# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_September 12 13 2025_S17 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) • Bylaw II C 1: The president and treasurer, as employees of the institution, not only “need not be” but “shall not be” (Bylaw 1.5.1.1) members of the board. • Bylaw II C 4: The generic reference to other duties under the Synod bylaws likely means this may not need to be updated, but should be looked at. There should be a comma between “spiritual” and “academic.” • Bylaw II D 1*: See Synod Bylaw 1.5.3 regarding meeting frequency requirements. The board must seek the variance required if it meets less frequently than quarterly (which is a more stringent time requirement than “four times a year”). The bylaw might better read that the board will have at least one regular meeting per quarter, with one of those meetings occurring every September at which the other three for the year are decided. Generally, the board should consider the requirements of LCMS Bylaw section 1.5 to see that requirements are being met and that necessary portions are incorporated into the university’s bylaws. • Bylaw II D 2: The final clause would better read, “the act of a majority of the Board members present and voting, with quorum satisfied, shall be the act of the Board.” • Bylaw II D 4: It would be well to mention that the board’s electronic meetings are subject (Synod Bylaw 1.5.3) to policies of the Board of Directors of the Synod (Policy Section 4.1). • Bylaw II E 1–2 and 4: Committee bylaws need to be reviewed in light of Synod Bylaws 1.5.3.2–4 and, especially as to the grant of authority to the executive committee, which is broader than that described in Bylaw 1.5.3.2. If any committees contain non-regents, Bylaw 3.10.6.3 has further implications. Under E 2, the meeting notice requirements of Executive Committee are the same as for the full board, possibly limiting the usefulness of the committee in an emergency. With regard to E 4, Bylaws 1.5.3.1–4 do not speak of a chairman alone creating committees. These other committees don’t have the Bylaw 1.5.3.4 requirements of special skills or expertise, but since membership is not limited to regents, they doesn’t seem to fall under Bylaw 1.5.3.3. If these are not standing committees, the bylaw should reflect that these committees are ad hoc and timelimited. • Bylaw II E 5: The language, borrowed from Bylaw 3.10.6.3, requires updating. • Bylaw II F: If a special meeting is called at the insistence of five board members, it would seem that they should be able to determine the agenda. The statement of current practice and even selected days seems an extraordinary detail to ensconce in bylaw. • Bylaw II G: Procedures for filling district-elected positions are the responsibility of the district, and those for filling Synod-elected positions, of the Synod and Concordia University System (Bylaw 3.10.6.3). The university’s bylaws conflict with these procedures. Moreover, qualification of any appointee must be evaluated as provided under Synod Bylaw 3.10.6.2.1. • Bylaw III 1: The language of “best interests of the University” calls for inclusion somewhere in the bylaws of the language of Bylaw 3.10.6, which makes clear the mission of the university expressly incorporates the university’s commitment to the Synod. • Bylaw IV*: The requirement of Synod Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 (a) needs to be noted, that no amendment may be adopted without prior approval of this commission. Board Handbook: The commission reviewed the Handbook dated March 17, 2017, and amended December 2, 2017. The commission notes the following: • PDF page 4, Item I C: The commission observes that while, of course, Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions are paramount, their implications as to the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod are not of private interpretation for the agencies, or directors of agencies, of the Synod. This should not be read to imply that a local interpretation of the Scriptures would surmount the CCM Minutes – September 12–13, 2025 – Page 118