# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_September 9 1988_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

order a suspension. That the Bylaws impose upon the district president duties which place him in
an adversarial posture to the subject of an investigation and suspension does not make him a
"party to the case." It is the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters that section
2.27, e of the bylaw would operate to disqualify a district president only if he were the original
defendant or person complained of or became a party defendant as a result of the investigation.
The decision of the Commission does not turn upon whether or not the case originates from the
written complaint of a third person or is initiated by the action of district president himself on the
basis of his own knowledge as provided in Bylaw 2.27.
118. Tenured Faculty Reduction (Ag. 1840,A) : At its previous meeting, the Commission on
Constitutional Matters, by agreement with the Commission on Appeals, deferred the stating of an opinion
on the constitutionality of the Reduction in Force policy of Concordia College, Seward. Since that time,
the Commission on Appeals had ruled, on the basis of a lack of technical of documentation to support the
action of the college in releasing Dr. Stohs, against the college and in favor of Dr. Stohs. Dr. Reinke,
president of Concordia College, Seward, stated that the conditions which prompted the college to invoke
the RIF policy remain and with the reinstatement of Dr. Stohs, the college is again overstaffed and will be
required once again to go through the RIF process to balance the size of instructional staff to current
student body. The college believed that it would have to work through the process of applying an RIF
policy once again but was asking the Commission prior to taking that action, to rule on whether the RIF
policy was constitutional.
After reviewing the entire situation, the Commission decided to respond as follows:
In principle, it cannot be said that a Reduction in Force policy would not be within the authority
and responsibility of the Board of Regents to operate the institution within the Bylaws as an agent
of the Synod, as these are outlined in Bylaw 6.03. It is obvious that a Board of Regents must act
for the good of the institution and the Synod as a whole and that any policy which it adopts must
not jeopardize the entire school.
It is obvious that in every instance the policy must provide adequate safeguards, both present and
future, to the parties involved in accordance with the Bylaws. The Commission will note further
that it has not been provided with a copy of the Reduction in Force policy adopted by the Board
of Regents of Concordia College, Seward. This, however, should not be construed as an invitation
to forward such a policy for review in the future. It is obvious that the Commission cannot
anticipate and rule in advance upon every possible challenge which might be raised to such a
policy.
119. Eligibility for Board Membership (Ag. 1841) : Mr. Arthur Haake, president of Lutheran Church
Extension Fund, had asked the Commission to rule on the eligibility of a member who served as business
manager at a college of the Synod to also serve as a member of the Board of Directors of Lutheran
Church Extension Fund. The man had retired from business and was now serving in that capacity with the
college. The request was made to ensure that Lutheran Church Extension Fund would be in compliance
with 3.69, h if the man were to be elected to serve on the board. In reviewing the situation, the
Commission took note of the fact that in Bylaw 6.71, the business manager is the only other
administrative officer in addition to the president which is required by the Bylaws for a college or
seminary of the Synod. It also took note of the fact that the man under consideration was not serving as a
retired member but was being compensated for his work as business manager.
Taking all these factors into account, the Commission resolved that in view of Bylaw 3.69, h, it appears
that the proposed staff member is clearly ineligible to serve as a member of the Lutheran Church