# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_February 1 1985_S7
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

cover the issue. In our opinion, the language of those two sections does not prescribe a method of
inquiry into the performance of the Board of Regents of the seminary or its President. They are,
in fact, in those sections designated as both judge and prosecutor. It is illogical to think that they
would retain these powers in matters regarding accusations made against them.
Our answer is confined to the scope of the questions you have raised
We find the President's action not to be unconstitutional under the circumstances as you represent
them.
110. Right to Contest Non-Reappointment (Ag. 1722): A member of the faculty of Concordia Theological
Seminary, Fort Wayne, whose contract had not been renewed had asked whether he would have the right
to contest the nonreappointment since he had been given reasons for non-reappointment. It was his
contention that since Bylaw 6.23, e, was not followed and a statement of cause for nonreappointment had
been given, he should be allowed to contest the stated cause. The Commission decided to respond as
follows:
You had asked us to comment regarding the interpretation of 6.23, e, with respect to the Board of
Regents' declination to renew your appointment and a subsequent alleged statement made as to
the cause for such a decision. Your logic is that by stating a reason, the Board then somehow
waived its discretionary right to not renew your reappointment without statement of cause and
you should therefore be afforded the opportunity to appear before them to contest the reasons for
non-reappointment.
The Commission would hold that the sentence in question: "The Board of Regents may decline to
renew the appointment of a faculty member without tenure at its discretion and without formal
statement of cause." grants the Board of Regents two specific rights: 1) The right to exercise its
discretion to decline to renew an appointment of a faculty member; and 2) the option to do so
without a formal statement of cause.
Failure to exercise the second right would not render invalid the first right. Therefore, the Board
of Regents did not err in declining to afford you the opportunity to contest your non-renewal and
is not required to grant your hearing request.
111. Board of Regents and Faculty Rights (Ag. 1727, A): The Board of Regents of Concordia
Theological Seminary had, in a letter addressed to the President of the Synod, requested the assistance of
the President of the Synod in placing Dr. Wilbert Rosin in some position in the Synod not associated with
Concordia Theological Seminary nor in proximity to it and had asked the President of the Synod, in
consultation with legal counsel for the Synod, to advise the Board of Regents regarding a simple
dismissal action by the Board of Regents without the necessity of following long, drawn out procedures
involved in Bylaws 6.43--6.51 of the Handbook of the Synod. After being informed of this request by the
President of the Synod, Dr. Wilbert Rosin addressed a number of questions to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters regarding the rights of a faculty member in relation to a request such as this. The
Commission on Constitutional Matters decided to respond as follows:
The Commission on Constitutional Matters has read with concern the questions which you have
raised in your letters of January 14 and 15, 1985. While we can understand the consternation you
must be feeling at this point in time, the Commission feels that the numerous questions you have
raised can best be answered by simply asserting to you that the only way that you may be
removed from the faculty is by the procedures designated in Bylaws 6.43--6.51 of the synodical