# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_May 1 2 2006_S12
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

involving the commissions of adjudication and the Board of Appeals, but also to approval or
disapproval, to ratification or recision, by the convention of the Synod.
Question 6: When there is a specific directive of the Synod or the Synod’s Board of Directors—and when
that specific directive has been assigned to a program board—has not Synod determined that
the authority of the President of the Synod is limited?
Opinion: Bylaw 3.3.1.3 (k) reads, “[The President] shall be authorized, in the event that the affairs of the
Synod require the exercise of executive power for a purpose for which there is no specific directive of the
Synod, to exercise such power (emphasis added). Note that the Synod’s Board of Directors is not
included in the bylaw phrase “specific directive of the Synod” (emphasis added).
For the answer to this question see also section B of the Commission’s Opinion 06-2462, also issued on
this date.
Question 7: If the President of the Synod elects to use his executive power and that, in turn, has the effect
of interfering with the ability of an entity of the Synod to carry out its legitimate and specific
directives, does that not constitute an improper use of his executive power or an improper
interference with the rights and responsibilities that an agency of the Synod has to carry out
its duties in a faithful and timely manner?
Opinion: If and when the President, in his judgment, elects to use his executive power, and such use is in
compliance with the Constitution and Bylaws, including Bylaw 3.3.1.3 (k), it is a proper use of his
executive power unless determined otherwise through the appeal processes provided.
Question 8: If the Board for Communication Services is not directly answerable to the President in
facilitating his communications responsibilities—which facilitation includes content, media,
and personnel, does not then any attempt to cause the Board for Communications Services to
hold anything in abeyance or to refrain from taking action represent a disregard of the
limitations placed upon the President of the Synod and constitute an illegitimate use of
executive power and a direct contravention of Opinion 02-2259 of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters?
Opinion: The Board for Communication Services is directly responsible to the Synod in convention.
However, the President has supervisory responsibilities as set forth in Bylaws 3.3.1–3.3.1.3.
To the first part of this question, “does not then any attempt to cause the Board for Communications
Services to hold anything in abeyance or to refrain from taking action represent a disregard of the
limitations placed upon the President of the Synod and constitute an illegitimate use of executive power,”
the answer is “no” as long as the action(s) of the President is consistent with the Constitution and Bylaws
of the Synod.
To the second part of this question, “constitute…a direct contravention of Opinion 02-2259 of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters,” the answer also is “no.” Opinion 02-2259 correctly states:
…the Board for Communication Services is an independent board not directly
answerable to the Board of Directors. Similarly, while the President influences the Board
for Communication Services through his ecclesiastical role and as a primary recipient of
the services of the Board for Communication Services in facilitating his communication
responsibilities, the Board for Communication Services is not directly answerable to the
President.
100