# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S316
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

316

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

immediately after each convention to bring it into harmony with the
resolutions and changes adopted by the convention.”
After the 2010 convention, the Commission on Handbook and the
Commission on Constitutional Matters worked diligently to make
sure the extensive changes made by the convention would be reflected
in the 2010 Handbook. The problem brought to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters by the Board of Directors of Concordia University System which had not been noted by the 2010 convention
itself could have, indeed should have, been noted by one or both of
those two commissions. It was not. Had it been, the inconsistency
created by the two places in the Bylaws indicating the responsibility
for prior approval of initial theological faculty at the Synod’s colleges
and universities by the Board of Directors of Concordia University
System could have been resolved earlier. Now that the inconsistency
between the two references has been brought to the attention of this
commission, this commission and the Commission on Handbook
have the responsibility to resolve the inconsistency.
In researching the background for this matter, the commission
determined that the focus of the attention of the Blue Ribbon Task
Force on Synod Structure and Governance, Floor Committee 8 of
the 2010 convention, and the delegates of the 2010 convention for
what responsibilities of the Board for University Education would be
transferred to the Board of Directors of Concordia University System
was on Bylaw 3.8.3.8.3, the listed responsibilities of the Board of
Directors of Concordia University System. This reference to prior
approval was clearly stricken. The parallel responsibility for “prior
approval” in the bylaw section for college and university faculties was
changed as all other references to the Board for University Education
which had not been eliminated from the bylaws were changed to the
Board of Directors of Concordia University System, as the Board for
University Education no longer existed.
Further examination of what responsibilities were transferred
from the Board for University Education to the Board of Directors
of Concordia University System support this conclusion. The responsibilities of the Board of Directors of Concordia University System
for the colleges and universities of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod under Bylaw 3.6.6.5 include policy development, coordination of planning, and general oversight. Responsibilities for day-today management and operations of the institutions were given to
the boards of regents of the colleges and universities by the 2010
convention. Besides the responsibility to grant approval for initial
appointments of theological faculty, other responsibilities given to
the boards of regents of the colleges and universities include: approve
capital projects in relation to campus property management agreements and institutional master plans; visit institutions periodically to
identify strengths and weaknesses based upon professional standards;
monitor recognized service organization standards and follow up in
cases of inadequacy; and establish and maintain a system of colloquy
and certification of commissioned ministers (see 2007 “Handbook
Convention Version,” pp. 256–257 of 2010 Today’s Business).
The Synod has had throughout its history significant concern for
the recruiting and training of pastors, teachers, and other professional
church workers for the Synod. Appointments to the faculties of the
Synod’s seminaries as well as to the theological faculties (indeed to
all the other faculties as well) of the Synod’s colleges and universities
are of vital importance to the Synod. For decades, while boards of
regents of colleges and universities as well as seminaries have been
given the responsibility to appoint members of their faculties, prior
approval of Synod boards were also required for initial appointments
of faculty members of the seminaries and also for initial appointments of theological faculty members of the Synod’s colleges and
universities.12 Recognizing that history, and continuing to encourage
and even enhance the Synod’s significant concern for recruiting and
2013 Convention Workbook

training pastors, teachers, and other professional church workers for
the Synod, the 2010 convention eliminated the responsibility for approving the appointment of fully qualified members of the seminary
faculty from any board other than the boards of regents for the seminaries and placed that responsibility squarely with the seminaries’
boards of regents. The 2010 convention decided that the responsibility
to ensure qualified faculty for the Synod is with the seminaries themselves. Likewise the 2010 convention decided that the responsibility
to ensure qualified theological faculty as well as all other faculty for
the colleges and universities is with the colleges and universities
themselves and their boards of regents. It would have been inconsistent for the Synod to eliminate prior approval for seminary faculties
by a second board and not reflect the same for theological faculties
of colleges and universities.
The conclusion of the commission is also consistent with the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of Concordia University System.
These governing documents of Concordia University System, while
covering many other responsibilities of the Concordia University
System, include no reference to carrying out responsibilities for prior
approval of initial theological faculty members of the Synod’s colleges and universities.
Question 2: If the correct text cannot be established until the next
Synod convention, what policy regarding prior approval
should the CUS Board operate under until then?
Opinion: The correct text can be established. The Board of Directors of Concordia University System does not have prior approval
of initial appointments of college/university theological faculty
members and does not need to establish such a policy.
(Adopted Aug. 10–12, 2012)

Dispute Resolution Process Procedural Questions
(12-2645)
With a May 9, 2012 email, a member of the Synod submitted a
series of questions related to the dispute resolution process under
Bylaw 1.10. The actual questions submitted have been amended by
the commission to avoid argumentative assumptions and to approach
the issues in a more neutral manner.
Question 1: May an individual involved in an investigation or
proceeding under Bylaw sections 2.14–2.17 initiate a
dispute resolution process under Bylaw section 1.10
against witnesses because they offer testimony relating
to the allegations in the underlying action?
Opinion: No. Bylaw 2.14.1 recognizes that “[t]ermination of membership in the Synod is a serious matter involving both the doctrine
and life of those to whom it has been granted.” The need to obtain
accurate and complete information necessary to consider allegations which could lead to termination of membership has resulted
in the requirement (Bylaw 2.14.7.8 [d]) that “[a]ny member of the
Synod, officer of a congregation, or officer of any organization
owned or controlled by the Synod shall, when called upon by the
panel to do so, testify or produce records related to the matter.”
Members are thus encouraged to cooperate in an investigation and
are required to provide testimony in order to bring such an action
to conclusion quickly where not warranted, and to facilitate the
prompt expulsion from membership where warranted.
In order to maintain the integrity of the process, Bylaw 2.14.7.8
(i) gives the panel hearing such an action the authority to determine
which witnesses are necessary. Paragraph (g) of the bylaw requires
that “[w]hile the matter is still undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or pending, publicity shall not be given to the issues in
the matter by any of the persons involved during any part of the
procedures outlined in this bylaw.” The seriousness of maintaining