# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 28 29 1974_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

1.

To ratify the Secretary's letter (a) urging the Eastern District to look closely at their District
regulations and also at the regulations for District aid promulgated by the BHE under Bylaw
6.05, (b) calling attention to the fact that monies are usually sent to institutions rather than to
individual students, and (c) also calling attention to the fact that Seminex is not recognized by
the Synod. The Secretary had also stated that individual members of the Eastern District might
well protest quite vehemently if monies contributed for synodical purposes were used for
non-synodical purposes and that there might even be legal implications involved.

2.

To express concern over the proposal.

3.

To indicate that the Commission does not have enough information to pass a final judgment.

4.

To state that the Commission is particularly concerned about personal liability which might be
incurred on the part of trustees, directors, etc.

5.

To point to the possible threat to the tax deductible status of the Synod.

6.

To declare that it would be advisable to study very carefully not only the District bylaws but
also the laws of the state.

It was then decided by the Commission to take no action at this time since none is required but to ask
legal counsel Phil Draheim for his legal opinion as to whether a District board could appropriate from the
District treasury funds for non-synodical purposes, like the Red Cross, Seminex, etc. Note was taken of
the fact that the Eastern District meeting was held on June 14, which was before the date of this
Commission meeting.
165. Reference of "in such a case" in Bylaw 6 79 d (Ag. 626): Acting President Ralph A. Bohlmann of
Concordia Seminary, St. Louis had placed before the Commission the following question: "Granted that
the suspension provision of Bylaw 6.79 d (second sentence) may be applied only when the board decides
that the charge is serious enough to threaten immediate harm to the accused or others by his continuance
as a member of the faculty, may the suspension provision be applied only when the charges are of a
theological nature, or may it also be applied when the charges deal with malfeasance or with such matters
as listed in Bylaw 6.77, c?" After detailed discussion the Commission agreed upon the following reply:
Common sense indicates that "if in such a case" must refer to "if the board should decide to
proceed," and therefore the Commission on Constitutional Matters rules that the words "if in such a
case" do indeed refer to "if the board should decide to proceed" (note the contrast between the initial
clauses of 6.79, c & d). It is obvious that to hold otherwise would compel the board to allow such a
person to continue to serve even though it would seem that he might be guilty of one or more of the
causes set forth in 6.77, c. To allow him to continue to serve under these circumstances could bring
harm and disrepute to himself, to others, and to the institution he is engaged to serve.
166. Service on Faculty Committee (Ag. 629): Dr. Bohlmann had also asked: "May a person serve on a
faculty committee who has accepted a call to serve on the faculty and who is receiving salary from the
institution that called him, but who has not yet been officially installed into his office?" The reference was
to those who are being asked to serve on the faculty hearings committee for the John Tietjen case. The
Commission resolved to reply:
While the bylaws do not provide a precise answer to this question, on the basis of common usage
and dictionary definition the Commission recommends that faculty members should be installed into
office before serving on a faculty committee.