LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 132

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

132

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Such lay representation will be shared in a manner that presumably
is fair and equitable for both congregations.
4. Two congregations that are being served by one pastor (the pastor is
called to a large congregation which does not need any financial help
to support their pastor). The large congregation allows their pastor to
provide pulpit supply on Sunday afternoons for the small congregation which cannot afford a full-time pastor, and where no other pastor
is available. The large congregation is in one visitation circuit and the
small congregation is in a different visitation circuit. Does each congregation have a lay vote at the respective circuit forum in electing (by
a voting process) a circuit counselor? If so, how is this different from
voting representation at a district convention? Does the small congregation, in effect, have to forfeit its lay vote to the district convention to
receive word and sacrament service from the large congregation?

Opinion: This Question again speaks of “pulpit supply” and a
“small congregation which cannot afford a full-time pastor.”
Again, if the pastor is regarded by the small congregation as its
pastor and speaks of him as its pastor, and if he regularly provides
Word and Sacrament ministry, ministers to the sick and dying, etc.,
this and the larger congregation are a dual parish according to the
Synod’s definition, entitled to representation at district conventions
by the pastor and one lay delegate. The fact that the congregations
are in separate visitation circuits has no bearing on the requirement
for one pastor and one lay delegate representation at district conventions.
Representation at circuit forums is another matter, such representation determined by Bylaw 5.3.2: “The circuit forum consists of a
pastor of each congregation and one member of each congregation
designated by the congregation.” In this case, each congregation
sends a representative to its own circuit’s forum, the pastor serving
as representative to the forum of the circuit of the congregation in
which he holds membership.
Regarding whether the small congregation must “forfeit” its lay
vote to the district convention in order to receive Word and Sacrament service by the pastor of the large congregation, here again
it must be said that a parish arrangement does not cause either
congregation to lose its lay delegate representation at a district
convention. Rather, the congregations’ representation is shared—
presumably through a fair and equitable arrangement.
5. Two congregations that are being served by one pastor in a dual arrangement (both congregations are needed to provide for a full-time pastor)
where one congregation is in one district and the other in a different
district. Does one congregation have to forfeit their lay vote at their district convention because they are in a dual parish arrangement?

Opinion: When a parish crosses district lines, it is nonetheless entitled to representation at district conventions by one pastor and one
lay member. The pastor is a voting delegate to the convention of
the district of which he is a member. The lay vote is shared by the
congregations as in any other parish, presumably in a manner that
is fair and equitable. The district membership of the congregation
of the lay delegate determines the district convention that he/she
will attend as a voting delegate.
Adopted June 13–14, 2014
Elections of Concordia University System Presidents (14-2720)
By letter dated June 3, 2014, the President of the Synod posed a
number of questions to the Commission on Constitutional Matters.
Question 1: Is it permissible according to the Bylaws of the Synod
for the board of regents of one of the Synod’s colleges
or universities to choose not to elect a president, but
instead to create another office (e.g., “CEO” or “leader”)
that effectively carries out the functions of the office of
president, thereby circumventing the appointed process

2016 Convention Workbook

for selecting the “spiritual, academic, and administrative
head of the institution” (Bylaw 3.10.5.5)?
Opinion: There is no provision within the Synod’s Bylaws which
would authorize either the board of regents or the Concordia University System to create a position to replace or serve as substitute
for the office of president as this position is set forth in Synod Bylaws 3.10.5.5 through 3.10.5.5.2.
Question 2: If the above Question is answered in the negative, what
courses of action are available for that board of regents
to correct this situation?
Opinion: There is only one course of action. A board of regents,
operating under the provisions of Bylaws 3.10.5ff., is structurally
bound by these bylaws and their requirements. Bylaw 3.10.5.5 requires the existence of a president of such an institution and clearly
identifies this individual as the executive officer of the board of
regents for the institution and identifies the specific duties and responsibilities of the president.
Under the provisions of Synod Bylaw 3.10.5.5.2, a specific process is set forth for the selection of a college/university president. It
begins with the board of regents immediately informing the campus
constituencies, the Board of Directors of the Concordia University
System, the President of the Synod, an official periodical of the
Synod, and other parties as appropriate of the vacancy or impending
vacancy. It concludes with the board of regents receiving a short list of
candidates which, if it contains two or more names, serves as the slate
of approved nominees. At this point the board of regents, using this
approved slate, “shall elect the president of the college or university.”
The board of regents is expected to go through this process in good
faith and to follow it to its natural conclusion in a timely fashion.
Should the president-elect decline to accept the position, the board
of regents is responsible for resuming the effort to fill the vacancy.
Question 3: In light of Bylaw 3.6.1.5 (b) (1)–(2), describing the
length of service for interim chief executives of synodwide corporate entities, would a similar time expectation
be reasonable for the board of regents to move forward and elect a permanent president according to the
appointed process outlined in the Bylaws?
Opinion: Synod Bylaw 3.6.1.5 (b) (1)–(2) and the timeframes
stated therein are not applicable here. This provision is unrelated to
the process set forth for filling the vacancy in a college or university president position.
The process in place for the filling in a college or university president position must be followed in good faith and in a timely fashion.
Although the bylaws governing this process for filling the vacancy
contain no specific timeframes by which each action must be accomplished, the precision by which they set forth the process and the
detail indicated therein anticipate that those involved with the same
and responsible for the welfare of the institution in Question will act
with deliberate speed and with a design to accomplish the result in an
efficient and timely manner (see, generally, Bylaw 3.10.5.4 [a], [g]).
In the event that the board of regents does not fill the vacancy, such
inaction by the board (either by individual members or the board as a
whole) may be sufficient to establish an incapacity to act, a breach of
fiduciary responsibility to the Synod or to the institution (or to both),
or a neglect or refusal to perform their duties as regents. This may be
considered a basis for removal of some or all of the board of regents
under the provisions of Bylaws 1.5.7ff. Vacancies created thereby
would then be filled under the provisions of Bylaw 3.10.5.3, with
the new board of regents having the responsibility to fill the vacancy
in the office of president.
Adopted June 13–14, 2014