# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_February 22 23 1991_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

challenging the eligibility of another pastor to be on a list of nominees for district office while he was a
defendant in a matter being considered by the District Commission on Adjudication. The vice chairman
asked whether, according to the LCMS Constitution and Bylaws, that pastor was eligible for inclusion on
a list of nominees for district office. It was noted that the district president had not placed him on
restricted or suspended status. The request for an opinion was accompanied by a letter from the pastor
who had raised the issue and who had addressed his request for an opinion to the Commission on
Appeals.
The Commission determined to respond as follows to the request:
In reviewing Bylaw 2.23, the Commission notes that the district president "may" place the member on
restricted status. This means that only the district president makes that decision. Furthermore, there
is nothing in Bylaw 2.27 which requires the restricted status if the district president does not conclude
that it is warranted. In view of Bylaw 2.23, he may have concluded that in a matter of adjudication
even if found in favor of the plaintiff, that would not affect the member's ability to remain as an active
member in good standing. As long as the member is in good standing, the member would be eligible
for nomination to the position of district president.
The Commission noted that the opinion which it was providing did not respond to any question which
might arise if the person nominated, while in adjudication, were also elected and subsequently found to be
"guilty of the charge." That question was not being asked.
62. Kansas District Bylaws (Ag. 1913): A request had been made to review proposed bylaws of the
Kansas District prior to the convention of that district. The responsibility for review is assigned to Dr.
Richard Schlecht.
63.
Seminary President as Faculty Member (Ag. 1909): The interim president of Concordia
Theological Seminary had asked the Commission to respond to a question regarding the position of Dr.
Robert Preus who had been honorably retired as president of the seminary. He noted that the question
focuses on the point, "With the honorable retirement of Dr. Preus, does this also mean that he is professor
emeritus?" In the letter he noted that the position of Dr. Preus was that he was a professor emeritus while
the position of the Board of Regents was that his retirement as president did not in any way affect his
retirement as professor. Essentially the question stated was this: When the Board of Regents acted to
honorably retire Dr. Preus from the presidency of Concordia Theological Seminary, in that same act did it
automatically retire him as professor." The Commission had also been provided with copies of the
original call documents which were issued to Dr. Preus in May, 1974.
After carefully reviewing the Bylaws relating to this matter, the Commission decided to respond as
follows to the question which had been posed.
The Commission has concluded that the mere act of honorable retirement from the presidency only of
the seminary does not automatically confer professor emeritus status. That status may only be
conferred by specific action of the Board of Regents as stated in Bylaw 6-53,c and 6.27,d. Honorable
retirement from the presidency affects only his presidential status.
64. Report of Commission on Appeals/Commission on Constitutional Matters Meeting : The
Commission reviewed the request which had been made by Dr. Bohlmann in the original meeting
between the Commission on Constitutional Matters and the Commission on Appeals in which he asked
the two groups to each present their own views regarding 13 questions which had been posed and indicate
where, if any place, either wished to change or modify its response. It was noted that a final decision of