# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_March 27 1987_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

deferred until after a meeting has been held between the congregation and the District Committee on
Constitutional Matters to discuss the issues involved.
44. Bylaw 3.803 c (Ag. 1806) : President Bohlmann had directed a request to the Commission for an
opinion regarding the implementation of Bylaw 3.803 c which deals with the termination of executives by
boards of the Synod. Specifically he had asked the following questions:
1. Do the words of Bylaw 3.803 c, "cannot concur" and "reasonable effort," imply that a process
has occurred prior to the point of non-concurrence having been reached? Do they require
consultation between the appointing authorities prior to reporting the position of either of the
appointing authorities to either the executive involved or the Board of Directors? If they do
not require it, is it implied?
2. If a process is involved, and if there is non-concurrence between the appointing authorities,
should the conclusion of either authority be reported to the executive prior to receiving the
recommendation of the Board of Directors called for in Bylaw 3.803 c? Should it be reported
to the executive prior to the review of the recommendation of the Board of Directors by the
appointing authorities?
The Commission decided to respond as follows:
The Commission on Constitutional Matters has considered the questions you have raised in your
letter of February 2, 1987, concerning the interpretation to be placed upon Bylaw 3.803 c which
was adopted at the 1986 synodical convention.
It should be noted preliminarily that one of the purposes behind this bylaw provision was to
create a more precise mechanism for the resolution of disputes between appointing authorities
over the termination of the appointment of an executive. A specific concern was that it contain a
device that would initiate or actuate a schedule of events that would bring the matter to the point
of resolution, whether favorable or unfavorable to the executive. This actuating event is a
resolution of the board or commission to terminate. The Commission concurs heartily in your
suggestion that harmonious and God-pleasing procedures would recommend consultation
between the appointing authorities in a collegial manner in-advance of any such resolution.
Although the bylaw does not require such a consultation, it clearly requires consultation before
lack of concurrence is certified to the Board of Directors.
Your second question concerns the appropriate time to inform the executive of the action of the
appointing authorities. The bylaw does not address this question. We suggest that it is logical that
the appointing authorities and the Board of Directors will wish to avoid unilateral action that may
seem to impair the operation of the process or the ability of the executive to continue to perform
his duties during the continuation of his incumbency. Whether or not it is appropriate to inform
the executive of intent to terminate, or by whom he should be informed, may vary in the
circumstances of the case. It seems clear that any reporting to the executive should be the
collective action of the appointing authorities.
45. Congregational Constitution Provision on Eligibility of Women to Serve (Ag. 1807) : The Iowa
District West Constitution Committee had asked whether the statement, "In cases of uncertainty the elders
of the church are to make the decisions subject to the approval of the voters' assembly," was permissible
for inclusion in the congregation constitution. Other portions of the constitution under consideration had
limited certain positions to males only.