# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S295
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 295

the chairman proceeds to hold the meeting anyway, what is
the validity of any decisions that are made at the conference
call meeting conducted under the protest?

Question 2: If one or more of the members of a board of regents
object to a conference call meeting at the opening of
the meeting but the chairman rules against the objec-
tion and it is upheld, what is the validity of any deci-
sions that are made at the conference call meeting con-
ducted under the protest?

Question 3: If one or more of the members of a board of regents
object to a conference call meeting at the opening of
the meeting but the chairman rules against the objec-
tion and it is upheld and the chairman restricts open
discussion between members of the board of regents
during the meeting, what is the validity of any deci-
sions that are made at the conference call meeting con-
ducted under the protest?

Qpinion: Similar board procedural matters have been addressed in

CCM Opinions 02-2287 (October 21-22, 2002) and 02-2268 (June

10-11, 2002). The opinion set forth in 02-2268 is applicable to this

question and is herewith repeated:

The functions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters are set
forth in Bylaw 3.905. Its responsibility includes the interpretation of the

Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws and resolutions upon written request of a”

member. Each of the colleges and universities of the Synod are agencies
of the Synod as defined by Bylaw 3.51 a. Each such college and univer-
sity is governed, subject to general policy set by the Synod, by a Board
of Regents as directed by Bylaw 6.01. The Board of Regents must con-
duct its business in accordance with accepted parliamentary procedures,
whether contained in rules adopted by that agency within its own by-
laws or other governing documents, or consistent with other accepted
parliamentary procedure. The Commission does not have copies of the
Bylaws, rules of order, standing rules, or other organizational docu-
ments of the Board of Regents in question, and its authority is also lim-
ited under Bylaw 3.905. The Commission is unable to answer further
the question posed.

Opinion 02-2287 noted further:

Upon review of that opinion [02-2268], the Commission realizes it
may have misled the member who asked the question in that the opinion
inferred that the Commission had the authority in rendering an opinion
to review the rules of order, standing rules, or policy manual of a board
of regents. It does not. The Commission is unable to provide an answer
because it has no authority to review the provisions of a policy manual
and such review would be imperative to a resolution of the issue.

Adopted March 22, 2004

Authority of Council of Presidents
to Place Requirements upon
Candidate Placements (04-2384)

A pastor of the Synod in a letter received by the Commission
on February 20, 2004, asked the Commission for an interpretation
of the bylaws governing the authority of the Council of Presidents
to place specific requirements upon the placement process of the
Synod.

Question: Does the Council of Presidents have the constitutional
authority to require that the wives of prospective pastors
of the LCMS be members of LCMS congregations be-
fore their husbands can be considered for placement in
congregations of the Synod?

Opinion: The authority of the Council of Presidents in regard to the
first call of a graduate or a candidate who has satisfactorily com-
pleted an approved synodical colloquy program, is limited to the
assignment of the first call.

Only the faculty of the respective synodical institution has the
authority to declare a graduate qualified for the first call. Bylaw
2.09 a states, “A graduate of an authorized synodical institution
must be declared qualified for a first call and recommended by the
faculty of the respective synodical institution before the effective
date of the first call to service in the church, as assigned by the
Board of Assignments as provided in Bylaw 2.11.”

And only the appropriate colloquy committee has the authority
to declare a colloquy candidate qualified for a first call. Bylaw 2.09
b states, ‘Candidates who have satisfactorily completed an ap-
proved synodical colloquy program... must be declared qualified
for a first call and recommended by the appropriate colloquy com-
mittee (see Bylaws 6.99, 6.117, and 6.137) before the effective date
of the first call to service in the church as assigned by the Board of
Assignments as provided in Bylaw 2.11.”

The Synod through Bylaw 2.09 c establishes the eligibility for
individual membership as follows: “Candidates who may be de-
clared qualified for first calls are those who before the effective
date of the first calls will have satisfactorily completed the pre-
scribed courses of studies and will have received diplomas from
their respective institutions or have fulfilled the requisites of a col-
loquy. In addition, they must have indicated complete dedication
to the ministry and evidenced a readiness for service in the church.
Finally, to be declared qualified and recommended by the faculties
or colloquy committees for their specific types of service in the
church, the appropriate faculty or colloquy committee must be sat-
isfied that the individual will meet all personal, professional, and
the theological requirements of those who hold the office of min-
istry to which the individual aspires. In addition, an academic year
of supervised internship (vicarage) is required of all seminary stu-
dents before graduation, ordinarily in the second year before grad-
uation.”

Acting as the Board of Assignments, the Council of Presidents
assigns (places) qualified graduates of synodical educational insti-
tutions and workers available from colloquy programs as “first
calls” (Bylaws 2.11 and 3.930 e).

Thus, since the Council of Presidents does not have the consti-
tutional authority to establish eligibility for membership or to qual-
ify, declare qualified, certify, and recommend candidates, it does
not have the authority to require that the wives of candidates for
the offices of ordained and commissioned ministers must be mem-
bers of LCMS congregations prior to placement. Such a require-
ment can only be established by the Synod in convention.

Adopted March 22, 2004

Restrictions and Suspensions (04-2383)

A Dispute Resolution Panel, upon request of a party to the dis-
pute, submitted a series of questions for a response from the Com-
mission prior to the panel’s scheduled hearing.

Question |: Upon request, if the Council of Presidents has already
failed to hear charges placed against a pastor in a fair
and timely manner while that pastor was on restricted
status, is it then possible for the same Council of Pres-
idents to fairly effect the final outcome for the same
pastor who has been placed on suspended status for the
very same charges?

Opinion: The failure of the Council of Presidents to respond in a
timely manner to a petition for removal of restricted status, while a
matter of concern, is unrelated to a fair outcome of the suspension
process, in which the involvement of the Council will be limited to
the possible participation of three District Presidents in an Appeal
Panel. The involvement of the Council of Presidents in the Petition
for Removal of Restricted Status process was also limited to a
three-person hearing panel of three District Presidents with entirely
different responsibilities. In the event that a District President was
selected for service on the Appeal Panel who has already served
on the hearing panel, Bylaw 8.17 also allows for a request for the
disqualification of that panel member on the basis of partiality or
the appearance thereof. Therefore, the fact that the Council of Pres-
idents and the same charges may be involved in both processes will
not be a factor in the final outcome of the suspension process.

Question 2: Given the fact that Bylaw 2.21 states that there is only
one remedy and only one action which can be taken by
Synod under this bylaw, and given the fact that both
restricted status and suspended status fall under Bylaw
2.21, by what justification does the CCM declare, in
response to Rev. Lindeman’s question #4 addressed by
CCM (January 28 minutes), that restricted status and

2007 Convention Workbook