# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_February 6 7 2026_S12
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Question 3:

If the required procedure of Bylaw 2.14.4.2 was not properly followed, does that procedural
failure invalidate the President’s concurrence under Bylaw 2.14.4.2 (a), thus restoring the
complainant’s right of appeal for action?

Opinion:
With regard to the completeness of the record presented to the President or the adequacy
of his review, the situation here presented, the question has been answered above. The President’s
concurrence, once given in response to a clear request, is finally dispositive of the matter as presented in
the formal, written accusation.
174. Review of South Wisconsin District Policy Manual (25-3063)
By an email of May 16, 2025, the President of the South Wisconsin (SW) District forwarded his district’s
policy manual for review. In its review of the document, the commission noted the following:
•

The document is heavily structured in the style of Policy Governance (Policy 2.8.2; 2.10.2–3;
Policy sections 3–4), which framework tends to present issues for districts using it. For example:
o

Policy 2.2.2 delegates operational management practically wholesale to the district
president, who is not charged by the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod with such
responsibility, which is instead that of the board of directors of the district. The imposition
of such responsibility on the district president is likely to interfere with his capacity to
perform his core ecclesiastical supervisory responsibilities.

o

Likewise, the apparently comprehensive responsibility of the president for staff (e.g.,
Policy 2.2.9.1.1) raises concerns about the board’s taking responsibility for staff
performing business, property, and legal functions.

o

Policies 2.6 and 2.7.4 impose limitations foreign to the Bylaws on the board’s work.

o

Policy 2.7.4.1’s statement that the board “shall not interfere with [district president]
management…or rescue the district president from the responsibility of management” is
ironic, as the management of business, property, and legal matters is natively and ultimately
the responsibility of the board and not of the president.

o

Further, the board dare not limit the president’s exercise of ecclesiastical supervision,
which is not subject to the board’s authority (see Policy 3.3.3, which does acknowledge
this).

The commission forwards its general comments, from Op. 20-2934, “Missouri District Policy
Manual,” on the use of Policy Governance in districts.
•

Policy 2.1: The qualifications of board members set forth in Section 2.1 are over and above the
qualifications required by Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws and the Bylaws of the SW District,
and, in some cases, conflict with those documents. The items listed in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2
should be marked as desired or aspirational qualities. Section 2.1.3 should be deleted. The Synod
Bylaws only require that a board member be a member of a member congregation of the district,
without inquiry into whether that congregation has financially supported the district. Further,
removal from the board is subject to Bylaws 1.5.7–1.5.7.1.

•

Policy 2.2: Synod Bylaws do not merely authorize the board to manage and control the business
affairs of the district, they require them to do so (Bylaw 4.5.1 [b]; see also SW Bylaw 1.41 [a]).

•

Policy 2.2.4: The prominent definition of stakeholders (not a term used in the Bylaws of the Synod)
may conflict with or distract from the assertion of Bylaw 1.1.1, that the Synod and its parts work
“in support of and on behalf of congregations.”

•

Policy 2.2.5.1: it may be worth noting that the treasurer must be a layperson (Bylaw 4.3.2).
CCM Minutes – February 6–7, 2026 – Page 146