Are These Articles Valid, Part 2: 1966 to 2007

In the previous post, we discussed the reasons why the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod may have filed for record invalid Articles of Incorporation with the Secretary of State.  We demonstrated from the publicly filed documents that it was impossible for the  officer of the corporation to be the presiding officer of meetings before 1990, and therefore impossible for him to certify the article changes to which he swore in 2007.  So what happens when an officer of a corporation gives the Secretary of State a sworn affidavit that is not true, valid, or correct?  In some cases, nothing.  The error (or in some cases incompetence or perjury) makes no practical difference.  If the corporation takes no action based on the invalid articles, or if their actions are permitted from the valid articles filed previously, then the error may never come to light.  Some diligent Secretary of State, or Attorney General or county prosecutor may see it differently, in which case bad things might happen.  But they usually don't have a lot of incentive to do this, especially when it comes to a non profit corporation.

But when the corporation does take action based on invalid articles, and the valid articles filed on record previously prohibit what they have done, then very, very bad things can happen.  And that is what appears to have happened when the Board of Directors of the Minnesota South District voted to sell University Lutheran Chapel in Minneapolis.

It's better to let you, the reader, see for yourself why this is so.  This is from page 4 of the Articles of Incorporation for the Minnesota South District from 1966:

Like the 1939 amended articles from the Minnesota District, their predecessor corporation, this appears to have the necessary elements described in Article IV "Amendments".  It could be more correct by including the phrase "presiding officer" (which Article IV requires) and the secretary could verify that he has examined the documents and has them in his possession.  But it would be fairly easy to determine that President Stahlke was the presiding officer, and Secretary Michael was also present, examined the documents, and has them in his possession.  And the published convention proceedings might determine all of the above (but not always; more on that in a later post).

And, of course, we have that last essential and necessary step mandated in Article IV: "and recorded with the Secretary of State of Minnesota, according to law".

So close enough; these Articles of Incorporation appear to be valid, legal and correct.  The 2007 articles... not so much, as demonstrated in the last post.

Why is this important (or, if you prefer, "What does this mean?"):

Here's why:

This is Article III, Section 3 "Duties of Officers", paragraph d 3 of the same 1966 Articles of Incorporation.  "[T]he Board shall have no authority to mortgage, encumber, sell or dispose of the Lutheran Student Center and Chapel, located at 1101 University Avenue SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota"... "Unless authorized by the voting members so to do".

In voting to sell University Lutheran Chapel, the Board of Directors of the Minnesota South District  acted on Articles of Incorporation that fail to meet the corporations own standard for validity, and which may have violated the law when filed for record.  To make the situation worse, the action they took violated the corporations valid articles previously filed for record in 1966.

They did this in September of 2011 after being asked repeatedly over several years by members of their own synod, pastoral conferences and sister district conventions to do exactly what their own articles required: to seek the authorization of the voting members in a district convention.

They persist in their refusal to stop and reverse themselves even after being made fully aware of all of this by University Lutheran Chapel's litigation.

And all of this was entirely avoidable.  More on that in the next post.

Are these Articles of Incorporation Valid? (Part 1)

Since this site is called "Friends of ULC", we do what we can to help ULC, that is, University Lutheran Chapel of Minneapolis.  In the last few weeks that means following the litigation begun by ULC against the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.  In Minnesota, this is surprisingly easy to do.  There is an excellent website from which you can order all the documents filed by any corporation registered in Minnesota with the Secretary of State.  It's a bit more of an effort to get documents from civil actions, but that too can be easily done with the MNCIS system and a trip to the Court Administrator (in this case, for the 4th Circuit/Hennepin County).  Concordia Saint Paul has most of the convention workbooks and proceedings, and Concordia Historical Institute has all kinds of historical records and documentation.  And all of it is available to the public.

The Secretary of State has filings (which are usually for Articles of Incorporation, Amendments to Articles, and change in official address) for the Minnesota District for 1903, 1909, 1929, and 1939.  For the two successor districts, the Secretary has filings dated 1963 and 1966 for both Minnesota North and South, 1984 (Minnesota North) 2007 and 2009 (Minnesota South).  There are other filings for change in registered address, filings at the county level, but these cover the changes in Articles of Incorporation.

