# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_May 16 1986_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

included meetings with Dr. Schuelke and McCoy, a special commission of four District
presidents and subsequent personal meetings with the synodical president himself, and
WHEREAS, these collegial efforts have not led to a resolution of this conflict, and
WHEREAS, the synodical president has declined to concur with the Board's termination of Dr.
Constien, and
WHEREAS, in a meeting with the synodical president in October, 1985, the Board agreed to a
specific request of the president that yet another 90 days be allowed for the First Vice-President
of synod to work with Dr. Constien in trying to find another position, and
WHEREAS, during this meeting with the president, the Board was led to believe that if the
president's suggestion was followed, then the Board could expect presidential concurrence in its
decision to terminate Dr. Constien, and
WHEREAS, during the past six years, Dr. Constien has never voiced the slightest interest in
seeking another position, and
WHEREAS, because of a loving and compassionate concern for Dr. Constien personally and for
his future in our synod, the Board has continually addressed this problem in executive session,
doing everything in its power to avoid any public discussion of the matter, now be it therefore
RESOLVED, that since the conflict is still unresolved, that the Board for Parish Services in full
accord with Bylaw 2.67m respectfully request the Board of Directors to take immediate steps to
settle the conflict by concurrence with the Board for Parish Services' termination of Dr. Constien
as its Executive Secretary.
President Bohlmann had, prior to presenting the matter to the Board of Directors, requested an opinion
from the Commission. Acknowledging "administrative and programmatic conflicts" between the Board
for Parish Services and its executive secretary (in addition to the theological concern stated in the
resolution) and that efforts to resolve the conflict had failed, he recognized that the Board of Directors had
the right and duty to decide the "administrative and programmatic conflicts" at this time. He questioned,
however, whether Bylaw 2.803 made provision for the Board of Directors to be involved in the
termination of staff persons. The Commission was asked to provide an opinion on the scope of the Board
of Directors authority under Bylaw 2.67, m, with specific reference to the resolution from the Board for
Parish Services.
After some discussion, the Commission decided to respond as follows:
The Commission notes that Bylaw 2.67, i, (cf. Bylaw 2.186, b) indicates that Board of Directors' policy,
supplemented by Board for Parish Services' policy, should govern relations between the board and its
staff. The existing conflict concerning which the Commission is being consulted apparently ought to
violate these policies to constitute an administrative and programmatic conflict under Bylaw 2.67, m. If
such conflict does indeed exist, any decision by the Board of Directors under Bylaw 2.67, m, could only
be a directive specifying which side of the conflict shall prevail and which submit, not a directive to
terminate an executive. The Board for Parish Services in appealing and the president of the Synod in
responding to that appeal must both be specific about the material of the appeal and its properly falling
under Bylaw 2.101, h, and Bylaw 2.67, i, and m.