LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 137

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
matching that of an electoral circuit as well as geographical criteria (Bylaw 5.1.2)?
Opinion: No. Synod Bylaw 3.1.2 (a) as it stood in the 2010 Handbook of the Synod read as follows:
(a)

An electoral circuit shall consist either of one or two adjacent
visitation circuits, as shall be determined by each district on the
basis of the following requirements: each pair of delegates shall
represent from 7 to 20 member congregations, involving an aggregate communicant membership ranging from 1,500 to 10,000.
[emphasis added]

As changed by the Synod’s 2013 convention, Bylaw 3.1.2 (a)
now reads:
(a)

An electoral circuit shall consist either of one or two adjacent
visitation circuits, as shall be determined by the district board of
directors on the basis of the following requirements: each pair of
delegates shall represent from 7 to 20 member congregations, involving an aggregate confirmed membership ranging from 1,500
to 10,000. [emphasis added to show the language changed]

Although this now places responsibility for creation of electoral
circuits upon the district boards of directors, it does not speak to
realignment, change, or creation of visitation circuits. The methods
and manner by which visitation circuits may be accomplished remains
the same as it was prior to the 2013 convention.
Question 2: Does “as shall be determined by the district board of
directors” refer only to the creation of an electoral circuit by a district board of directors determining which
two previously established adjacent geographic visitation circuits shall be combined?
Opinion: Yes. As indicated in the response to Question 1, there was
no action taken by the Synod in convention that altered the manner
by which realignment of visitation circuits may be accomplished.
The referenced bylaw concerns only the creation of electoral circuits, which is accomplished by the district board of directors adjoining existing visitation circuits.
Question 3: In accordance with the answer(s) given by the CCM
concerning these questions, what would be the proper
procedure for a district or district board of directors to
follow to alter, add, or adjoin visitation circuits to meet
the bylaw requirements of an electoral circuit?
Opinion: Visitation circuits and their development are defined in
the following bylaws:
5.1.1 A circuit is a network of congregations that “walks together’ for
mutual care, support, advice, study, ecclesiastical encouragement,
service, coordination, resources, and counsel—all for the sake of
greater congregational participation in God’s mission.
5.1.2 Districts shall establish circuits according to geographical criteria.

There is nothing to prevent a district board of directors from acting on its own motion to realign visitation circuits if the board has
been authorized to do so by its district’s bylaws (see CCM Opinions
Ag. 1751 A, B “District Board of Director’s Authority,” September
26–27, 1986; and 03-2368 “Role of District Board of Directors in
the Configuration of Visitation Circuits,” September 30, 2003). As
the commission noted in its February 8–9, 1974, opinion Ag. 500
and reaffirmed in the 03-2368 opinion above, “a district convention
should realign circuits or at least specifically authorize the [district’s]
board of directors to take certain actions in connection with such
realignment.” Without specific bylaw authority granted to the district
board of directors or a specific resolution by the district convention
authorizing this to be done, the district convention is the entity to act
in this regard.
Following any realignment of visitation circuits in the foregoing
fashion, it is then the responsibility of the district board of directors

137

to configure electoral circuits, using then-existing visitation circuits
and pursuant to the provisions of Synod Bylaw 3.1.2 (a).
Adopted September 26–27, 2014
Concordia University System Faculty Employment Issues
(14-2737)
In an August 30, 2014, email, a faculty member of Concordia University Wisconsin submitted a series of questions regarding faculty
employment issues, noting that pertinent sections in the 2013 Handbook of the Synod underwent significant revisions intended to allow
boards of regents to “govern more effectively” (2013 Res. 5-06A).
In place of detailed bylaws governing faculty appointments, employment contracts, contract renewal, contract termination, faculty
organization, modified service, sabbaticals, and dispute resolution,
Res. 5-06A required that the Concordia University System “maintain
in its policies a list of subject matters that each college and university
board of regents will address in its own faculty policies.” Each board
of regents is to “ensure that its institutional handbook set[s] appropriate policies regarding faculty matters” (2013 Proceedings, p. 145).
The following bylaw paragraphs remain under the “Concordia
University System Faculties” section of the Synod’s 2013 Handbook:
3.10.5.6	The faculty of each college or university of the Synod shall
consist of the president, the full-time faculty, and the parttime faculty.
3.10.5.6.1	Each educational institution shall state policies and procedures related to faculty appointments, employment
contracts, contract renewal, contract termination, faculty
organization, modified service, sabbaticals, and dispute
resolution within the Concordia University System’s Standard Operating Procedures Manual for Dispute Resolution.
3.10.5.6.2	Except as otherwise provided in these Bylaws, the board of
regents, on recommendation of the president of the institution, shall appoint all full-time members of the faculty. The
terms and conditions of every appointment shall be stated
in writing and be in the possession of both the institution
and the prospective faculty member before the appointment is consummated. Limitations of academic freedom
because of the religious and confessional nature and aims
of the institution shall be stated in writing at the time of the
appointment and conveyed to the person being appointed.
Faculty members, full- and part-time, shall pledge to perform their duties in harmony with the Holy Scriptures as
the inspired Word of God, the Lutheran Confessions, and
the Synod’s doctrinal statements.
3.10.5.6.3	A formal procedure shall be in place to carry out performance reviews for all faculty on a regular basis.
3.10.5.6.4	Other than honorable retirement, termination of faculty
employment may only be the result of the following:
(a) Professional incompetency
(b) Incapacity for the performance of duty
(c) Insubordination
(d) Neglect of or refusal to perform duties of office
(e) Conduct unbecoming a Christian
(f) Advocacy of false doctrine (Constitution Art. II) or
failure to honor and uphold the doctrinal position of
the Synod as defined further in Bylaw 1.6.2 (b)
(g) Discontinuance of an entire program (e.g., social
work, business)
(h) Discontinuance of an entire division or department
(e.g., modern foreign language) of a college or university

2016 Convention Workbook