# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S185
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
would not be an advisory member at the Synod level
(being a called pastor of a congregation of the Synod
and not falling under any of the “advisory only” categories of Const. Art. V B), answers in the negative.
••

Is the minister eligible to serve as the voting delegate
from the District B congregation’s circuit? The commission, finding that he would not be, at the Synod
level, an advisory member “under Article V B of
the Constitution,” and so long as he is not a specific
ministry pastor (Bylaw 3.1.2.1 [d]), answers in the
affirmative.

The commission notes that these answers pertain only to
this specific situation, regarding a minister with a missionary
call by one district and a pastoral call from a congregation in
another, and may not safely be extrapolated to other situations.
It also notes that, given the severe contortions into which the
contemplated situation forces the present bylaws, the observation of Ag. 1959 is still apropos: “The simplest approach would,
of course, be for [the congregation] to request a change in district membership.” Finally, it reiterates its assessment that these
bylaws (Bylaw section 2.12 and Bylaw 4.4.7, perhaps among
others) need to provide mechanisms for coming to definitive
conclusions in these heretofore unaddressed situations. This issue is referred to the Commission on Handbook.
Adopted May 5–6, 2017

Non-renewal of Non-tenured
Seminary Faculty (17-2821)
The faculty of a seminary asked for an opinion regarding
Bylaw 3.10.5.7.4 [j], requesting clarification of the process for
the non-renewal of the contract of an initial-level member of
the faculty. As commission member Rev. Gerhard Bode has a
familial connection to a seminary faculty, he recused himself
and excused himself from the entire discussion, consideration,
and vote on this matter.
Bylaw 3.10.5.7.4 [j] reads:
Faculty members with an initial-level appointment (who have no expectation of continued
employment) shall not be entitled to an appeal
process following (or prior to) a decision of nonretention. The only exception is that a faculty
member with an initial-level appointment may
ask the board of regents to assure that appropriate procedures were followed in reaching the
decision or the basis on which the decision was
made.
Specifically, the faculty asked three questions, to which the
commission responds as follows. In responding to the questions
it is critical to note the context of the entire section as expounded in the Bylaws for seminaries (especially Bylaws 3.10.5.5 and
its subparagraphs [a] and [i][3]; 3.10.5.7.1 [a]; 3.10.5.7.2 and its
subparagraphs [d, e]; 3.10.5.7.4 [i, j]; 3.10.5.7.6 and 3.10.5.7.6.1).
Question 1: What are the appropriate procedures to be followed by the board in reaching a decision not to
retain a faculty member with an initial-level appointment?
Opinion: The commission notes that Bylaws 3.10.5.5 [a] and [i]
[3]; 3.10.5.7.1 [a]; 3.10.5.7.2; and 3.10.5.7.3 [e, f] all refer to various policies and procedures that the board of regents of each

185

seminary is required to put in place. Beyond these references,
there are no specific procedures laid out in the Bylaws for the
non-renewal of contracts for initial-level members of a faculty.
Therefore, the commission rules that the procedures referenced
in Bylaw 3.10.5.7.4 [j] are among the various policies and
procedures referenced in the above bylaws (especially 3.10.5.5
[i][3], 3.10.5.7.2, and 3.10.5.7.3 [e, f]) which must be established by each seminary board of regents. In essence, when the
contract of a faculty member with an initial-level appointment
is not renewed, he may ask the board of regents if it followed
its own procedures in reaching its decision. Bylaw 3.10.5.7.3 [d]
also poses specific timing and notification requirements upon
a board’s decision not to re-appoint, with which requirements
policies and actions of a board of regents must comply.
Question 2: Must the board of regents respond to the faculty
member’s request for assurance that appropriate
procedures were followed, and if so, what must
that assurance entail?
Opinion: The board of regents must give assurance to the
initial-level member of the faculty whose contract was not
renewed that it did follow its procedures. However, the bylaw
does not require the board of regents to provide documentation, nor does it allow for a challenge regarding the matter of
proper procedure being used (compare Bylaws 3.10.5.7.4 [i, j]).
An affirmative answer is sufficient.
Question 3: In this context, how is the phrase “or the basis
on which the decision was made” to be interpreted, especially with respect to Bylaw 3.10.5.7.6
(“The board of regents may decline to renew the
appointment of a faculty members during an
initial-level appointment period without a formal
statement of cause.”)?
Opinion: The commission notes that Bylaws 3.10.5.7.2;
3.10.5.7.2 [e][1]; 3.10.5.7.3 [d]; 3.10.5.7.6; and 3.10.5.7.6.1 all
make explicit that a board of regents may decline to renew
the contract of an initial-level member of the faculty “with no
formal requirement for a show of cause,” “without disclosure
of cause,” and “at the discretion [of the board of regents] and
without formal statement of cause.” Bylaw 3.10.5.7.6.1 indicates that for an initial-level member of the faculty the only
time cause must be shown is if that faculty member is removed
from office while the contract is in effect. Bylaw 3.10.5.7.4 [i,
j] specifically contrasts the right of appeal for continuing-level
and initial-level appointments to the faculty.
Bylaw 3.10.5.7.4 [j] permits the initial-level member of the
faculty whose contract was not renewed to inquire “to assure
that appropriate procedures were followed in reaching the decision or the basis on which the decision was made.” An inquiry
about basis here must be read in the context of Bylaw 3.10.5.7.3
[d], which states clearly that a board of regents may decline to
renew a contract of an initial-level member of the faculty at its
discretion, without formal statement of cause. Because the board
of regents at its discretion may determine not to renew the contract of an initial-level member of the faculty, in no case is the
board required to document its reasons for non-renewal. It is
a sufficient response to this inquiry as a whole (i.e., the inquiry
of the board of regents “to assure that appropriate procedures
were followed in reaching the decision or the basis on which the
decision was made”) that the board has followed its own appropriate procedures for renewal of an initial-level faculty contract,
2019 Convention Workbook