# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_July 6 13 1989_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

154. Vacancy-Board of Regents (Ag. 1860) : Because of the fact that a proposal for bylaw amendment
was being made to the 1989 synodical convention regarding the filling of vacancies on a Board of
Regents, a question had been raised regarding a presently existing vacancy as to whether the previous
procedure for filling that vacancy prevailed or if the new procedure would prevail if the convention were
to adopt the bylaw amendment. The specific question was stated as follows:
In the event that the proposal from the Commission on Structure is passed by the convention of
the synod, would the present Board of Regents still have the opportunity to fill the vacancy since
they have already initiated this process prior to the adoption of the new bylaw?
The Commission concluded that if the proposed amendment to the bylaw were to be adopted, the
procedure outlined in that amendment would be operative since bylaws are to go into effect immediately
after adoption. If that were to occur, the present Board of Regents would no longer have the' opportunity
to fill the vacancy but the vacancy would rather have to be filled following the newly adopted procedure.
155. Procedure Regarding Charges Against the Faculty Member (Ag. 1861 : Responding to a request,
the Commission had previously ruled that the appropriate procedure to be followed in regard to a charge
brought against a faculty member would be Bylaws 6.45-6.51 and had indicated that "before any matter
other than excommunication is submitted to a Commission on Adjudication, opportunity to settle the
matter shall be given to the district president, synodical president or to the chief officer of the
organization owned and controlled by the Synod which is involved."
Three pastors who had brought the original charge which occasioned the request by the district president
and on which the Commission had provided an opinion, now requested a further ruling with regard to the
opinion which had been provided. Specifically their questions were:
1. Does your Commission, the Commission on Constitutional Matters, possess the jurisdiction
to make a ruling regarding jurisdiction or venue? Dr. Cloeter requested a ruling from you
regarding jurisdiction. Are not matters of jurisdiction decided by the Commission on
Appeals, not the Commission on Constitutional Matters?
2. The accused professor mentioned above was a campus pastor at the University of Wisconsin
at the time of the occurrence of his offense which gave rise to the controversy. Would not
Bylaw 8.35 apply more appropriately to this case than 6.45-6.51 [sic] (8.35: "The synodical
Commission on Adjudication shall have jurisdiction in the following situations . . . e. All
matters involving members of the Synod who hold or held their synodical membership in
different districts at the time of the occurrence which gave rise to the controversy.")? Since
this professor was a campus pastor at the time this "occurrence" took place should he not be
called into account as a pastor who has broken his ordination vows (which we prove in our
charges) and not as a professor of Concordia college, St. Paul?
3. Does any bylaw of our Synod's Constitution clearly forbid a complainant to submit formal
charges against a professor of a synodical college with his district president when that
professor clearly, publicly, and persistently advocates false doctrine? If such action is not
clearly forbidden is not such an option still open (see the particle, "or", employed in Bylaw
8.05 a) via Bylaw 2.27?
In regard to these questions, the Commission decided to respond as follows:
You have asked for a review of our decision regarding proper procedure to be followed in a
controversy involving charges of false doctrine against a member of the St. Paul, Concordia,