# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_September 12 13 2025_S15
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

•

Policy 1.2 (A) (9): The provision references Bylaw 3.10.5.5 (i)(6) as stating that the Synod in
convention must approve sale of Seminary property, which is not the case.

•

Policy 1.2 (B) (4): The language of the provision is subtly different form the language of the cited
bylaw, which speaks of developing “cooperation” rather than “support” of constituency.

•

Policy 3.2 (1) (a) (1): The reference to Bylaw 3.10.5.7 should be to Bylaw 3.10.5.6 instead.

•

Policy 3.3 (1) (d): The provision addresses the presenting of part-time faculty for approval to the
seminary president and references Bylaw 3.10.5.7, but this does not deal with recommendation of
candidates for appointment. The referenced bylaw defines part-time faculty but does not stipulate
how part-time faculty are to be presented or appointed.

•

Policies 3.2 (2) (b) (1) and 3.3 (3) (b): Bylaw 3.10.5.5 (g) is not limited to “full-time” faculty.

•

Policy 3.2 (3) (g): The provision references Bylaw 3.10.5.5 (7) which does not seem to exist.

•

Policy 3.3 (3): The Bylaws of the Synod nowhere require that that faculty present to the president
potential faculty appointments before the president presents such to the board for approval. The
board has apparently assigned this role to the faculty by these policies, but is not obligated to it.

•

Policy 4.2 (1): The board has no advisory members (Bylaw 3.10.5.2). The seminary should not
use language implying a status that cannot be conferred.

•

Policy 4.2 (2) (b): An action without a meeting (if that is what is meant here) requires a
unanimous vote with all voting members participating, not the usual quorum (compare, regarding
this whole of Policy 4.2 [2], Synod BOD Policy Section 4.1).

•

Policy 4.4 (3): No duties reflective of the position of treasurer seem to be identified here.

•

Policy 4.6 (10): This provision is presumed to be intended to prohibit inclusion of the indicated
items in a consent agenda.

•

Policy 4.8: Creation of standing committees involving non-members require the standards and
approval indicated in Bylaw 1.5.3.4.

•

Policy 9.3: Care should be taken that the Synod’s ecclesial interests in the seminary are not
subordinated to accreditation processes.

•

Policy 10.1 (1): The commission is presently addressing questions regarding the scope of this
bylaw in a separate opinion.

•

Policy 10.1 (2): This policy does not seem to distinguish part-time and full-time appointments
and, inasmuch as it applies to the latter, does not mention prior approval. While Synod’s bylaws
treat of lay faculty, this process seems to imply all faculty are called.

•

Policy 10.2 (2.1): The bylaw requires only that full-time appointments go through prior approval.

•

Policy 11.1: The bylaw should reflect the need for these arrangements to be reflected in a master
plan approved by the Board of Directors of the Synod, which may also, under its policies, have to
approve leases by the Seminary.

•

Policy 14.1–2: At least Bylaw section 1.5 should also be noted as relevant to the service of
regents.

•

Policies 14.2–3: A distinction must be noted between these criteria and the note about “under/non-performing” and those dealing with removal of a board member (Bylaw 1.5.7), especially
where they cover similar topics but disagree on the standard (e.g., missed board meetings).

CCM Minutes – September 12–13, 2025 – Page 116