A while ago I renamed my blog a “blahg.” This is one of those. Not real exciting. More of the “blah” kind of thing. But important for our life together as a synod.

The 2010 Synod convention sought to restore visitation circuits to their primary purpose. The 2013 convention decided to reflect that restoration by also restoring the historical name “circuit visitor.” Some of us, myself included, have trouble making the switch from “circuit counselor” to “circuit visitor.” Earlier today I sent out an email to district presidents in which I got it consistently wrong. Consistent, but wrong. Old habits die hard.

The convention also sought to enhance the procedure for electing circuit visitors, moving away from congregations mailing in ballots to having circuit forums meet to select these important officers. Several of the postcards that congregations have been receiving to call attention to their convention preparation responsibilities have called particular attention to preparations for the circuit forums that will select circuit visitors for the next three years. One of those preparations is the nomination of one or more active or retired pastors for consideration by the forum for the circuit visitor position.

Every congregation of the circuit should consider nominating one or more pastors from within the circuit or possibly living just outside the circuit to serve in this important position. The name(s) and biographical information, including specific experience, number of years as a member of the Synod, present position, offices previously held in the district or the Synod, and any particular qualifications for the office, should be sent to the current circuit visitor prior to the forum.

Which brings me to the email I sent earlier today to the district presidents (with terminology now properly corrected to protect the embarrassed):


We are receiving questions regarding circuit forum elections of circuit visitors, namely, if congregations do not submit nominations or do not submit them prior to the forums, what is the forum to do?

Bylaw 5.2.2 (d) (1) appears to make floor nominations at the time of the circuit forum less than possible. If the current circuit visitor is to have all of the information at hand to make his presentations to the forum (including such information as is listed in Bylaw [c]), he will need to have the names and required information prior to the meeting.

This makes suggestions of names by district presidents important (Bylaw 5.2.2 [b]), especially if they are made aware that no nominations are coming or expected from circuit congregations. District presidents then have the opportunity/responsibility to suggest names (along with accompanying bio information) to circuit visitors prior to their forums so that the forum will have names to consider.

Circuit visitors should note, therefore, that if they are not receiving nominations, the solution is to inform their district presidents so that the district presidents have time to suggest names and provide information. District presidents have the opportunity to suggest names anyway, even if nominations are made by circuit congregations, which names the forum may (or may not) choose to consider. But in such case when no nominations are made by circuit congregations, it is essential that the district president become involved so that the forum does have names to consider.

It is good that district presidents have the opportunity to suggest names for circuit forums to consider. It is especially good that district presidents are able to suggest names when there are insufficient nominations. But I expect district presidents would also agree that it is best when a circuit selects the pastor who will serve as its circuit visitor for the next three years using primarily a list of nominees provided by the congregations of the circuit.

Ray Hartwig