Official Workbook report source text
Official Workbook source-navigation report record. No analysis has been added.
- Report number/id
- R59
- Report title
- R59 Task Force on Electoral Circuit Parameters (2023 Res. 9-06A)
- Workbook start page
- 143
- Workbook end page
- 147
- Source pages
- 143, 144, 145, 146, 147
- Source status
- source_checked
- Committee
- Not available
R59 Task Force on Electoral Circuit Parameters (2023 Res. 9-06A) Introduction 2023 Res. 9-06A, “To Appoint Task Force to Evaluate Current Electoral Circuit Parameters,” was adopted with the acknowledge- ment that “due to demographic changes over the past several con- vention cycles, it has become necessary for more and more visita- tion circuits either to request an exemption from the President of the Synod or to be combined in order to qualify to meet the parameters for an electoral circuit. The result has been a gradual decrease in the number of electoral circuits within the Synod and the number of delegates attending conventions.” The charge to the task force was to “consider the parameters for the electoral circuits which se- 2026 Convention Workbook 144 OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS By 1998 the decline in the number of congregations and par - ishes and the number of communicant members had resulted in an increasing number of exceptions requested of the Synod President. The number of exceptions has ranged from 3 percent and 9 percent, in 1998 and 2001, respectively, to 14 percent in 2004, hovering between 10–12 percent since, apart from a low 7 percent exception ratio in 2016. Absent a bylaw to define on what basis or criteria exceptions may be granted, the decision has been largely subjective and not without its own controversy at times. By the time of the creation of this task force, predictions based on the trends observed in the decline in both congregations and communicants expected larger and larger numbers of requests for exceptions from visita - tion circuits that did not meet the current bylaw criteria as electoral circuits. Assuming a uniform 8 percent triennial drop in confirmed membership, this would have anticipated that 22 percent of 2023 electoral circuits could require exceptions for the 2026 conven- tion—a number that could approach 30–40 percent in the 2029 and 2032 conventions. Work of the Task Force The task force commissioned several surveys to determine the health and viability of the current visitation circuits and the opin- ions of pastors, circuit visitors, district presidents, and Praesidium on the size and effectiveness of Synod conventions in view of their purpose “to afford an opportunity for worship, nurture, inspiration, fellowship, and the communication of vital information.” The gen- eral conclusions from these surveys both set the direction for the work of the task force and undergirded the recommendations made in this report. The surveys revealed a profound desire on the part of all to strengthen visitation circuits and the functioning of winkels (cir - cuit pastors’ conferences) and indicated that the optimum number needed was five actively serving pastors with the emeritus pastors who reside in the circuit. When the numbers of active participants dropped below that number, it directly impacted upon the health and effectiveness of the visitation circuit. With respect to the elec - toral circuits, the surveys needed to be flexible enough to provide adequate and fair representation at the Synod convention and yet maintain a viable connection to the visitation circuit wherever pos- sible. The discussions and proposed changes in the Bylaws rec- ommended by the task force flowed from the concrete data of the white paper, the opinions of 1,682 parish pastors, 772 candidate or emeritus pastors, 393 circuit visitors, and 27 district presidents, and the combined experience of the members of the task force across the regions of the Synod and within the districts and circuits where they reside. Even early on, the task force felt the urgency of the task and the consequences of making no change to the status quo. Although this is not the recommendation of the task force, the failure to make any changes would create an untenable situation due to the the rise in the number of exceptions for electoral circuits from triennium to triennium and the increasing difficulties in forming circuits with- in the current parameters of the Bylaws. An increasing number of electoral circuits for the 2026 Synod convention and beyond are approaching the minimum numbers of communicant members re- quired to constitute an electoral circuit (1,500) and others are very close to the maximum number of congregations allowed (20). De- tails of these trends are outlined in the white paper along with pro- jections for the situation three to six years beyond the 2026 Synod convention. Already the districts have realized and begun to address the situ- ation by realigning circuits at their 2025 conventions and by work- or upper limit (other than practical ones) on the size of a visita - tion circuit, other than that one should ordinarily not exceed the upper bound for the related electoral circuit, either in number of confirmed members or of member congregations, and that it should ordinarily take no more than two adjacent visitation circuits to form one electoral circuit. Practical limits, lower and upper, may be in- ferred from the functions—important in their own right—described in Bylaw chapter 5. The 1973 report of the Committee on Organization to the con- vention dealt with questions raised about the voting rights with some consideration given to a more equitable division of delegates among districts, allowing large congregations more than one lay vote, giving a second