# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S463
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
whole” with advisory groups (e.g., a foundation board; the CUS
board) to seek input, but no votes shall be taken at such meetings.
Concordia University System Presidents
3.10.6.6
The president of the institution shall be the executive
officer of the board of regents. He shall serve as the spiritual,
academic, and administrative head of the institution.
…
(m) He shall represent the institution on the Concordia University
System Advisory Council.
…
3.10.6.6.2 The following process shall govern the selection of a
college/university president.
…
(b) The board of regents shall oversee the process of defining the
institution’s needs, describing the desired characteristics of the
new president, and issuing a request for nominations.
…
(2) The search committee shall prepare a description of the
needs of the institution based on listening forums, the findings
of the Board for University Education’s Concordia University
System’s transition review, and other relevant information.
Before publishing a call for nominations, the President of
Concordia University System shall convene an in-person
conference involving the board of regents, the search
committee, and the prior approval panel to discuss the
qualifications that will be sought and the search criteria.
…

2016 Res. 7-02B Task Force
Ov. 7-02

To Direct the Concordia University System
Advisory Council to Lead a Process
to Propose a New Governance Plan
WHEREAS, The Concordia University System (CUS) institution
presidents, in consultation with the President of the Synod, the CUS
Board of Directors, and the President of the CUS have concluded
that greater integration and collaboration would strengthen the
individual institutions and the system as a whole summarized in the
following comments:
Higher Education faces an uncertain future. Most observers
anticipate a serious decline in the number of colleges over the
course of the next several years. Eager not only to survive but to
thrive as the Church’s schools, the presidents of CUS institutions
are considering various approaches to our colleges and
universities’ relationship to one another. Presently, the
relationship is marked by goodwill and collegiality, but there is
very little mutual accountability or responsibility. Based on the
premise that we are stronger together than apart, models that
would reinforce and enhance our individual identity and
authority coupled with a more robust systemic governance are
being explored. How best to maintain local campus oversight
and engagement on the one hand, while strengthening the ties
that bind us together on the other is the idea. The intention is to
help alleviate tensions and conflict of competition. Even more
compelling, the quest is to identify ways in which systemic
collaboration presents opportunities for broader reach and
impact.
and

463

WHEREAS, Such an effort at greater integration requires
significant study of regional and professional programmatic
accreditation, legal matters, regulatory issues, and matters of
structure and governance; and
WHEREAS, The CUS institution presidents are well-positioned
with the best knowledge and expertise to develop a strategic plan
for the future of CUS institutions that is attentive to best practices
of higher education and the needs of the Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod; and
WHEREAS, The institution presidents and boards of regents of the
CUS institutions have publicly embraced the theological confession
of the church and are committed to consulting with the President of
the Synod, the CUS Board of Directors, and the President of the
CUS; and
WHEREAS, The culture of higher education is changing at an
increasing rate that provides opportunities and poses challenges to
the institutions of the CUS; and
WHEREAS, Colleges and universities—such as those within the
CUS—with modest endowments, competitive recruitment,
significant tuition discounting, and narrow financial margins are
particularly at risk; and
WHEREAS, The colleges and universities of the CUS have
successfully negotiated this challenging environment with the
prayerful and financial support of individuals throughout the Synod,
effective presidential leadership, and talented faculty and staff; and
WHEREAS, An economic downturn or governmental changes
could pose a serious economic challenge to the financial stability of
the CUS institutions; and
WHEREAS, The witness to Christ and the Church’s theological
confession at the university level is strategic and vital for the
Church’s future; therefore be it
Resolved, That the 2016 Resolution 7-02B Task Force
recommends that the CUS institution presidents, with the active
involvement of the President of the Synod, the Synod Board of
Directors, the CUS Board of Directors, the President of the CUS,
the institutions’ respective boards of regents, and others as needed,
propose a new governance plan for consideration by the 2022
convention of the Synod; and be it further
Resolved, That the proposed new governance plan specifically
address the objectives of 2013 Res. 5-01A and 2016 Res. 7-02B by
continuing to:
• strengthen all CUS institutions’ connection to the Synod;
• strengthen the confessional Lutheran identity of all CUS
institutions;
• review the composition, size, and selection of boards of
regents;
• review the process for selecting presidents of institutions;
and be it further
Resolved, That a report on the initial governance model
proposals be disseminated to the Synod for a six month period of
comment commencing not later than 15 months prior to the start of
the 2022 convention of the Synod; and be it finally
Resolved, That the Synod in convention give thanks for the
presidents, faculties, staffs, boards of regents, and communities of
the institutions of the CUS for their clear and faithful witness to
Christ and the church’s theological confession and practice at the
university level by rising and singing the common doxology.
2016 Res. 7-02B Task Force
2019 Convention Workbook