# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 23 2003_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Question:

Can the chairman of the board of regents delay the regular election of the officers of the
board for several months, in violation of the policy of the board and without a vote of the
board?

Opinion: A similar internal procedural question was raised in Question 02-2268, also involving a board
of regents. The Commission responded in that opinion:
Each such college and university 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 conduct its
business in accordance with accepted parliamentary procedures, whether contained in
rules adopted by that agency within its own bylaws or other governing documents, or
consistent with other accepted parliamentary procedure.
As also pointed out in that opinion, the functions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters are set
forth in Bylaw 3.905 and include the responsibility to interpret the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions
of the Synod upon written request of a member. The Commission is unable to provide an answer to the
question posed since it asks the Commission to interpret and rule on a policy of the board. It does not ask
the Commission to interpret or rule on an issue pertaining to the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, or
resolutions.
169. Confessional Statements (03-2352)
In a May 13, 2003 e-mailed letter, a parish pastor asked a series of questions regarding the confessional
position of the Synod and subscription to other confessional statements that may be circulated within the
Synod. The Commission will give further consideration to these questions at its next meeting.
170. Consequences of Permission Granted by an Ecclesiastical Supervisor (03-2353)
In an e-mailed letter received May 20, 2003, a pastor of the Synod asked a series of questions regarding
the consequences of approval or permission granted by an ecclesiastical supervisor in differing
circumstances. After discussion, the Commission deferred its response until its next meeting.
171. CCM Rulings, Dissent, and Ecclesiastical Supervision (03-2354)
In a letter received May 22, 2003, a pastor of the Synod asked a series of questions in three categories: (1)
Commission on Constitutional Matters Rulings in Conflict with Official Documents; (2) Regarding
Dissent; and (3) Regarding Ecclesiastical Supervision.
Question 1:

If, for whatever reason, the Commission on Constitutional Matters had in effect created
new governing principles outside of its purview – or issued a ruling which was in conflict
with the Scriptures, the Confessions, and the Constitution of the Synod – what recourse
would a member of the Synod have for challenging that ruling of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters?

Opinion: Bylaws 3.903 and 3.905 define the membership and functions of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters. Those bylaws make no provision for an individual member of the Synod to
challenge an opinion of the Commission that was issued in response to a question by an eligible party as
set forth in Bylaw 3.905 d. However, the Commission has reconsidered an opinion when asked to do so
by a written request from any eligible party that the bylaw allows to make an initial request for an opinion
from the Commission.

127