and third lay vote to the other congregations of a multi-congregation parish, and allowing advisory pastors and campus pastors, too, to vote. The committee rejected all as incom - patible with the essential principles of voting rights in the Consti- tution: that the Synod consists of equal congregations or parishes, no matter the size, that possess the franchise, and that there be a balance of lay and clergy vote (1973 Workbook, 208–9). Another task force had been established by the 1975 Anaheim convention that was to study and propose revisions to the Consti- tution, Bylaws, and organization of the Synod. Several overtures to change the franchise within the Synod were submitted to the 1977 Synod convention. Two new issues were added to the charge given to the task force formed in 1975: one was to consider the way delegates were elected, and the other was to consider allowing advisory delegates to vote, with a proportional increase in the lay votes (1979 Workbook, 59–63). The task force in 1979 proposed significant wording changes to several articles of the Constitution, and in addition proposed changes to the eligibility of the delegates who would cast the two votes of the congregation or parish. One vote was to be cast by a pastor or teacher in full-time office in the congregation, and the other by a duly elected lay delegate of the congregation (1979 Proceedings, 111, 137). At the 1981 convention, the President of the Synod, in his ad- dress to the convention, recommended the proposed changes both to allow teachers to vote (Proceedings, 64) and Res. 2-14, which proposed that the delegates of an electoral circuit be a pastor and anyone else from a congregation of that circuit. Preferably, it should be a layman, but any teacher or ordained minister who was not the pastor of one of the congregations would also be eligible. After lengthy discussion, this was referred to a committee to be appointed by the President of the Synod for a report to the 1983 Synod convention (1981 Proceedings, 141). In its report to the 1983 convention, the task force formed by the 1981 convention gave a report detailing the length of its re- search and the various possibilities that have been suggested with the advantages and disadvantages of each. In the end, it concluded that the disadvantages of any of the suggested ways to change the exercise of the franchise in the Synod outweighed what would be gained by such a change. It termed the current exercise of franchise a long-established and well-working procedure (1983 Workbook, 213–15). The floor committee’s Res. 5-23 resolved that no change be made in the Constitution or Bylaws pertaining to the franchise. However, no action was taken, and it was apparently not brought to the floor of the convention (1983 Proceedings, 190). Another over- ture submitted to the 1995 convention of the Synod was declined by inclusion in “Omnibus B Resolution,” declining to act on it and simply referencing the past action of the Synod, specifically that of 1983 (1995 Proceedings, 160). 2026 Convention Workbook 145 OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS which do not share knowledge of each other and which would need to elect delegates who are unknown to each other would create its own set of problems. The task force discussed simply changing the composition of circuits from “congregations” to “parishes” and thus acknowl- edging the growing number of multi-congregation parishes being formed due to declining size and ability to support a full-time pas- tor. This was also seen as a means to encourage circuits to have a vi- able number of actively serving pastors to support the health and vi- tality of those visitation circuits. Without a “critical mass” number of pastors within visitation circuits, the circuit will find it difficult to network together “for [the] mutual care, support, advice, study, ecclesiastical encouragement, service, coordination, resources, and counsel” for the sake of both congregation and Synod. If a circuit is composed of several congregations in dual or tri-parishes, then the functioning of the circuit and the pastoral winkels can be adversely affected. It was noted from the surveys that winkels suffer if fewer than five pastors are present. Having a greater number of pastors is beneficial to the health and vitality of both congregation and clergy. Requiring six parishes in a circuit rather than seven congregations would increase the likelihood of having six or more pastors present at winkels. Obviously, this proposal would have a greater effect on districts with a higher number of multi-congregation parishes; how- ever, a change from seven congregations to six parishes would help both rural and urban circuits ensure adequate visitation needs as well as balanced electoral representation for the Synod convention. Another option considered by the task force, a so-called “re- lieved model,” would attempt to provide more flexibility in the size of circuits to allow for circuits with larger congregations in urban and suburban areas (and therefore well above the confirmed mem - ber limit) to have fewer congregations, while providing for circuits with many small congregations in sparsely populated regions to qualify with somewhat fewer members, through the use of a math- ematical equation. While the current thresholds of congregations and communicant members do not take into account the difference between larger and smaller congregations, this could potentially account for population and geographic differences. Although this could provide some stability from triennium to triennium and might relieve the pressure on districts to realign circuits, the formula is complex and presents its own difficulty to circuits and districts and