# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S337 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 337 tions of Bylaws 3.75 and4.109 pertain to appointments by the Board of Directors of the Synod under Bylaw 3.501?” Opinion: The Commission notes that the Constitution and By- laws of the Synod offer no clear definition of the word “office,” particularly as pertains to the question that has been asked. There- fore, no clear answer can be provided to this question. The Board of Directors may wish to turn this matter over to the Commission on Structure for its attention. The Commission notes, however, that Bylaws 3.75 and 4.109 both contain the provision that “doubtful cases shall be decided by the President of the Synod.” Until such time as clarification may be provided by a convention of the Synod, this provision is avail- able for a solution to the case at hand. Adopted June 10-11, 2002 Question re Visitation and Electoral Circuits (02-2273) A chairman of a Commission on District Bylaws, in a letter dated June 3, 2002, explained that his District is considering the realignment of its Circuits and is considering making a distinction between visitation and electoral Circuits. As his committee pre- pares recommendations for the next District convention, it is re- questing clarification regarding matters pertaining to Circuits and Circuit Forums in Chapter V of the Synod’s Bylaws. Question: “Is the definition of a Circuit given in Synod Bylaw 5.01 (i.e. -3.05 Electoral Circuit) to be applied to every occurrence of the word Circuit in Chapter V of the Synodical Bylaws? If not, in which instances in Chapter V is the word Circuit used with a dif- ferent definition? Specifically does the definition of Circuit in Syn- odical Bylaw 5.01 apply to Bylaw 5.03, 5.31, 5.33, 5.35, & 5.37, so that only Electoral Circuits, that is, Circuits with either sufficient communicant membership and number of congregations to qual- ify, or which have been granted an exception by the Synodical President for the previous convention, constitute a Circuit Forum?” Opinion: Chapter V of the Handbook of the Synod provides for “visitation Circuits,” called such by Bylaw 3.03 when it describes an electoral Circuit as consisting “either of one or two adjacent vis- itation Circuits.” The membership requirements for a visitation Cir- cuit are provided by Bylaw 5.01. The various functions of a visita- tion Circuit and its officers are provided by Bylaws 5.03—-5.51. Every occurrence of the word “Circuit” in Chapter V of the Hand- book refers to visitation Circuits. Bylaws 5.31-5.37, which refer specifically to Circuit Forums, therefore also speak of visitation Circuits. Each congregation of a visitation Circuit is to be represented at its Circuit Forum by its pastor and one member designated by the congregation. Among its functions, a visitation Circuit serves also as an electoral Circuit (Bylaw 5.35), although two adjacent visitation Circuits may be joined together by a District (Bylaw 3.03). In such case, a com- bined meeting of the Circuit Forums of the two adjacent visitation Circuits will be necessary to carry out the functions of an electoral Circuit as described in Bylaws 5.35 and 3.05. In all cases, for both visitation and electoral Circuits, specific membership requirements must be honored unless exception is made by the President of the Synod upon request of a District’s Board of Directors. Adopted June 10-11, 2002 Questions re BHE/CUS Board Approval of Board of Regents Appointments (02-2274) The Commission is currently considering a request for an opin- ion regarding the relative authority and relationships of college and university boards of regents and the BHE/CUS Board. That deci- sion is pending (02-2270). In a June 7, 2002 memorandum, the Ex- ecutive Director of the BHE/CUS Board submitted the following separate question with an urgent request for a more immediate re- sponse. Question: “In the area of initial appointments to seminaries and to colleges/universities of theology faculty members, what is the role of the Board for Higher Education over against the local Boards of Regents in granting prior approval for theological fac- ulty? How do the approvals differ?” Opinion: The appointment of faculty is governed by Bylaw 6.23 a, The Board of Regents on recommendation of the president of the institution shall appoint all full-time members of the faculty. The Board for Higher Education shall require certification of theological and pro- fessional competency. All initial appointments to seminaries and to col- lege/university theology faculties shall require the prior approval of the Board for Higher Education. All other initial full-time appointments shall require prior approval of the Boards of Regents and shall include a thorough theological review involving the District President and se- lected members of the Boards of Regents. Under the bylaw, the Board for Higher Education must require certification of the theological and professional competency of all full-time faculty members hired. In the case of initial appointments to the seminaries or the theological staff of a college or university, the Board for Higher Education must itself approve the certifica- tion and also approve the candidate or candidates prior to actual appointment by the Board of Regents. (This responsibility of the Board for Higher Education is also contained in Bylaw 3.409 h.) In all other cases of initial appointment, the Board of Regents is it- self responsible for approval of the candidate or candidates after a thorough theological review of each candidate in consyltation with the local District President and selected board members. In such cases, the Board of Regents reports the certification of the theolog- ical and professional competency of all faculty hired to the Board for Higher Education. ~ Adopted June 10-11, 2002 Questions re Authority of BHE/CUS Board and Concordia University System (02-2276) In a June 9, 2002 e-mail memorandum, a pastor of the Synod asks a series of questions concerning the relationship between the BHE/CUS Board and the Boards of Regents of the Concordia Uni- versity System. Question 1: “Does the Board of Higher Education have doctri- nal oversite (sic) over the Boards of Regents of the Concordia Uni- versity System?” Opinion: Bylaw 3.101 A 1 places the responsibility of supervi- sion of the doctrine taught and practiced in the Synod, including Synodwide corporate entities, under the Office of the President: “The President of the Synod has ecclesiastical supervision of all officers of the Synod and its agencies, the individual Districts of the Synod, and all District Presidents.” Bylaw 3.101 A 2 addition- ally requires that the President shall ‘at regular intervals officially visit or cause to be visited all the educational institutions of the Synod to exercise supervision over the doctrine taught and prac- ticed in those institutions.” Bylaw 3.101 B 2 adds that he shall of- ficially visit or cause to be visited all of the Synod’s educational institutions “to see to it that they are in accordance with the Con- stitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod.” The Bylaws, therefore, place the responsibility for doctrinal oversight of boards of regents of the Concordia University System under the Office of the President and not the BHE/CUS Board. Question 2: “Does the Board of Higher Education have the au- thority if needed to remove Regents whom (sic) are not upholding the official positions of Synod?” Qpinion: The Bylaws of the Synod grant no such authority to the BHE/CUS Board. Question 3: “Do the universities of the Concordia System have the authority to begin foundations for the purposes of keeping monies away from Synodical control?” Opinion: Bylaw 3.607 reads: “Since the Foundation serves all the Synod, no new foundations shall be established by Districts, colleges, seminaries, universities, and agencies without prior ap- proval of the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church—Mis- souri Synod.” Bylaw 6.63 adds: “All surplus institutional funds above an adequate working balance shall be deemed to be surplus and shall be deposited with the Vice-President—Finance—Treasurer of the Synod for investment. Earnings from such investments shall be credited to the depositing institution.” Therefore, universities of the Concordia University System do not have the authority to begin 2004 Convention Workbook