# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_February 18 20 2011_S9
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

30. Bylaw Section 2.14 Standard Operating Procedures Manual Revision
The commission carefully reviewed the final draft of the revision of the Bylaw section 2.14 Standard
Operating Procedures Manual incorporating changes by the 2010 LCMS convention and additional
improvements, this following consultation with the Secretary of the Synod and the concurrence of the
Council of Presidents as required by Bylaw 2.14.9.3. A final copy of the manual is attached to the
protocol copy of these minutes.
31. CUS Course Syllabus Approval Process (10-2587)
In a December 16, 2010 e-mailed letter, a member of a faculty of one of the Synod’s universities
described a proposal before his faculty, as follows:
Currently there is a proposal in front of the plenary faculty which will change the
oversight and process for the approval of individual course syllabi. [Currently, the
process for review and approval includes the individual departments (from which the
syllabus originated), the school dean, the Faculty Curriculum Committee, and the plenary
faculty.] The proposal calls for the review and approval process to be limited to the
departments, school deans, and academic office. Furthermore, the proposal allows for
school deans to create curriculum review committees within the individual schools and
the proposed syllabus be posted for review and comment by the entire faculty.
The proposal for change of the syllabus approval process arose from the concern of the
Faculty Curriculum Committee that most members of the committee could no longer
evaluate the individual course syllabi as most syllabi content fell out of the committee
members’ areas of expertise. Additionally, the schools which have external professional
accrediting agencies, e.g. School of Pharmacy, School of Health Sciences, School of
Education require additional elements not currently required by the faculty handbook.
Thus, the Faculty Curriculum Committee recommended limiting the review and approval
process to the schools.
During preliminary discussion, one issue of concern which was raised was whether the
proposal to change the course syllabi approval process violated the Synod’s Handbook
which bestowed curricula development and implementation onto the faculty, e.g. the
plenary faculty (see 3.8.3.8.10).
Having provided that background, the writer inquired as follows;
Question 1: Would the proposal to change the course syllabus approval process, limiting it to the
individual schools while allowing for plenary faculty review and comment but no plenary
faculty approval, violate the Synod’s Handbook?
Opinion: No. Synod Bylaw 3.10.5.6.10 (d) [formerly 2007 Bylaw 3.8.3.8.10 (d)] does require that each
faculty develop and construct curricula implementing the recognized and established purposes of the
institution and designed to obtain the objectives of preparation for professional church workers and other
Christian leaders approved by the Synod. This requirement places responsibility on the entire faculty for
the development and construction of curricula to meet the goals and objectives established by the Synod
in founding these educational institutions.

155