LCC: Convention – Synod Wants Your Questions

LCC’s “Info Digest” has sent out the following update regarding the “special convention”:


LCC Special Convention Update!

CANADA – Voting and alternate delegates as well as some advisory delegates to Lutheran Church–Canada’s 2017 convention were asked to complete an email survey regarding their availability and willingness to continue their service as delegates to a Special Convention called by the Board of Directors for Saturday, October 17, 2020. If you haven’t already, please respond to the survey as soon as possible. If you should have received the survey and didn’t, or if you have any questions, please email convention@lutheranchurch.ca or call 1-800-588-4226 ext 253.

It is important that we confirm the list of delegates as soon as possible. The timeline for this convention is very short!

The one overture to be considered at this convention was published July 16 and can be accessed via the labelled button below. Deadline for submitting comments regarding the overture is August 31, 2020.

Comments and questions should be directed to:

convention@lutheranchurch.ca


The special convention documents are Overture 1.01, CCMS Rulings, and Bulletin #1.

Since Synod wants questions, here’s some questions I think should be publicly asked and answered. Please feel free to take any questions on this list and send them in as your own. If you have questions you’d like me to discuss, please send them to me via my contact page.

  1. The 2017 handbook requires that conventions take place in a physical location. How does the CCMS justify adopting the June 20, 2020 motion that states “it is possible to conduct a 2021 convention electronically”?
  2. The 2014 handbook defines a delegate as being associated with a circuit while the 2017 handbook defines a delegate as being associated with a member church. How does the CCMS justify adopting the July 9, 2020 motion that states that the 2017 convention delegates will be delegates to the Oct 2020 special convention despite the fact that the 2017 delegates were from circuits and not from member churches? (See also SPECIAL CONVENTION BULLETIN #1 Who #1)
  3. The 2017 handbook states that only delegates from member churches can attend a special convention and makes no provision for other classes of attendees. How does the CCMS justify adopting the July 9, 2020 motion that states advisory delegates would consist of Pastoral and Diaconal delegates that attended the 2017 convention? (See also SPECIAL CONVENTION BULLETIN #1 Who #2).
  4. Bylaw 8.01 requires delegates to be in place 90 days before a convention, or July 19, 2020. Is Synod advocating placing delegates after the deadline has passed in contravention of Bylaw 8.01?
  5. What is the total population of member churches that can send delegates to this convention?
  6. How many delegates are required for this convention to attain quorum?
  7. What provisions will be taken to ensure that only appropriately placed delegates attend and vote at a virtual convention?
  8. Given that the President is authorized to change the time and place of a Convention in case of necessity, why is this amendment needed? (cf Synodical Bylaw 2.29 Time and Place of Next Convention a. Before adjournment the Convention shall decide upon the time and place of the next Convention. If the Convention fails to do so, the president shall do so. In case of necessity he may change the appointed time and place or both.)
  9. Under the proposed amendment, who would determine if a force majure condition exists sufficient to justify changing the convention date and time?
  10. The 2017 handbook states that 2.104 An opinion rendered by the Commission shall be binding on the question decided unless and until it is overruled by a Convention.
    1. The July 16, 2020 inventory of CCMS actions lists two (2) items where the CCMS “indicated that” and three (3) items where the CCMS “moved and seconded”.
    2. Since most of these actions are not opinions interpreting the synodical documents, what relationship do these statements and motions have to Synod, and what portion(s) of the handbook supports that position?
  11. The 2017 handbook specifically restricts amending the synodical documents to Synod in convention. Given that the motions adopted by the CCMS are not interpretive in nature and can only be implemented by amending the synodical documents, are these motions actually
    1. an illegal attempt to amend the synodical documents,
    2. a violation of  the CCMS’s responsibilty to faithfully interpret the synodical documents?
  12. Will the CCMS members be referred to the Commission on Adjudication on charges of exceeding its authority?

4 thoughts on “LCC: Convention – Synod Wants Your Questions

Add yours

  1. I submitted a question Aug.6 in response to the invitation in the most recent InfoDigest. This was my question:

    “On July 20, 2020, as a Voting Clergy Delegate to the 2017 Synod Convention, I was asked by SurveyMonkey to register for the 2020 Special Convention. I registered & posted the following Comment on the place requested on the form to the one running the MonkeySurvey:

    “You may not be aware but in 2017 new Statutory Bylaws, a new Synodical Constitution & new Synodical Bylaws were voted in. The new Bylaws require voting delegates from each congregation / parish, not just from each Circuit as proposed here. Therefore, an “overwhelming majority” of members of synod will expect this Convention to be held with voting delegates from each congregation / parish, & not just retreat to the old structure for expediency sake. We have a new structure – Why is it not being used?”

    To date, I have received no response.”

    My email question was forwarded to Synod President, Rev. Timothy Teuscher. This is the response I received Aug.7:

    “Robert,

    Apparently you did not read the material sent out as per the CCMS’ rulings concerning various aspects related to this matter; i.e., Statutory Bylaw 9.13 states that delegates to a Special Convention are those from the previous convention. That would make it the 2017 Convention, even though we are now in the new structure.

    Tim”

    I acknowledge that my question had a certain tone. The response to me from the Synod President definitely has it’s own distinct tone.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Rev. Robert Clifford wrote: “The response to me from the Synod President definitely has it’s own distinct tone.”

      The Synod President’s response also was distinctly misleading. The President’s reference to Statutory Bylaw 9.13 failed to mention that the bylaw’s use of “delegates” depends on Statutory Bylaw 1.01 where a “delegate” is defined as “an individual appointed by a Member Congregation to represent the Member Congregation at a Convention”. There were NO Member Congregation-appointed delegates at the last Convention.

      Furthermore, the President left out of his response the solution Statutory Bylaw 9.13 gives: “Vacancy in the position of a delegate shall be filled by the Member Congregation which appointed the delegate whose position became vacant.”

      Perhaps the solution was not mentioned because Member Congregations were definitely caught offguard with the July 9th announcement about an October 17th Special Convention that gave them only ten days to follow their own congregation bylaws to appoint their two Special Convention delegates.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The message from SP Teuscher reads like he’s counting on what the CCMS wrote and hasn’t studied the governing documents himself.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: