# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_undated_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

What should the Board of Regents of Concordia University, Portland do now that it has knowledge of
Resolution 3-06, making charges against its faculty? In a recent opinion (00-2199) this commission held
that Bylaw 6.47 requires the Board of Regents of a Synod university to apply the procedure of Bylaw 6.47
any time a complaint is made against a member of the faculty or administration of that university. The
bylaw does not specify a particular way in which complaints against faculty or administration members
must be “received,” but surely the publication of a resolution accusing unspecified members of the
university faculty of false doctrine would be one way that the Board of Regents would receive knowledge
of such a complaint, if not the preferred way. The prior opinion of the Commission made it clear that the
Board of Regents must apply the steps of Bylaw 6.47 to all instances where a complaint is made. This one
is no different. 4 It would elevate form over substance and add requirements that are not in the Bylaws for
this commission to create some sort of requirement of a formal complaint that must be brought to the Board
of Regents in a specified manner before the responsibilities of Bylaw 6.47 are triggered. The intent of the
bylaw is that the Board of Regents should investigate all complaints. This is a broad responsibility and
should be interpreted to give effect to its apparent intent. The Board of Regents must follow Bylaw 6.47 in
this case.
In its present form Resolution 3-06 (Overture 5-11) is out of order because it conflicts with the method for
dealing with specific complaints against university faculty members under Bylaw 6.47. Pursuant to Bylaw
3.905, a, this commission must review overtures that “in any manner affect the Constitution and Bylaws”
for agreement with the Constitution and Bylaws. It reports its conclusions to the floor committee
responsible for each overture, and that committee “is to report its findings and recommendations to the
convention.” Presumably the floor committee that considers Overture 5-11 will follow the opinion of this
commission and report that the overture is out of order and recommend that it not be presented to the Synod
in convention, or that changes be made to bring it into conformity with the Constitution and Bylaws of the
Synod before it is presented. 5
205. Response to Additional Questions re Agenda Item 00-2211 (01-2228)
In a letter dated June 19, 2001, the Board of Regents of Concordia University, Portland asked two questions
after reviewing the Commission’s opinion (00-2211). The Commission responded as follows:
Question 1:

May the Iowa District East action, printed in the convention Workbook as Overture 511, be present to the synodical convention for referral to the synodical President in
Omnibus Resolution A as is currently proposed, or for other action by the
convention?

Opinion: The convention may take such action as it deems fit, though to adopt the proposed resolution
would be contrary to this commission’s prior opinion. Referral to the Synod President under Omnibus
Resolution A would not be contrary to the Commission’s prior opinion, because adoption of Omnibus
Resolution A is not any sort of endorsement of matters included therein. It is simply recognition that the
matter is best handled by the President, in his discretion. The Commission’s prior opinion recognized that
the Synod President has the authority to visit Synod’s colleges.
4

The Commission has been made aware that the BHE/CUS has offered to facilitate a meeting between representatives of Iowa
District East and Concordia University, Portland to discuss the District’s concerns. This approach is in the best Gospel tradition of
our Lord’s admonition in Matthew 18:15-16 about reconciliation. The BHE/CUS is to be commended for its concern and interest in
assisting in resolving this matter.
5
Any such changes would have to conform to Bylaw 6.47 both in terms of the factual statements in the “Whereas” clauses and the
actions requested in the “Resolve” clauses. At the very least, Res. 3-06 (Ov. 5-11) would require a major overhaul before it would
begin to conform to the requirements of the Constitution and Bylaws. However, the question of whether and how it could be made
to so conform is not before this commission.

204