# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 10 11 2002_S8
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

41. Questions re relationship of BHE/CUS Board and Boards of Regents (02-2270)
The Executive Director of the BHE/CUS Board, in a May 22, 2002 memorandum, raised a series of
questions for clarification of “the meaning and limits of authority of the BHE/CUS Board as the
‘governing board’ of higher education,” especially as it relates to boards of regents of the colleges and
universities of the Synod. He noted that the question is crucial, given that this relationship “will determine
the future of accreditation for Synod’s institutions of higher education.” After discussion, the Commission
agreed to await the drafting of a proposed response and further discussion before finalizing its decision.
42. Approval of Proposed Handbook Revisions by Commission on Structure (02-2271)
The Commission spent several hours of time reviewing the proposed revision of the Handbook of the
Synod by the Pro Tem Commission on Structure, a review that will be completed during the
Commission’s next face-to-face meeting in the fall. In addition to numerous minor comments and
suggestions, the Commission will ask the Commission on Structure to consider several general changes:
§

Insert more headings into the text to set off sections, thereby to make the Handbook more
user friendly.

§

Reconsider any changes that have been made without specific reason to avoid change for
change’s sake.

§

Restore specific bylaw cross-references within the text of the bylaws where they have
been deleted.

43. Question re Definition of “Office” in the Handbook of the Synod (02-2272)
In a June 4, 2002 letter, the Secretary submitted a question on behalf of the Board of Directors of the
Synod regarding the definition and application of the term “office” in Bylaws 3.75 and 4.109.
Question:

“When Bylaws 3.75 and 4.109 prohibit holding ‘more than one elective office; or more than
two offices,’ what is the definition of ‘office’? Does it refer only to officer positions and
membership on boards, or is it to be understood more generally to include any elected or
appointed position of the Synod and its Districts that is prescribed by bylaw? In particular, do
the prohibitions 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 Bylaws of the Synod offer no clear definition
of the word “office,” particularly as pertains to the question that has been asked. Therefore, 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 available for a solution to the case at hand.
44. 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 prepares recommendations for the next District convention, it is

30