would require much more explanation and understanding to be use- ful. For these reasons, the task force decided not to recommend this option at this time. Finally, the task force considered completely separating visi- tation from electoral circuits so that the districts were not in any way bound by the boundaries of the visitation circuits in creating electoral circuits which would meet the current criteria. Districts could conceivably draw different maps for each purpose. Visitation circuits would continue to have the purpose of ecclesiastical visi- tation and pastors’ winkels while electoral circuits could be drawn differently for the limited purposes of election of delegates to the Synod convention. In this way, the Synod could decide to reduce the overall size of the convention both for cost savings and in or - der to facilitate more deliberation among fewer delegates. The task force considered how it might work to simply apportion the number of delegates to each district based upon a formula of number of congregations and communicant membership and leave it to the districts to draw the electoral map based on those numbers, perhaps even without geographical constraints. The task force believed that such an option represented a fairly radical change both in represen- ing to minimize their number of exceptions. With this realignment and the reduction in exceptions requested and because of the work of the Synod President to reduce the number of exceptions grant- ed, only 7 percent of the 2026 Synod convention electoral circuits required and were granted exceptions, instead of the 22 percent expected if the districts had done no realignment. This, combined with a small but significant slowdown from the projected 8–9 per - cent triennial drop in confirmed membership to closer to 7 percent, has relieved the situation for the moment, but this will not remove the necessity for the Synod to address this at the 2026 convention to prevent even greater challenges down the road. It should be noted here that exceptions are not only for those circuits that fall below the 1,500 communicant minimum but are also granted for those which must exceed the upper limit of 20 congregations in order to reach the 1,500-communicant limit. The task force gave consideration to a number of options. The first set of those options was to deal with the matter of exceptions. In the past, districts have typically requested exceptions for elec - toral circuits which fall below the 7 to 20 congregations and 1,500 to 10,000 communicant member parameters of the Bylaws instead of redrawing circuit boundaries so that visitation circuits meet the requirements of the Bylaws to be electoral circuits. As the Syn- od decreases in both the aggregate communicant membership and the number of congregations due to closure or consolidation, the pressure upon the districts will continue to be felt going forward. Some districts may find it more difficult to eliminate the request for exceptions because of geographical constraints (the “saltwater” and non-geographical districts in particular). Because of this, the task force considered the various reasons for exceptions and a means to allow continued exceptions but under tighter parameters spelled out under bylaw requirements. If no exceptions were permitted, the Synod would then place the full responsibility squarely on district boards of directors to assure compliant-sized electoral circuits. Second, the task force considered changing the current upper limits for electoral circuits, currently 20 congregations or 10,000 confirmed members. It was noted that the upper limit of confirmed membership number is never reached, but removing the upper limit on numbers of congregations (or parishes, as will be addressed lat- er) could be helpful for some districts in forming electoral circuits. With this, the task force considered another limit placed on the for- mation of visitation circuits into an electoral circuit. Currently, the bylaw allows for two adjacent visitation circuits to be formed into an electoral circuit; anything else requires the request for an ex- ception. Removing this limit of two visitation circuits would allow more flexibility for districts both to create visitation circuits with ideal sizes for ministry needs while allowing them greater flexibili- ty when they must be combined to form an electoral circuit. Along with this was the consideration of removing the require- ment that visitation circuits combining into an electoral circuit be “adjacent” and allowing non-adjacent visitation circuits to combine into an electoral circuit. The rationale for this was that visitation circuits which could be ideal sizes to combine into an electoral cir- cuit are not always adjacent to each other and that changes in com- munication technology would facilitate non-adjacent visitation cir- cuits to meet. However, it was determined that such a change would affect only a few districts and circuits and, while helpful, would not contribute greatly to the solution of the problem. Furthermore, it was feared that such non-adjacent permission might create its own problems similar to the gerrymandering seen in the political sphere and that cobbling together a patchwork of visitation circuits 2026 Convention Workbook 146 OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS district shall have at least one electoral circuit. (c) V oting delegates shall consist of one pastor and one layper - son from each electoral circuit. These pastoral and lay del- egates and their alternates shall be elected according to the regulations of the Synod (Bylaw 3.1.2.1). (d) The lay delegate shall serve throughout the triennium fol- lowing the convention as an advisory member of the forum or fora of