# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S303 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 301 the Council of Presidents, which has no rationale to be involved, even indirectly, in the election of the president of a seminary. 7. Bylaw 6.11 f of the synodical Handbook gives one of the four votes in the election of the president of any synodical college or seminary, not to “the District President,” but rather to “the President of the synodical District,” which is a phrase much less capable of being understood of any President other than presi- dent of the synodical District in which the institution is located. Whereas “the District President” who is a member of a Board of Regents is rightly excluded by this Bylaw from voting with the Board of Regents in electing the President of any synodical col- lege or seminary (in the case of a seminary by virtue of points 5 and 6 enunciated above), the phrase “the President of the syn- odical District” is the verbal and real parallel of “the President of the geographical District in which the seminary is located” in Bylaw 6.01 a 3 of the synodical Handbook in the same chap- ter on “Colleges and Seminaries.” The Secretary of the commission had provided a response to each of the items as follows: 1. Prior to 1992 the “President of the synodical District” meant the District President of the synodical District in which the institu- tion was located because that President was a member of the Board of Regents of each institution, including the seminaries. After 1992 that was no longer true with respect to the seminar- ies. 2. The phrase was so understood in connection with the election of the university President because in the case of all colleges and universities of the Synod, the District President who serves on the Board of Regents is the President of the District in which the institution is located. 3. We have no record of a response from the committee chairman which indicates that the committee did not intend to make the change in regard to the election of a seminary president. Even if we did, it would not change the meaning of the words or sup- port the fact that such was the understanding of the convention delegates. 4. The overture proposed by the Board for Higher Education but not acted on by the convention was simply meant to clarify the Bylaws and have them conform to the opinion issued by the Commission on Constitutional Matters, an opinion which is binding since it was not overturned by a convention. 5. One of the reasons for the change was the fact that a District President who has ecclesiastical supervision should not be placed in a position where he, as a member of the Board of Re- gents, would already have made certain decisions which would affect his role and judgment as the ecclesiastical supervisor. 6. It must be remembered that the seminaries are more synodwide institutions than the colleges and universities, which are more closely aligned to the Districts in which they are located. This was one of the reasons for the change adopted in 1992. In addi- tion, this view is supported by the fact that Districts elect certain members to college and university Boards of Regents. This is not the case with seminary Boards of Regents, where all mem- bers are elected by the national convention. 7. The rationale provided by the Commission on Constitutional Matters deals with point 7 of your rationale. In reviewing the entire matter, the Commission on Constitu- tional Matters concluded that the response which it had previously provided was correct and that it saw no reason to change its opin- ion. Adopted Jan. 19-20, 1996 Transfer of Property to the Books of Concordia University System A District President had asked the commission the following question, “Does Bylaw 3.192 permit the transfer of the properties of the colleges and seminaries to the Concordia University Sys- tem?” In its discussion, the commission initially noted that in view of Bylaw 3.188 of the 1989 Handbook it would appear that the trans- fer was permitted. In further consideration of the matter, the com- mission concluded that it was not in a position to provide a defini- tive response. Specifically, it noted that there would need to be a definition of the meaning of the word transfer. Basically the ques- tion is whether the transfer is meant to refer to a legal transfer, to the transfer of effective control, or to the transfer of properties for accounting purposes only. In view of this uncertainty, the commis- sion concluded that it was not in a position to respond to the ques- tion as presented. Adopted Jan. 19-20, 1996 Change of Status of Board of Directors’ Member The President of the Synod had addressed a communication to the Commission on Constitutional Matters regarding the continuing services of a member of the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church—-Missouri Synod in view of the fact that his status within the Synod was no longer that of a lay member, but rather that of a commissioned minister of religion. It was noted that his change of status was due to no initiative or action on his part, but rather was due to the action of delegates at the convention. The specific ques- tions which were asked were as follows: 1. Is there a distinction to be made in status changes on the basis of the manner in which the change occurs? 2. Does it make a difference in terms of eligibility that one’s status was changed by convention action apart from any activity on the person’s part, as opposed to a change in status occasioned by a person’s action on his own behalf? 3. Is there no provision for a grandfathering sort of situation? In reviewing the matter which had been called to its attention and for which an opinion had been requested, the commission first noted that there is no “‘grandfathering” provision contained in the Bylaws. It further noted that when on a previous occasion a man had moved from the status of commissioned minister to that of or- dained minister, he had been declared ineligible for continued ser- vice on the board to which he had been elected. As was noted in the questions addressed to the commission, the change in status on that occasion was initiated by the member. In reviewing the Bylaws relating to membership on the Board of Directors, it was noted that the Bylaw states that the board “shall” consist of 13 voting members and clearly identifies the ratio of those members. In view of this, the commission concluded that the ratio of ordained ministers, commissioned ministers, and lay members is an important factor and that in order for that ratio to be maintained, the status of those elected to membership must remain what it was when elected. If the status changes, then one whose status has changed becomes ineligible. The manner in which the status change is brought about is immaterial. The commission therefore concluded that if the status change approved by the convention delegates is also approved by the con- gregations of the Synod, a member whose status changed as a result of this action from lay member to that of commissioned minister would be ineligible to continue to serve as a member of the Board of Directors after the date established for a vote by the congrega- tions, in this case, March 15, 1996. Adopted Jan. 19-20, 1996 Authority of Dispute Resolution Panel On Jan. 22, 1996, a Dispute Resolution Panel had posed three questions to the Commission on Constitutional Matters. The ques- tions related to a matter which had involved a settlement requiring action by the Council of Presidents which would reinstate some- one to membership on the roster of the Synod. The Council of Pres- idents, however, had declined to reinstate the person in question. The questions which were now posed were, in effect, I. In view of Bylaw 8.09 3 e 1, which states that the decision of a Dispute Resolution Panel is “binding” and is to be carried out by “group or members of the Synod” and the action of the