# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_November 9 1990_S1
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

therefore the two men whose terms had been completed were considered only as "appointed." A clear
ruling on this matter was now requested of the Commission.
In response, the Commission stated that in its opinion, its previous response was explicit in stating, "None
of the Board of Regents are appointed ...” It once again reiterates that position. Based on the formal
answer, the straight forward answer to the question which has been posed is, "No." The Board of Regents
does not have the right to deny the vote to elected persons in any of the Board of Regents' decisions or
elections.
50. Woman as College President - List of Candidates for Offices (Ag. 1899,A) : The Commission on
Constitutional Matters in previous decisions had determined that a woman is not eligible for the office of
president of a synodical college, since the president is to be the spiritual head of the institution. A
question had now been raised regarding the nomination of candidates for the office of president of a
synodical institution. Specifically, the Commission was asked to rule on the following:
1. Should the nomination of a woman be considered as eligible for consideration but not for
election?
2. Not considered eligible for election, in what way is this to be made public in official periodicals
without giving the impression that they are eligible for election?
3. Should the source of the nominations be notified that the name is not eligible, even as an
individual who has nominated is notified, that his or her nomination is not eligible for
consideration?
After considering these questions, the Commission decided to respond as follows:
Names which are forwarded from qualified groups are mere nominations for candidacy for the office
of president. Eligibility for candidacy is a matter to be determined by the appropriate committee
identified in the Bylaws. The publication of a list of candidates does not determine eligibility for the
office.
In view of the above, it does not appear to be necessary to provide any of the notifications referred to
in the second and third questions which were posed.
51. Terms for Boards of Regents of Synodical Colleges (Ag. 1902) : Requests had been received for
clarification of the term of office for members of boards of regents who were first elected to the board at
the synodical convention in 1983. It was noted that since that time, there have been changes in regulations
regarding the number of consecutive terms of office that apply to members of the board of regents.
Specifically, the question now raised was whether or not persons who had been elected in 1983 for a six
year term and in 1989 for a three-year term should be eligible for an additional term. The bylaw regarding
term and tenure which was adopted in 1986 indicates that board of regents members may serve three
consecutive terms of three years each.
In responding to this question, the Commission concluded that the number of years served rather than the
number of terms served was determinative. It pointed out that in the case of persons who were elected in
1989, having already served a term of six years, there was no contradiction of any expectation which such
persons could rightly have had. Tenure on the board is for a maximum period of nine years. The sequence
of elections indicates that one could not have had a rightful expectation to more than nine years of
service.