# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_February 3 4 2017_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

designated in that Bylaw as part of the sweeping 1981 revision of the Handbook (1981 Res. 2-18B).
(Note that at this time there were no other appointed members of the board, and therefore no prohibition
of appointed members voting on appointment of others.) The fact that the word was then changed from
appointed (a common and “standardized” term in the Bylaws) to designated (a less common word)
itself suggests strongly that there is a distinction to be made within the difference. Moreover, with
regard to this vice-president, the word designated was not changed to appointed when the term used
for the district president member was changed from elected to appointed (2004 Handbook), nor when
other appointed members were added to the boards of regents in 2007 (along with the noted
prohibition)—nor has it been changed since.
The clear impression is that there is a purposeful distinction between designation and appointment, a
distinction with a difference, regarding the fourth provision above—and a difference that, given the
President of Synod’s intimate responsibility for supervision and oversight of Synod’s educational
institutions, makes sense.
Question 4: Does Synodical Bylaw 3.10.5.2 [4] prohibit the appointee of the Council of Presidents and /or
the designee of the Synodical President from voting on the appointments of new Regents to a seminary
Board of Regents?
By the reasoning given above, Bylaw 3.10.5.2 [4] prohibits the appointee of the Council of Presidents
from voting on the appointments of new seminary regents, but not the designee of the President of the
Synod. This would also (and more importantly) be the literal sense of the bylaw language.
30. Checklist for 2016 Res. 9-02A Compliance (17-2811)
The commission reviewed a draft checklist for agencies bringing their documents into compliance with
2016 Res. 9-02A and planned to complete the document after further study.
31. Review of 2.17 SOPM (17-2806)
The commission reviewed and approved a draft prepared by the Secretary (attached to the protocol copy of
the minutes). In the detailed flowchart, step 2.3 (d), the commission added the sentence, “A statement made
by any one accuser shall not be shared with any other accuser.” A desire was noted, in general, to make a
thoroughgoing review, consolidation, and to the extent possible, simplification, of the Standard Operating
Procedures Manuals. i
32. Proposed Addition to All SOPMs (16-2798A)
The commission reviewed and approved a draft prepared by Chairman Gude and Secretary Sias, entailing
flowcharts for the use of district presidents, educational institution presidents, and boards of regents in
determining which bylaw sections apply to complaints or accusations received, especially as they relate to
faculty members’ activities outside the sphere of their campus responsibilities. The commission determined
to submit the flowcharts, as follows, to the Council of Presidents for consultation and concurrence,
intending to include them in the appropriate section of each Standard Operating Procedures Manual.
Handling a complaint or accusation
A district president receiving a “complaint or accusation” will consider the following in determining
which bylaw procedure is applicable:
1. An accusation consists of information that “could lead to the expulsion of a member from the
Synod under Article XIII of the Constitution” (consult Constitution Articles XIII 1, VI 1–5,
and II; and relevant Bylaws, especially Bylaw sections 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 2.1, and, in the case of a
congregation, 2.4–2.5; and Bylaws 2.14.1, 2.15.1, 2.16.1, and 2.17.1).

i The Council of Presidents consented at its meeting of February 7–10 to the content of the Bylaw section 2.14 and 2.17 Standard
Operating Procedures Manuals.

CCM Minutes – February 3-4, 2017 – Page 23