Synod's Checks and Balances Work

By Jon Coyne

     In February 2005 the Board of Directors (BOD) of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) prepared to fill a vacancy on the Concordia Publishing House Board of Directors as well as a vacancy on its own Board of Directors. The February minutes correctly reference synodical Bylaw 3.2.5 (2004 Handbook): “A vacancy that occurs on an elected board of the Synod is to be filled by the Board of Directors of the Synod from a list of three to five candidates determined by a committee comprised of the chairman and two members of the Committee on Convention Nominations after the prescribed process.”

     However, the May 2005 BOD minutes reveal that “A member of the Board, referencing the Handbook of the Synod, Robert’s Rules of Order, and materials provided upon his request from a licensed parliamentarian, . . . emphasized that parliamentary law regards floor nominations to be a basic right of membership that must be complied with also when a nominations committee is called for, even when past custom of an organization may argue otherwise.”

     The May minutes further reveal that BOD Chairman Robert Kuhn “acknowledged that nominations from the floor has not been the practice of the Board (BOD) when filling vacancies and ruled that he will function according to the correction brought forward and in the future will call for floor nominations after the report from the Nominations Committee.” The BOD then proceeded to amend the slate of candidates provided by the Committee on Convention Nominations, nominating from the floor and subsequently appointing two people who were not on the official slate of five names provided by the Committee on Convention Nominations.

     Why is this an issue? While it is true that Robert’s Rules of Order (supporting nominations from the floor) take precedence over the custom of the BOD (not to nominate from the floor), bylaws take precedence over both Robert’s Rules and custom. The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM), in reviewing the BOD’s action, correctly ruled that the BOD did not have authority to accept floor nominations because of Bylaw 3.2.5. In so doing, the CCM protected the will of the Synod in Convention.