the visitation circuit(s) comprising the electoral circuit forum. Addendum While 2023 Res. 9-06A did not assign to the task force the topic of nonvoting advisory delegates, the task force did review the work of the task force to the 2023 convention of the Synod and its work with respect to advisory delegates and giving the voting franchise to advisory delegates. Given the projection of retirements and the increasing numbers of pastors emeriti in particular, the task force did discuss how this would impact the overall potential size of the convention. Given the track record of most districts electing few- er than the current Bylaws allow for advisory commissioned and ordained delegates to the Synod convention, the task force did not believe that this merited an addition to the charge given to the task force by the 2023 convention and decided to leave this topic to an- other group for study and recommendation, should the convention so choose. The task force does point out the potential, should dis- tricts exercise it and advisory members desire, to have the number of advisory delegates increase in proportion to the number of voting delegates. Larry A. Peters, Chairman tation and structure for the Synod and that such was well beyond the Synod’s charge to the task force. Even a more modest version of this option retaining the necessi- ty for geographic lines in the electoral circuit and expecting circuit forums could still meet in person was not without its own set of problems. On one hand, the electoral circuits could be more easily adjusted to the changing needs or dynamic situations of the Synod while preserving its congregations from disruption in the normal work of the visitation circuit. Though visitation circuits would be formed with the sole focus on visitation and the mission of God without being concerned about meeting specific numerical mem - bership requirements, the separation of the electoral circuit from the visitation circuit was not believed to be helpful overall. The Synod has for the entirety of its existence seen a connection be- tween the two and this might lead to weakened ties between the individual congregations or parishes of the circuit and the overall work in common through the Synod. Because of the confusion this might occasion, the task force did not give more serious consider - ation to this change. Recommendations Having considered all the foregoing, the task force makes the following proposal to the 2026 Synod convention: 1. Change the Bylaw 3.1.2 standard from congregations to parishes; 2. Remove from the bylaw entirely the possibility of ex- ceptions (except that no district shall be left without any circuit); and 3. Remove from the bylaw the upper limits for the num- ber of congregations, confirmed members, and how many visitation circuits may combine into an electoral circuit. The task force believes that this realignment would more close- ly connect the number of delegates to the actual size of the Synod and the number of its parishes. Therefore, the task force recom - mends the following bylaw changes to the Synod in convention: Proposed Action Resolved, That Bylaw 3.1.2 be amended as follows: PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING Voting Delegates 3.1.2 Electoral circuits shall meet as required by the Bylaws of the Synod to elect circuit voting delegates to the Synod’s na- tional conventions. (a) An electoral circuit shall consist either of one or two of one or more adjacent visitation circuits, as shall be determined by the district board of directors on the basis of the following requirements: each pair of delegates shall represent from 7 to 20 member congregations at least six (6) parishes (as defined in Bylaw 2.5.5; each congregation of a parish divided across circuit lines counts, for this purpose, as an equal fraction of the parish, i.e., ½ for each congregation in a parish of two congregations; ⅓ for each in a parish of three; etc.) , involv- ing an aggregate confirmed membership ranging from of at least 1,500 to 10,000. (b) Exceptions to these requirements may be made only by the President of the Synod upon request of a district board of directors. No exceptions shall be granted, except that each 2026 Convention Workbook 147 OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS1 2023 Res. 9-06A Task Force1 To Evaluate Electoral Circuit Parameters2 Whitepaper I3 John W. Sias, Secretary4 September 9, 2024 (Revised October 4, 2024)5 This whitepaper is intended to supplement the historical context found in the rationale of 2023 Res. 9-06A 6 (Proc., pp. 206–9) with statistical and historical data generally informative for the task force’s early work. It 7 intends to cover the following areas:8 1. A description of electoral and visitation circuits today, statistically and historically considered9 2. A brief characterization of current electoral circuits10 3. An overview of confirmed membership change and variation therein throughout the Synod11 4. A historical overview of selected recent changes to formation requirements and procedures of 12 circuits, visitation and electoral, that have been proposed in relatively recent Synod convention 13 overtures (supplementing the changes made over time, detailed in the charging resolution)14 5. A study of the potential effect on Synod convention size and representation changethat could occur 15 in a number of hypothetical proposals of various configurations16 6. A study of alternate requirements for electoral circuit formation, including a parish rather than 17 congregation basis and addition of an installed, non-SMP pastor requirement18 7. A study of c odependent bounds for electoral circuit formation, in which circuits with a surplus of 19 congregations can have a deficit of members and vice-versa20 8. Basic contextual data on member congregations and pastors in the circuits of the Synod21 These data are, of course, not exhaustive of the material or perspectives the task force may need to consider, 22 but they are intended to offer a well-considered starting point for the task force’s work. 23 1. Electoral and Visitation Circuits Today, Statistically and Historically Considered24 Since the 1969 convention of the Synod(due to 1967 Res. 5-18), electoral circuits have consisted of “either one 25 or two1 adjacent visitation circuits,2 as shall be determined by the district board of directors on the basis of 26 the following requirements: each pair of delegates shall represent from 7 to 20 member congregations, 27 involving an aggregate confirmed membership ranging from 1,500 to 10,0003” (Bylaw 3.1.2 [a]).28 “Exceptions to these requirements may be made only by the President of the Synod upon a request of a 29 district board of directors” (Bylaw 3.1.2 [b]). Since 1998, the proportion of electoral circuits allowed to stand 30 due to granted exceptions has ranged from 3% and 9%, in 1998 and 2001, respectively, to 14% in 2004, 31 hovering between 10 –12% since, with the exception of a low 7% exception ratio in 2016. Bylaws neither32 specify any underlying basis upon which these exceptions are to be evaluated, nor specify any limitation on 33 1 In a few cases, three adjacent, in an exception not allowed for explicitly in Bylaw 3.1.2 but inferred as one of the possible grantable exceptions. 2 The visitation circuits themselves are established by districts (that is, by district conventions, unless a district convention has explicitly authorized a district board of directors to carry this out) “according to geographical criteria.” There is technically no lower or upper limit (other than practical ones) on the size of a visitation circuit, other than that one should ordinarily not exceed the upper bound for the related electoral circuit, either in number of confirmed members or of member congregations, and that it should take no more than two adjacent visitation circuits to form one electoral circuit. Practical limits, lower and upper, may be inferred from the functions—important in their own right—described in Bylaw chapter 5. 3 It has proven in some instances not possible, when assembling electoral circuits, to satisfy a lower bound (for example, on confirmed members) without transgressing an upper bound (number of member congregations) or combining more than two visitation circuits. While the “overage” exceptions are exceptional circuits, it is the “underage” exceptions that have been the principal concern. In this whitepaper, exceptions may be assumed to include only the “underage” exceptions (fewer than 7 member congregations or 1,500 confirmed members), unless the “overage” exceptions are explicitly mentioned. 2 their number. This has contributed to at least one significant and damaging controversy, related to the 2004 1 convention (See R1-8-01 and Addendum 1, 2007 Workbook, pp. 14–18). 2 Supposing that no circuits are realigned or recombined from their 2023 configurations, and assuming a 3 uniform 8% triennial drop in confirmed membership (see below), we anticipate that 22% of 2023 electoral 4 circuits would require exceptions for the 2026 convention (based on SY2022 data, one year newer than that 5 used to validate the 2023 circuits, 15% already are exceptional, compared to the 11% that were a year before).6 Some macro-level historical context will be valuable. While changes to the original, 1872 representational 7 formula of “between two and seven congregations” attempted in 1893 and made in 1917 (to “ five and ten”) 8 and 1944 (to “ten and fifteen”) were to control the burgeoning size of the Synod convention in a growing 9 Synod, the 1967 changes had the principal effect of aligning visitation and electoral circuits across the Synod 10 (these were already fully aligned, following 1917 guidance, in about a third of the districts) and a secondary 11 effect of somewhat increasing the convention size. The 1969 convention met with delegates from 478 12 domestic electoral circuits, 4 representing 5,486 member congregations and 1,877,799 confirmed members 13 (1968 Statistical Yearbook), an increase from 424 domestic electoral circuits in 1967, under the 1944 rule.14 For comparison, the 2023 convention allowed for delegates from 532 electoral circuits, 475 meeting the 15 requirements and 57 having “underage” exceptions. These 532 electoral circuits represented 5,775 member 16 congregations and 1,395,076 confirmed members.17 Figure 1 provides some recent historical context, 1998 –2023. The line graphs indicate the number of 18 confirmed members in the Synod divided by 1,500 (the lower bound for electoral circuit formation; for 19 comparison, in 1968, this figure would have been 1,252, slightly below 1998’s 1,301) and the number of 20 member congregations divided by 7 (again, the lower bound; for comparison, the 1968 figure was 783).21 4 This number excludes, in the interest of comparability, three Canadian districts and the Argentina/Brazil District, all of which have become independent church bodies since (with the exception of certain Canadian congregations remaining in the English and SELC Districts. There were at least 490 domestic electoral circuits in 1971 and 503 in 1973, changes roughly proportional to the confirmed member growth of the Synod in the period. Figure 1: Trends in LCMS Electoral Circuits, 1998–2023 Conventions 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2023 Circuits and Congregations / 7 and Confirmed Members / 1500 Regular Except ? Except < M Except < C Except < C < M Combined w/ Adjacent(s) Congs/7 ConfMbrs/1500