Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 212

2026 Convention Workbook
177
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
Therefore, while the Synod in convention has recommended other-
wise—and these recommendations should be taken under serious 
advisement by districts in ordering their conventions—it is not pro-
hibited by the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod 
for a district to conduct the contemplated non-binding advisory 
vote, provided its convention has adopted a special rule providing 
for such.
Lutheran Church Extension Fund Canada 
Corporation (23-3005A)
Minutes of August 9–10, 2024
This opinion is potentially relevant to discussions of corporate form 
requirements. However, due to its length and nature as a line-by-
line review, it is not incorporated here except for the following. See 
minutes.
Broader observations and recommendation: 1981 Res. 5-07 was 
proposed by the Board of Directors in response to a commission 
opinion (Ag. 1433, minutes of July 25–26, 1980; see also minutes 
of October 24–25, 1980; January 30–31, 1980; February 19, 1981; 
and April 24–25, 1981) regarding separate incorporation of a dis-
trict church extension fund, the essence of which was that absent a 
bylaw or resolution prohibition of districts separately incorporating 
their church extension operations—notwithstanding a Board for 
Church Extension policy to the contrary—districts could incorpo-
rate their church extension funds “for the same reason for which 
at least in part the Synod [had], namely, to protect the assets of the 
fund.” 1981 Res. 5-07 was adopted to address the concern that the 
approach of this opinion (Ag. 1433) would result in unregulated 
incorporation of subagencies by agencies of the Synod in gener -
al. It seems that—adoption of the resolution and two subsequent 
(2004 Res. 4-11 and 2016 Res. 9-02A), partial revisions notwith-
standing—a state of “uncertainty, possibly contradictions, conflicts, 
complexities, and definite lack of clarity” (1981 Res. 5-07, first 
whereas) remains regarding the requirements for subsidiary cor -
porations.
The commission respectfully suggests that the Board of Directors 
undertake again, as in 1981, to clarify the requirements necessary 
to protect the Synod’s interests at the incorporation or revision of 
corporate documents of Synod’s agencies and subagencies, taking 
into account not only the remaining-in-force aspects of 1981 Res. 
5-07 and 2016 Res. 9-02A, but also, generally, the requirements of 
Bylaw section 1.5, many of which have proven problematic for spe-
cific types of corporate instruments (for example, foreign mission 
corporations) in ways that are both difficult to adjust and outside 
the very narrow ability of the board to grant exceptions (see Bylaw 
1.5.3.6). Such a project could take into account legal opinions as to 
the effectiveness or sufficiency of controls in place and, where con-
ditions do not permit the obvious mechanism to be implemented as 
required, provide a framework within which the board could grant 
studied exceptions to individual corporations or classes of corpo-
rations, providing the Synod with effectively the same necessary 
assurances by different means.
This would be a worthy project if for no other reason than that 
the last, partial attempt to address these issues will be a decade 
old by 2026 and that it leaves us to rely in part on a standard that 
will be 45 years old, which itself is not documented in the Bylaws. 
The proliferation of subagencies and their worldwide projection, as 
well as decades of change in corporate law provide further urgent 
motivation. The commission also found, in researching the history 
of corporate formation among Synod subagencies since 1981 for 
erning documents is not required, the commission wishes to 
ensure this is implemented (new).
The commission thanks LCEF for submitting its articles and by-
laws for review and looks forward to reviewing a draft of changes 
developed pursuant to this review. Foremost among issues iden-
tified is the requirement of Synod Bylaw 3.6.1.3 (a), that a mini -
mum of one-third of the voting members of the governing board 
of LCEF be elected by the Synod in convention. The commission 
understands consultation to be underway between LCEF and the 
Secretary as to how LCEF’s governing documents and organization 
can be brought into compliance with this requirement.
District Convention Advisory Delegate Poll and 
2023 Res. 9-08A (24-3025)
Minutes of March 15–16, 2024
By an email of February 13, an ordained minister serving a district 
of the Synod requested an opinion on the following matter (as it 
was revised and extended by the Secretary for clarity). Consonant 
with Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (b), the commission requested input from dis-
trict presidents, district boards of directors, and the Praesidium of 
the Synod.
Background: A district of the Synod in 2022 adopted a resolution 
directing the district to provide for a non-binding advisory vote of 
nonvoting advisory delegates prior to votes taken at 2025 and sub-
sequent district conventions. (This has been, in one form or another, 
a practice of long or short standing in a number of districts.)  
The 2023 Synod convention, meanwhile, adopted Res. 9-08A, “To 
Strengthen Nonvoting Advisory Delegate Participation at Conven-
tions,” which reads in relevant part: “Recent efforts have included 
polling advisory delegates prior to delegate voting, but in addition 
to violating the established rules of order (Robert’ s Rules of Order, 
Newly Revised [12th ed.] 45:72), such polling reduces the advice 
and counsel given to a single word—either ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ The coun-
sel these advisors can bring is much more nuanced and valuable 
than merely a single word” (emphasis added).
Question: 
 Taking 
into consideration 2023 Res. 9-08A and By-
law 4.2.1 (f), “The president of the district shall con-
duct the sessions according to accepted parliamenta-
ry rules […],” is it consistent with the Constitution, 
Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod for a district 
convention to conduct a non-binding advisory vote 
of nonvoting advisory delegates prior to votes of 
voting delegates?
Opinion:
 2023 Res. 
9-08A has, in response to a number of over -
tures suggesting broader use of the non-binding advisory vote (Ov. 
9-20–25), considered the question of strengthening nonvoting advi-
sory delegate participation at conventions and recommended other 
means instead, raising concerns regarding rules of order and that 
advisory delegates’ advice not be reduced to a simple yes or no. The 
resolution did not, however, prohibit the practice. 
Furthermore, the commission observes that Bylaws 3.1.9 (i)(3) and 
4.2.1 (f) do not prescribe Robert’ s Rules of Order, Newly Revised 
(RONR) or any other parliamentary manual in such a way as to 
prevent the alteration of its rules by a Synod or district convention 
adopting special (or “standing,” RONR 2:24, 59:27–37) rules (id., 
2:16n5, 2:22). Both Synod and district conventions thus frequently 
alter the basic provisions of Robert’s (or whatever other parliamen-
tary manual might be used), in a manner fully in accord with “ac -
cepted parliamentary rules” (id., 2:14–24).