# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 10 11 2002_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

communication unless he is addressing underlying doctrinal topics without reference to the matters in
dispute as defined. If the Board of Directors is aware that the Constitution or Bylaws (as interpreted by
relevant opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters) are not being observed, the Board of
Directors under Resolution 7-03C has the right and responsibility to “call up for review, criticism,
modification, or revocation any action or policy of a program board,” including those of the Board for
Communication Services (Bylaw 3.183 d 1). In such case, such action by the Board of Directors is not
unconstitutional.
Question 5:

“In light of the limitations placed on the jurisdiction of the Board of Directors to the
supervision of the property and business affairs of the Synod (Const. Art. XI F 2; cf. Bylaw
1.07 c), has the Board of Directors by its resolution usurped the jurisdiction delegated by
the Bylaws to the Board for Communication Services? Does the Board of Directors have
the general power to censor the Synod’s official periodicals and other communication
outlets for which the Board for Communications Services has been given responsibility by
the Synod, in light of the limitations placed upon the Board of Directors by Bylaw 1.07 c?
May the Board of Directors exercise such censorship even if the periodicals have complied
fully with the long-standing ‘program policies, as well as directions’ established for them
by the Board for Communication Services (Bylaw 1.07 d)? May the Board of Directors
order that no articles be written on a given subject?”

Opinion: As discussed above, the question fails to recognize the extent of the responsibilities of the Board
of Directors, including its authority to call up for review the actions of all program boards including the
Board for Communication Services, and its responsibilities under 2001 convention Resolution 7-03C.
Accordingly, the calling up for review, criticism, modification, or revocation by the Board of Directors of
an action of the Board for Communication Services is not a usurpation of its jurisdiction or a censoring of
the periodicals of the Synod so long as the bylaws regarding the rightful responsibilities of the Board for
Communications Services are not violated. To the extent that the resolution of the Board of Directors,
written without the benefit of opinion 02-2251 of this Commission, attempted to restrict the Board for
Communication Services in the performance of duties mandated by Bylaw 3.813 b, c and e, the Board of
Directors was in error. Its good faith in attempting to fulfill its mandate under Resolution 7-03C to
correct a perceived failure by the Board for Communication Services to comply with the Constitution and
Bylaws, particularly as it understood those documents under opinion 02-2243, is not here questioned.
Question 6:

“Conversely, may the Board of Directors order that an article or statement on a given
subject must be published? May the Board of Directors order that an article be published
and placed in a specific location within an official periodical, with no deviation in wording
or content or placement?”

Opinion: According to Bylaw 11.01 a, the official periodicals of the Synod exist, among other purposes,
to “include official reports and notices.” Insofar as an article or statement qualifies as an official report or
notice, the official periodicals of the Synod “shall…include” such reports or notices without change in
wording or content. Furthermore, since the Board for Communication Services is also required to “assist
the appropriate officers of the Synod in their communication responsibilities” (Bylaw 3.813 e), the Board
should be willing to cooperate with the officers of the Synod as they look for the best way to carry out
those communication responsibilities. Under the Constitution and Bylaws, one would expect the Board
for Communication Services to attempt to honor the requests of the Board of Directors, but it must
exercise its own judgment in fulfilling its duties under Bylaw 3.813. The Board for Communication
Services should carefully consider input from all officers of Synod, including the President and the Board
of Directors, but it is ultimately responsible for determining itself how to carry out its mandate in the
Bylaws. As such, the Board for Communication Services is not subject to the censorship of the Board of

27