects of elections would need to be observed. After all, there’s no need to elect members to a board which no longer exists, or whose members are now appointed rather than elected.

I haven’t heard, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the committee on nominations has been asked to prepare slates for both the current structure as well as the proposed new structure. I can’t see President Kieschnick not doing so if he believes structural changes need to be made. Think of the confusion if the structure were changed but nominations weren’t ready for the new structure.

One thing I haven’t seen anywhere in the materials the BRTFSSG produced, or heard as a topic of discussion in reports from the regional gatherings is how and when the structural changes will be implemented (if approved). As far as I can tell, it simply hasn’t been addressed in public.

According to the current constitution and bylaws, amendments to the bylaws become effective as soon as they are passed by a simple majority at the convention. Amendments to the constitution, on the other hand, not only have to receive a 2/3′s majority at the convention, but also have to be ratified by being approved by a 2/3′s majority of the congregations that cast a ballot on the changes. Congregations have a six-month period in which to vote, and any changes approved become official only after that time. (See Article XIV of the LCMS constitution. The entire constitution and bylaws are available in .pdf format at the Synod’s website.)

The point is that even if structural changes are approved in convention, any which depend on changes to the constitution don’t come into effect immediately. Unless it’s somehow accounted for in the resolutions that come before the convention, for some time–at least six months, until the following convention if any constitutional changes are not ratified–there can be conflict between new bylaws and the constitution.

These last may seem pretty boring and picky details, but they’re important. Not to put to fine a point on it, it would be illegal to take actions based on constitutional revisions approved by the convention unless and until they are ratified by vote of the congregations.

The potential for a conflict between the constitution and bylaws, even if only for a matter of months, should be considered and accounted for by the convention. Some of this could be addressed by making bylaw changes contingent upon and effective only with ratification of applicable portions of the constitution.

The course I would recommend, of course, would simply be to retain the current constitution. (And EVERY congregation gets to vote on THAT!) I don’t see a single amendment to the constitution that’s really necessary, but quite a few that are a cause for concern.

By: johannes

johannes — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:26:06 +0000

Glen, you’re being too nice. Ugly doesn’t get it. Actually, it became apparent to the chair that the special convention wasn’t selling, so he pulled the plug. The structure task force was way behind in its work, and there was no way they’d get 2/3. If I remember correctly, there was no debate the next day, the way it had been set up. Or the way we had been set up.

Ugly, downright ugly. When you think about it, the floor committee’s estimate of 2-3 days is not realistic. They could add ten days, and it wouldn’t be enough. But–that’s a thought.

By: Glen Piper

Glen Piper — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:16:40 +0000

@johannes #17
I don’t think there is one, Johannes. You cited the one that I remembered (8-07S), along with the particular quote about the length of the special convention. I do recall general (and unofficial) talk on the convention floor about the special convention being a better option (e.g., cheaper & more focused) than expanding the 2010 convention by a number of extra days to deal specifically with restructuring.

In short, 8-07S was, I think, it. And it was an ugly debate, too…

By: johannes

johannes — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:50:59 +0000

@Glen Piper #16
I have just read thru the 2007 Proceedings, and can’t find the two-day adder. Res. 8-13 only limits the scope of a potential special convention. Res. 8-07S gives the Pres & COP & Others the authority to call the special convention. The floor committee estimated that the special convention would last “two or three days” (Proceedings, p. 44) I do stand corrected however–it appears we ceded the decision to the Pres/COP by a 2/3 majority, not simple as I reported in #15 above. Oops!

Glen–where is the resolution that adds the two days, either on one end or the other?

By: Glen Piper

Glen Piper — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:13:26 +0000

@califiowan #14 As a delegate to said 2007 shindig; we agreed to extra time, either a special convention (in 2009) OR extra days in 2010. As I recall, however, front/back end wasn't specified...