# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_February 6 7 2026_S7
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The requirement that the two laypersons elected by the Synod be resident freeholders of
(i.e., with residence in and having freehold title to property within) Seward County,
Nebraska, cannot be imposed on the Synod convention by the university’s bylaws and, as
stated, are invalid. The requirement of the former CUNE bylaws was simply that two of
the laypersons (including those elected by Synod and district and appointed by the board)
be resident freeholders of Seward County. The Synod’s choice of its two elected laypersons
cannot be so restricted. Should, following a Synod convention, the board be in a position
of lacking two resident freeholders of Seward County, Nebraska—if this is, in fact, a legal
requirement that must be retained—it is the board’s responsibility to meet this requirement,
not the Synod’s, and the board may satisfy this requirement by its ability to appoint
members.
This opinion, narrowly construed, was later codified in Bylaw 3.10.6.2 [2]:
3.10.6.2

Question 1:

The board of regents of each college and university shall consist of no more than 18
members, all voting.
…
2. One ordained minister, one commissioned minister, and two laypersons shall
be elected by the geographical district in which the institution is located. If any
board is required by its governing documents to include one or more persons
holding residence or church membership in a specific locality, the institution is
responsible for ensuring (including by appointment, if necessary) that individual(s)
meeting such requirements are included among those persons serving on such
board, and no such geographic restriction shall apply to Synod-elected regents.
…
Is the requirement of LCEF Bylaw II 1 binding on the convention as it elects members of
the LCEF Board of Directors, precluding election of members such that their election
would result in more than the maximum number allowed under the bylaw to be from a
given district, or is the requirement not binding on the convention and required to be dealt
with by the LCEF membership?

Opinion 1:
Were the limitation to be stated in Synod Bylaws as well as in those of LCEF, there would
be no question as to the applicability of the limitation to the directors to be elected by the convention. The
requirement, however, is stated only in the LCEF Bylaws.
The situation is distinguishable in two important regards from the case dealt with in Op. 16-2800A and in
Bylaw 3.10.6.2 [2]: First, the LCEF requirement is one not required by local statute and not purely
geographical, but one dealing with district representational balance. It thus may serve not some local
jurisdictional requirement but the Synod’s own interests (although not codified in its own Bylaws). Second,
the LCEF Bylaws, as bylaws of a synodwide corporate entity, are subject to the unique process of Bylaw
3.6.1.7 (while the provision in question was adopted, to be clear, prior to the adoption of Bylaw 3.6.1.7).
Nonetheless, Synod Bylaws regarding synodwide corporate entities (first adopted in 1998 Res. 8-03B, then
newly requiring all the entities to have board members elected by the Synod in convention) provide as
follows (emphases added):
3.6.1.3

Each synodwide corporate entity shall have a governing board.
(a) A minimum of one-third of the voting members of every governing board shall
be elected by the Synod in convention as described in these Bylaws.
(b) The names of the individual members of each of these governing boards shall
be reported annually in an official periodical of the Synod.

CCM Minutes – February 6–7, 2026 – Page 141