Thursday, August 03, 2006

Important Context to Remember between CCM and BOD

This editor believes an important and telling event in the course of the controversy within the current adminstration between the BOD and CCM is found in August 2004. The 2004 Convention under the leadership of President Kieschnick passed a resolution to change the Constitution and Bylaws of Synod to limit the authority of the BOD. However, when presented to the congregations of the Synod, (including the laity and pastors) it could not secure the approval neeed to be carried. However, the CCM issued another "binding ruling" in response that basically stated that it did not matter if the congregations did not so approve, they considered the resolution to be in force. (Thus providing much of the context and confusion regarding the current lawsuit over what authority and responsiblity exactly does the BOD have?) CCM opinion 04-2409 states:

It is the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters that the proposed amendment to Article XI F 2 states more clearly what the existing language already means. Any amendment to the Bylaws which is consistent with the former Article XI F 2 would similarly be consistent with proposedArticle XI F 2. As such, the answer to the question presented is that if the proposed Constitutional Amendment A entitled "To Amend Constitution Regarding Officer and Board Responsibilities" as set forth in Resolution 7-21 of the 2004 convention of the Synod is not passed by a two-thirds majority vote, it would not affect the implementation or validity of any other resolutions or changes to the bylaws passed at the 2004 convention.

Am I hearing correctly here? The CCM did not care that the congregations voted "against" the proposed changes to the Constitution? Even if the CCM wants to argue that in their opinion, there was no change in meaning but only in wording, could one not understand the failure of the congregations to pass the changes to the Constitution to signal that the Synod is in disagreement with the CCM. The CCM likes to say the Synod has the final voice in all things, but does it? Especially when the CCM likes to remind us that its rulings are binding.

Again, it will be interesting to see if the floor committees are bold enough or confident enough to allow the resolutions to discuss and overturn certain CCM rulinngs to come to discussion on the floor, or if they will simply ignore the many requests from congregations and districts like they did in 2004.


Post a Comment

<< Home