From 1903 to 2006, all three districts (the predecessor Minnesota District up to 1963, and Minnesota North and South from 1963) follow the same standard set out in their Articles as to how to amend them.  Here's an example from 1939:

This is the certification by the presiding officer of the regular meeting (convention): "I, J. C. Meyer, President of the District Synod of the Minnesota District of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and other States, do hereby certify that I was the presiding officer of said body at the annual meeting of the said Synod held at the City of St. Paul, in the State of Minnesota on the 16th day of June, 1937, and that at said meeting a resolution was duly adopted of which and every part of which the foregoing is a true copy, and that I was the presiding officer at the successive regular session of said body held in said City of St. Paul on the 13th day of June, 1939, and that the identical resolution was re-adopted by said Synod at that time."

This is followed by the verification by the Secretary of the Corporation (in this case, the Minnesota District Synod):

"A. R. Streufert, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he was the secretary of the District Synod of the Minnesota District of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and other states at its regular meeting held at the city of St. Paul, Minnesota on the 16th day of June, 1937, and that he was also the secretary of said body at its successive regular meeting held on June 13th, 1939, in said city of St. Paul and as such secretary he entered and now has in his custody the record and minutes of the proceedings of said Synod, that the foregoing instrument is a copy of a resolution adopted by said Synod at the first meeting above referred to and readopted at the second meeting above referred to and entered into said record and minutes, that he has compared said copy with the original resolution and of the whole thereof, and the same conforms with said original entries."

Then comes the last step of the process to amend the articles of incorporation: The Secretary of State receives the examined resolution, certification and affidavit (in this case by the Attorney General) and completes the process by filing it for record:

The process over the years has become slightly modified from this, but these steps remain the same up until the present day: amendments to articles are presented in the proper amount of time (i.e, in the Convention Manual), they are voted on and the results are recorded (the Convention Proceedings), then the presiding officer at the meetings certifies, the secretary at the meetings verifies, and their affidavit is taken and examined and placed filed for record with the Secretary of State.

Minnesota North and Minnesota South still require this process, and the wording of their "amending" article remains very similar (North still requires two successive meetings for amendments to articles, South requires one).

Now consider the changes to the Articles of Incorporation in 2007 and 2009 made for the Minnesota South District:

Several things are striking about this document:

1. There is apparently no certification by the presiding officer and no verification by the Secretary.  There is only the sworn affidavit by the District President that "the foregoing is true and accurate and I have the authority to sign this document on behalf of the Corporation".

2. Prior to this date, the last amendments to the articles for the Minnesota South District recored with the Secretary of State was 1966.  The changes made in the articles over the intervening 41 years were never recorded with the Secretary by the presiding officers of those conventions (Lieske and Cloeter).

3. How could the District President first elected in 1990 be the presiding officer for conventions that occurred from 1967 to 1989?

4. How would that same District President be able to certify those amendments to the articles?

5. Why is there no verification by the Secretary of the Minnesota South District?

6. Why were these amendments filed in a year when there was no district convention (regular meeting)?

Two years later in 2009 we have something very similar:

This has many of the same problems as the 2007 document, and raises a number of additional questions:

1. Why file the Articles of Incorporation in their entirety (as "Amended and Restated" Articles) in 2007, a year in which there was no convention meeting, but in 2009, a year in which the convention did meet, only present to the convention a few cosmetic changes to the articles?

2. Why were only these cosmetic changes presented to the convention instead of asking them to vote on the entirety of the articles that were filed in 2007?  This would have allowed the actual presiding officer of that convention to certify the articles, and the secretary to verify them, two requirements of valid articles of incorporation.

All of which raises the question, are these Articles of Incorporation filed in 2007 and 2009 valid?  If not, then the last valid articles of incorporation are from 1966, and those articles require that the membership of the corporation (the Minnesota South District) must vote on the sale of "1101 University Avenue" (ULC).

More on that in the next post.

The Missions Committee Proposal from 2008 November

After we had suggested that there might be other ways to support campus ministry than by selling the campus ministry properties, we were asked if we were not being unfair.  Surely, we were asked, there must be some good in this proposal?  Fair enough, we thought, so we posted the task force report to let everyone evaluate on the merits.  Here it is below, in 5 .png pictures, one for each page.

A Solution for Funding Missions: Match Donations Dollar for Dollar

The genesis for Friends of ULC began way back in 2008, when the Missions Committee (or a task force thereof) of the The Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod suggested that the campus ministry properties in both Mankato and Minneapolis be sold in order to fund campus ministry.  If that sounds strange to you, you have a lot of company.  We also marveled at some of the other justifications that were offered for this novel approach to funding something by selling it.  "Ministry is not about brick and mortar", we were told.  Because we were cursed with too little imagination and too much memory, this was also puzzling.  You could also say that "Ministry is not about salaries, housing and benefits", but for some reason the committee did not recommend eliminating those things as well.

But instead of quibbling, we thought we would propose something that might work to preserve all of these things: matching donations dollar for dollar.

2008 December 9
Dear Friends of ULC,
It has taken us some time to digest the proposal passed by the Mission Committee, which is, apparently, that the buildings and property of the campus ministries at Mankato and Minneapolis be sold, and the proceeds be used to fund campus ministry and missions in the future. We would be eager to know more details about this proposal. In the meantime, we hope that our district might consider a different approach, one that we believe would have a great chance of success, would preserve, encourage and increase the base of support for all the mission and ministries of the district, and would also preserve and increase current and future sources of donations from the campus ministries of the district.
We were not part of the discussion or even the process that resulted in the recommendation of the mission committee, so our knowledge (as the Apostle Paul puts it) is “incomplete”.  We are still waiting for more concrete information, details and facts.  Once we get them, we will try to update and correct our information to you.  Here is what we can piece together: the mission committee has suggested to the Board of Directors of the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod the possibility that they sell the property of two campus ministries, both of which (from the published figures) have weekly attendance at worship at just around 100 individuals each, and one of which generated last year over $100,000 in donations from its members, and possibly a significant amount in donations from the other. There are no mortgages, notes, or monthly payments outstanding on either property. The District derives rental income from at least one of these properties, and may be able to derive rental income from the other. From the publicly available figures we can find, it appears that the direct cost to the district of one campus ministry is somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000 and the other between $18,000 and $42,000.  These figures will be updated when we have more information.
The mission committee proposes to sell both properties, and place that money in a fund for campus ministry and “other missions”. We are unsure as to the nature of this fund. Would money be spent only from the interest and gains, and the principle remain untouched and accumulate over time? Would there be a set target of perhaps 4 or 5 percent spent each year of the balance, and what would be the detailed plan to invest the money? Would this money be restricted to a very specific purpose, or would “other missions” grow to take the largest part?
We would urge all of our friends to consider supporting a different approach, one that many granting agencies, non-profit organizations, and foundations use, and it has proven itself in many environments. It is simple, elegant, efficient and accountable. It is commonly called “matching funds”. The granting organization matches every dollar raised by the groups which it supports. And we in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod have already been the recipient of a form of this funding, and it still is in use today by Thrivent (formerly AAL). It allows granting organizations to identify effective and viable recipient organizations, and it preserves capital assets.
Our enthusiasm for matching funds does not come from a belief that all missions should be self-supporting, or even “half” supporting. We would be delighted to see the District – and Synod – support an enormous level of outreach in keeping with the Word and the Sacraments as we have historically done, and we would be delighted if missions and ministries that could raise no donations of their own were fully supported by the District. Yet we must reluctantly conclude that, given this extraordinary proposal from the Mission Committee, these must be extraordinary times.
We would propose that the Minnesota South District match every dollar raised by a supported ministry, mission and campus ministry. We believe that this would have many, many advantages over selling the property of viable campus ministries:
Once the property is sold, there is no guarantee that the District would be in a better position to fund itself, much less campus ministry, beyond the first few years following the sale, and there is much evidence to suggest that this would not generate any greater amount of ongoing revenue. Just one example is the District's decision some years ago to reduce its giving to Synod from 60-65% to 50%. From that point on, the district has kept at least 25% more of donations it has received (from 40% to 50%). Yet we can only surmise from the Mission Committee's proposal that even this is not enough money for current levels of spending. If this is not correct, and the District does not need more money for missions and other work, we are at a loss as to why it would wish to sell property.Existing and viable campus ministries and congregations are far better able to generate donations that can match the District dollar for dollar. This can potentially greatly increase the ability of the District to support Word and Sacrament Ministry and outreach.Instead of a pie cut into many pieces, the District would have a “whole pie”, a larger amount of money which could then go to those missions and ministries which have demonstrated their viability.
We would like to assume, given the available information from the other supported missions of the District, that they too are generating a similar level of support as ULC. Given this, it would be necessary to set an upper limit of some kind for matching. Yet even this even this would be a blessing, because it would be further proof of how successful the District has been in its mission work.
University Lutheran Chapel thanks God and is extremely grateful for every penny received from all sources. We also realize that, like every mission of the Church, we exist solely because the faithful who have gone before us donated their time, talent, and treasure so that we might be able to proclaim and administer the Word and the Sacrament according to the doctrine and practice of Our Lord as our Church and Synod have historically proclaimed it through the centuries.
We thank you in advance for your consideration, and we hope you share these ideas with as many of our congregations and members as you can. We would like to do so as well, and we think that this has enormous potential.
God Bless you all, and we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Welcome to FriendsOfULC.blogspot.com!

After using Google Sites for some years, we've come to the conclusion that given the speed of events surrounding University Lutheran Chapel in Minneapolis, the best way to keep up is with a blog.  And so we did.

The title of this particular blog comes from the Collect of the Day, which is rendered in various ways from this basic prayer: "Lord, cause us to love what you have commanded, that we may inherit what You have promised."  You probably have heard, and prayed, better versions but that is the basic idea.

So please bear with us as we set up this site, and transfer over the material from www.FriendsOfULC.org.  At some point we hope to turn on reader comments when we have an acceptable use policy posted, and can check what's been posted before we publish.

Yet Another Explainer: A CRM Report from 2008 February

The following metarial, like that reflected in the two earlier blog posts from 2008 JAN 01 and 2008 FEB 15 were received by me in connection with my CRM application and report in those months. Like those posts, this is also material which has been moved to this blog from Google Drive, and updated, annotated and noted in the time period since. It was shared widely by this writer by mail, email and fax to document and correct a number of untruths that appeared in the publication of record (The Reporter) of the LCMS and in written correspondence to other agencies and organizations of that church in 2016. [§03a]

The question of ordained clergy who serve outside of the usual called positions (i.e. parish pastors) in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (or LCMS) became extremely vexatious some years ago, and the problem was either tackled, created, or made much worse (depending on your point of view) by changes in the bylaws in the LCMS from 1998 to 2004. The LCMS made an effort to return to something closer to the historic Lutheran doctrine of the office of the ordained ministry in 2016 by eliminating the most vexatious category of ordained members of the LCMS, that of non-candidate members.

The following may be of interest if you have heard of or been involved in CRM Status, or for those from a more general background outside of the LCMS (including those familiar with other churches with a high view of the ordained ministry.

The following link has a more readable .pdf version of the original paper document. What follows is an html draft of the original, using Google's OCR app tesseract, further modified.

ANNUAL REPORTING FORM - CANDIDATE STATUS

SECTION ONE (Please supply the following information.)

Name: ___[REDACTED]___ Date Candidate Status Granted 1/1/2001
Home Address: ___[REDACTED]___
Home Telephone: ___[REDACTED]___ E-mail Address ___[REDACTED]___
Last active roster position held (Pastor/Teacher/DCE/DCO, etc.): Pastor
Location: Trinity Lutheran Church, Bemidji, Minnesota
Concluding date of last active roster position held: 1988 September
Present congregational membership: Life in Christ Lutheran Church, Albertville, Minnesota University Lutheran Chapel, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Associate Member)
Are you a member in good standing in the congregation listed above?* Yes
(* as determined by the congregation where you hold membership)

SECTION TWO (Please answer the following questions if you are applying for Candidate Status.)

1. Do you have any health problems that would keep you from performing the duties of a ordained/commissioned minister? NO.
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, are these health problems expected to be lifelong?
3. Indicate below the extent of your current involvement on a part-time and assisting basis in your respective ministry.
Ordained Ministers ________________________Commissioned Ministers
___YES___ Pulpit supply __________________________Teach Part-time
___YES___Worship leading _________________________Substitute teach
___YES___Distribution of Holy Communion __________Youth work
___YES___Bible Class teaching ____________________Teach Sunday School
_________ Pastoral visitation ____________________Committee work
___YES___Other (specify) _________Other (specify)
________YES___http://www.2Realms.com
________YES___http://www.sainttimothysociety.org
4.___YES___Are you able and willing to consider a Call at this time?

Notes:

[§03a] I'm happy to give further details to whoever would like them (as I already have done since 2016). Use the contact tab at www.SaintTimothySociety.org for my email. - G.W. Bynum, Chaplain, Saint Timothy Society
[§03a]

Another "CRM" Explainer: An Application from 2008 February

The application below was sent to me in connection with the letter from 2008 January given on this blog in this post. This is also material which has been moved to this blog from the Google Drive, and updated, annotated and noted in the time period since. It was shared widely by this writer by mail, email and fax to document and correct a number of untruths that appeared in the publication of record (The Reporter) of the LCMS and in written correspondence to other agencies and organizations of that church in 2016. [§03a]

As noted elsewhere, this might be of interest to those within the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (or LCMS), and perhaps even to those outside of that church, as an insight into what is commonly termed CRM Status, CRM being used to denote ordained (clergy) and commissioned (teachers, DCE's) members of the LCMS not serving in a usual called position, like parish pastor. Or it might not; your mileage may vary. If, however, you have heard of or been involved in CRM Status, you may recognize a few aspects that have made the CRM categories controversial. For those from a more general background, including those familiar with other churches with a high view of the ordained ministry, you may find some corollaries as well.

The first weirdness you may note is the title of the form, Application for Inactive Status. The term inactive is strange, because (theoretically) most of those who apply are not inactive at all. Emeritus clergy very often continue to serve in parishes, and candidate clergy are often extremely eager to be more active than they are and want to be back in a usual parish position. Even the dubious category of non-candidate clergy are often serving in vacancies while pursuing training or advanced degrees. It is likely that changes begun in 1998 and continued in 2004 introduced not just a theological aberration to the church's doctrine of the office of the ordained ministry, but also twisted an earlier nomenclature into something less comprehensible.

But the strangest item the reader may detect is the category that was eliminated by the Synodical Convention of the LCMS in 2016, non-candidate. Removing this category reflects the earlier (and correct) understanding that all ordained into the office are candidates for called positions, even when they currently hold a usual or called positiion. The reader can decipher for themselves what the application form intends, but good luck with that.

This link has a more readable .pdf version of the original paper document. What follows is an html draft of the original, using Google's OCR app tesseract, further modified.

APPLICATION FOR INACTIVE STATUS

SECTION ONE (Please supply the following information.)

Name: ___[REDACTED]___ Date of this Application ___[REDACTED]___
Home Address: ___[REDACTED]___
Home Telephone: ___[REDACTED]___ E-mail Address ___[REDACTED]___
Last active roster position held (Pastor/Teacher/DCE/DCO, etc.): Pastor
Location: Trinity Lutheran Church, Bemidji, Minnesota
Concluding date of last active roster position held: 1988 September
Present congregational membership: Life in Christ Lutheran Church, Albertville, Minnesota University Lutheran Chapel, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Associate Member)
Are you a member in good standing in the congregation listed above?* Yes
(* as determined by the congregation where you hold membership)

SECTION TWO (Please answer the following questions if you are applying for Candidate Status.)

1. Do you have any health problems that would keep you from performing the duties of a ordained/commissioned minister? NO.
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, are these health problems expected to be lifelong?
3. Indicate below the extent of your current involvement on a part-time and assisting basis in your respective ministry.
Ordained Ministers ________________________Commissioned Ministers
___YES___ Pulpit supply __________________________Teach Part-time
___YES___Worship leading _________________________Substitute teach
___YES___Distribution of Holy Communion __________Youth work
___YES___Bible Class teaching ____________________Teach Sunday School
_________ Pastoral visitation ____________________Committee work
___YES___Other (specify) _________Other (specify)
________YES___http://www.2Realms.com
________YES___http://www.sainttimothysociety.org
4.___YES___Are you able and willing to consider a Call at this time?

APPLICATION FOR INACTIVE STATUS, PAGE TWO

SECTION THREE:

Inactive members are advisory members of the Synod. As such, they have all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of advisory membership in the Synod as defined in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, including attending all official conferences (Bylaw 4.8). To remain on the roster of the Synod as an inactive member, an ordained or commissioned minister of religion must be a communicant member in good standing of a congregation which is a member of the Synod and must qualify and make application for one of the following categories: emeritus member, candidate member, or non-candidate member.

A member may also choose to resign from the roster with the right of applying for reinstatement to the roster at a future date.

I hereby request the following status:

______Emeritus Status (Bylaw 2.11.2.1)
An emeritus member is one whose membership is held for retention on the roster upon retirement after reaching the age of 55 or for reasons of total and permanent disability.

___XYESX___Candidate Status (Bylaw 2.11.2.2)
A candidate member is one who is eligible to perform the duties of any of the offices of ministry as specified in Bylaw section 2.11 but who is not currently an active member or an emeritus member. A candidate may be continued on the roster for a period not to exceed four years by act of the president of the district through which the person holds membership. The candidate shall, by January 31, make an annual report to the district president who shall evaluate the member's eligibility for remaining on candidate status. The candidate's report shall include current contact information and address the criteria for remaining on candidate status. Among criteria for determining whether candidate status should be granted or continued are: 1) the health of the applicant; 2) a spirit of cooperation in any efforts to address any unresolved issues involving fitness for ministry; 3) the extent of current involvement on a part-time and assisting basis in his/her respective ministry; and 4) a demonstrated willingness to consider a call or appointment to any of the offices of ministry specified in Bylaw 2.11.

(Please note: Those applying for Candidate Status must be able and willing to consider a Call.)

______Non-Candidate Status (Bylaw 2.11.2.3)
A non-candidate member is one who is eligible to perform the duties of any of the offices of ministry specified in Bylaw section 2.11 but who is not currently an active member or an emeritus member and who chooses not to be a candidate member. The member may be continued on the roster for a period of up to eight years by act of the president of the district through which the member holds membership. The non-candidate shall, by January 31, make an annual report to the district president who shall evaluate the member's eligibility for remaining on non-candidate status. The non-candidate's report shall include current contact information and the member's efforts to fulfill the responsibilities of an advisory member of the Synod. Non-candidate members are eligible to serve in ministry situations upon approval of their district presidents and according to the guidelines established by the Council of Presidents. The Council of Presidents may grant an extension of non-candidate status for a second period of up to eight years upon request of the appropriate district president.

(Please note: Those applying for Non-Candidate Status are those who are not able or willing to consider a Call.)

______Resign from the Roster
(Any person who at any time has held individual membership in the Synod but has resigned that membership, or whose membership in the Synod has been terminated, is eligible to seek reinstatement into membership. All applications by individuals for reinstatement into membership in the Synod shall be addressed to the president of the district in which the applicant last held membership.)

Signature______________________________________________ Date 2008 February 25

APPLICATION FOR INACTIVE STATUS, PAGE THREE

SECTION THREE:

(TO BE COMPLETED BY DISTRICT PRESIDENT)

Name ______________________

1. APPLICATION FOR INACTIVE STATUS WAS SUBMITTED WHEN WORKER:
____Retired from active service on _________
____Experienced temporary disability
____Left active ministry to pursue advanced studies
____Left active ministry due to congregation/worker tension
____Left active ministry due to personal/family problems
____Left active ministry due to "burnout"
____Left active ministry to pursue other vocational interests
____Other ________________________________________

2. THE WORKER CURRENTLY MEETS THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS FOR CANDIDATE STATUS
____No health problems that make active ministry impossible
____Has been involved in ministry on an interim, substitute or assisting basis
____Has demonstrated a willingness to return to active roster
3. DECISION OF DISTRICT PRESIDENT
____Emeritus Status
____Candidate Status
____Non-candidate Status
____Resigned from roster __________________Effective Date of Change in Status 1/1/2001
____Removed from roster ___________________Date Status Expires

(Signature of District President) (Date)

Notes:

[§03a] I'm happy to give further details to whoever would like them (as I have already done since 2016). Use the contact tab at www.SaintTimothySociety.org for my email. - G.W. Bynum, Chaplain, Saint Timothy Society
[§03a]