# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S336 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 336 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 3. As part of that investigation and because a dispute has arisen among members of the body of Christ, the President is 10 follow the guidelines for dispute resolution as set forth in Matthew 18:15-16. 4. As part of that investigation, the President may appoint a small committee to assist him in his efforts to reconcile the parties. 5. The President reaches a decision as to whether or not the charges in the complaint can be substantiated and thus lead to the expul- sion of the member from the Synod. Because the goal of all Christians should first be reconciliation, it is incumbent upon those within the church to always follow Matthew 18. Thus in those matters commenced under Bylaw 2.27, Matthew 18 is part of the process during the investigative actions of the Pres- ident, whereas in those matters which would not lead to the expul- sion of a member from the Synod and thus commenced under Chapter VIII of the Bylaws, the parties involved in a dispute must meet together, face to face, as set forth in Matthew 18, before a rec- onciler is appointed to assist in reconciliation efforts. In either pro- cedure, Matthew 18 is central for it is the methodology our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ mandated for brothers to reconcile their differences. Adopted May 20, 2002 Questions re Interim Directors of Synodwide Corporate Entities (02-2269) A pastor of the Synod, in a letter dated May 13, 2002, asked two questions of the Commission in light of its recent opinion 02- 2237 regarding the appointment of interim directors. Question 1: “When a program board, commission or governing board of a Synodwide corporate entity appoints an interim execu- tive director or chief executive officer, is it appropriate for that in- dividual to send correspondence to the members of the Synod with his signature under a title which would indicate that he is the per- manent executive of that corporate entity?” Opinion: The Commission has been given the responsibility, ac- cording to Bylaw 3.905 d, to interpret the Constitution, Bylaws, . and resolutions of the Synod. The question that has been asked is outside that responsibility. The Commission suggests that this is a question that is best directed to the governing board of the execu- tive officer in question. Question 2: “If the interim executive of a corporate entity has not been approved by the President of Synod, when a list is pre- pared for the permanent position, shall the President of the Synod approve such a list before a call can be extended to that interim ex- ecutive?” Opinion: Bylaw 3.69 e clearly states that the “slate of candi- dates for the initial appointment of the executive officer of a board, commission, or Synodwide corporate entity shall be selected by the board or commission in consultation and mutual concurrence with the President of the Synod.” This requirement pertains to the en- tire list of candidates. See again opinion 02-2237. Adopted June 10-11, 2002 Questions re CUS Board and Boards of Regents Authority (02-2270) The Executive Director of the Board for Higher Education, in a May 22, 2002 memorandum, asked for clarification regarding “the meaning and limits of authority of the BHE/CUS Board as the ‘governing board’ of higher education, further stating that this question is critical since “the relationship between the BHE/CUS Board and the Board of Regents will determine the future of ac- creditation for Synod’s institutions of higher education.” Question 1: “Bylaw 3.401 identifies the BHE/CUS Board as the ‘governing board of the Concordia University System.’ What does this mean? What authority and limits of authority does the BHE/CUS Board have in respect to the oversight of the Concordia institutions?” 2004 Convention Workbook Opinion: Bylaw 3.401 a identifies the Board for Higher Educa- tion, a program board of the Synod, as “the Board of Directors of the Concordia University System.” Bylaw 3.401 b provides that this board “has authority with respect to the Synod’s colleges and universities” and “to all the Synod’s institutions of higher educa- tion, including its seminaries.” The Synod has outlined the “overall responsibility” of the board in Bylaw 3.409, thereby establishing its authority to supervise and coordinate the activities of the Synod’s colleges, universities, and seminaries “‘as a unified system ‘through their respective boards of regents.” Bylaw 3.409 also es- tablishes limits to its authority by detailing the functions of the board “in keeping with the objectives and the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod.” Question 2: “Bylaw 3.401 b identifies the BHE/CUS Board as having ‘authority with respect to all the Synod’s institutions of higher education, including its seminaries.’ What does this mean? What authority and limits of authority does the BHE/CUS Board have in respect to the oversight of the institutions of higher educa- tion?” Opinion: Bylaw 3.401 b identifies the Board for Higher Educa- tion as having “authority with respect to all the Synod’s institutions of higher education, including its seminaries.” Bylaw 3.51 k de- fines such supervision as “to have authority over, to direct actions, to control activities” as to the unified synodical system. Therefore, the board has overall responsibility and the authority to direct ac- tions and control activities to the extent provided by Bylaw 3.409. However, the board must respect the duties that have been ex- pressly given to the boards of regents of each institution of higher education as delineated in Bylaw 6.03. Question 3: “Bylaw 6.01 notes that ‘each college, university, and seminary of the Synod shall be governed, subject to the general policies set by the Synod, by a Board of Regents.’ What does this mean? What authority and limits of authority does the Board of Re- gents have in respect [to] the governance of the respective institu- tion?” Opinion: The functions of a board of regents have been delineated by Bylaw 6.03. The Synod thereby has also provided the authority to carry out these duties as well as the limits to such authority. Question 4: “At question is the role and limits of authority of the BHE/CUS Board and the Board of Regents. There are some who believe the BHE/CUS Board has authority over the local in- stitution ‘through the Board of Regents.’ If this is correct, what au- thority does the local Board of Regents have? Those of us who work in education know that accreditation agencies require that the institution is governed by the local Board of Regents and not by an outside source. With this in mind, is the BHE/CUS Board a ‘coor- dinating board’ with ‘oversight’ but not the governing board?” Opinion: A board of regents has the responsibility and authority outlined by Bylaw 6.03 and thereby “governs” its institution “sub- ject to general policies set by the Synod” (Bylaw 6.01). As already noted in answer to question 2 above, the Board for Higher Educa- tion must respect the duties that have been expressly given to boards of regents as delineated in Bylaw 6.03. To the extent of its functions outlined in Bylaw 3.409, however, the Board for Higher Education does have “overall responsibility” over boards of regents and their institutions as a unified synodical system and is required to carry out these responsibilities. Adopted Oct. 21-22, 2002 Question re Definition of “Office” in the Handbook of the Synod (02-2272) In a June 4, 2002 letter, the Secretary submitted a question on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Synod regarding the defini- tion and application of the term “office” in Bylaws 3.75 and 4.109. Question: “When Bylaws 3.75 and 4.109 prohibit holding ‘more than one elective office; or more than two offices,’ what is the de- finition of ‘office’? Does it refer only to officer positions and mem- bership on boards, or is it to be understood more generally to in- clude any elected or appointed position of the Synod and its Districts that is prescribed by bylaw? In particular, do the prohibi-