# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S304 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 304 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS would similarly be consistent with proposed Article XI F 2. As such, the answer to the question presented is that if the proposed Constitutional Amendment A entitled “To Amend Constitution Re- garding Officer and Board Responsibilities” as set forth in Reso- lution 7-21 of the 2004 convention of the Synod is not passed by a two-thirds majority vote, it would not effect the implementation or validity of any other resolutions or changes to the bylaws passed at the 2004 convention. Bylaw 14.01 (Bylaw 7.1 in the 2004 revised Handbook) pro- vides that amendments may be made to the Bylaws by the Synod in convention provided the amendments are not contrary to the Con- stitution. Before presentation to the convention, the Commission on Constitutional Matters is also required to review the proposed amendment to the Constitution or other existing bylaws.- Resolution 7-21 proposes to change Article XI F 2 of the Con- stitution as follows: 2. The Board of Directors is the legal representative of the Synod. It is the custodian of all the property of the Synod, directly or by its dele- gation of such authority to an agency of the Synod. It shall exercise su- pervision over all the property and business affairs of the Synod except Synred to the extent m rity and duties have been dele- gated by the Constitution, Bylaws or resolutions of the Synod to other officers and agencies of the Synod or where the voting members of the Synod through the adoption of Bylaws or by other convention action have assigned specific areas of responsibility to separate corporate or trust entities, and as to those the Board of Directors shall have general oversight responsibility as set forth in the Bylaws. The responsibilities of the Board of Directors under Article XI F 2 have been interpreted on a number of occasions in prior opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters. The language of the proposed amendment states more clearly what the existing lan- guage has been interpreted to mean. For example, in Opinion 03- 2358 the Commission opined that the authority of the Board of Di- rectors was limited by the existing language in circumstances where the Synod has delegated authority or duties to another officer or agency of the Synod. After reviewing the Board’s authority under both Article XI F 2 and Bylaw 3.183 (to be renumbered Bylaw 3.3.5 and its subparts in the 2004 revised Handbook), the opinion found that the Synod had delegated certain authority to the Board for Higher Education, and that the Board of Directors’ au- thority was thus limited. The opinion states: While the Synod could have adopted for its governance a corporate model, with power concentrated in a board of directors, subject only to election or reelection every three years, the Synod instead chose as its church governance structure a system which retains ultimate authority to the membership in convention, very much consistent with the pre- incorporation structure of the Synod. In fulfilling its function as “church,” the Synod has determined in convention to establish boards and commissions as the best way to carry out various church purposes and functions, as it reserved the right to do in Article VII of the Articles of Incorporation. Bylaw 3.01 indicates that the Synod in convention “establishes general synodical positions and policies, provides overall program direction and priorities, and evaluates all such positions, pro- grams, policies, directions, and priorities in order to provide responsible service for and on behalf of its members.” The Synod has chosen to al- locate duties, powers, and responsibilities among various officers, boards (including the Board of Directors of the Synod), and commis- sions, holding each ultimately responsible to the Synod itself through the synodical conventions. Reference may also be made to Opinion 03-2357, affirming the same interpretation with respect to authority regarding KFUO del- egated by the Synod to the Board for Communication Services and Opinion 03-2359 with respect to authority to determine the man- ner and level of circulation of Reporter. Opinion 03-2358 also re- viewed the earlier opinions of the Commission recognizing the lim- itations of the authority of the Board of Directors under the existing language of Article XI F 2, including a series of opinions dating back to 1976 involving implementation of New Orleans Resolu- tion 6-31, (Ag. 591, Ag. 591A-B, Ag. 927, Ag. 9-27A, Ag. 934, and Ag. 934B-J) as well as a 1998 opinion which reviewed the ef- fort of the Board of Directors to move the video studio of the Synod from the Board for Communication Services to General Ser- vices, Opinion Ag. 2094 (May 22, 1998). 2007 Convention Workbook Adopted Oct. 6-8, 2004 Supervision of Uncertified Church Workers (04-2415) A district president in a December 2, 2004 letter to the Com- mission submitted a series of 15 questions regarding the responsi- bility for supervision of non-rostered church workers (including an “uncertified” pastor) employed by LCMS congregations. Question 1: With regard to Article XIII, under whose authority does an uncertified worker in LCMS congregations fall? If a local congregation has an uncertified worker who acts contrary to “the confession laid down in Arti- cle II and to the conditions of membership laid down in Article VI,” is the local pastor as a member of Synod responsible for the supervision of the uncerti- fied church worker in doctrine and practice? Is the con- gregation as a member of Synod—and their Voters As- sembly in specific—responsible for the supervision of the uncertified church worker in doctrine and practice? Is this a shared responsibility between the pastor and congregation (Voter’s Assembly) as members of Synod? Question 2: If the uncertified church worker is a pastor who acts contrary to “the confession laid down in Article Il and to the conditions of membership laid down in Article VI,” is the local congregation as a member of Synod— and their Voters Assembly in specific—responsible for his supervision in doctrine and practice? Question 3: If a congregation’s pastor refuses to remove an uncer- tified church worker who acts contrary “the confession laid down in Article II and to the conditions of mem- bership laid down in Article VI,” is the District respon- sible for assuring the removal of the uncertified church worker as it is with certified workers in the LCMS in Article XIII.3? If the pastor refuses to “deal with him in accordance with the Word of God,” is the pastor open to expulsion from the Synod himself or does he forfeit his membership in Synod? Question 4: If the local congregation refuses to remove an uncerti- fied church worker—including its uncertified pastor— who acts contrary “the confession laid down in Article II and to the conditions of membership Jaid down in Article VI,” is the District responsible for assuring the removal of the uncertified church worker as it is with regard to certified workers in the LCMS in Article XIII.3? lf the congregation refuses to “deal with him in accordance with the Word of God,” does the con- gregation forfeit its membership in the LCMS in ac- cordance with Article XIII? Question 5: Is there a difference with regard to “offensive con- duct?” If a local congregation has an uncertified worker who persists in “offensive conduct,” is the pas- tor responsible for the supervision of his or her con- duct? Is the congregation—and their Voters Assembly in specific—responsible for the supervision of his or her conduct? Is this a shared responsibility between the pastor and congregation as members of Synod? Question 6: If a local pastor refuses to remove an uncertified church worker who persists in “offensive conduct,” is the District responsible for assuring the removal of the uncertified church worker? If the pastor refuses to “deal with him in accordance with the Word of God,” is the pastor open to expulsion for the Synod or does he forfeit his membership in Synod? Question 7: If the local congregation refuses to remove an uncerti- fied church worker—including its uncertified pastor— who persists in “offensive conduct,” is the District re- sponsible for assuring the removal of the uncertified church worker? If the congregation refuses to “deal with him in accordance with the Word of God,” does the congregation forfeit its membership in the LCMS in accordance with Article XII?