LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 139

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
contracts, contract renewal, contract termination,” etc. (Bylaw
3.10.5.6.1). It is therefore legitimate for a university to state its
employment policies.
Question 9: Given the protection from termination of faculty employment in the 2013 LCMS Handbook, is it legitimate for a
university to state as its employment policy that senior
faculty “may be terminated during the contract period
only for cause. Senior faculty members who do not meet
the university’s expectations for teaching, scholarship,
and/or service may be placed on a Plan for Improvement
(PFI); such faculty may have their contract roll-over
stopped until they are able to demonstrate that they meet
university expectations commensurate with their rank.
Failure to meet the stated expectations in the plan shall
normally result in dismissal from the university” (CUW
Faculty Handbook, July 1, 2014, pg. 42)? Notice that
the standard applied for termination “during the contract
period” is only “for cause,” while the standard for stopping the contract roll-over and eventually dismissing the
senior faculty member invokes language different from
the LCMS Handbook definition of cause, specifically
“university expectations commensurate with their rank.”
Opinion: The current Bylaws of the Synod do not speak of distinctions between faculty members of Concordia University System
schools other than full-time and part-time faculty (Bylaw 3.10.5.6).
But as noted in the commission’s response to Question 8, each
educational institution must “state policies and procedures related
to faculty appointments, employment contracts, contract renewal,
contract termination,” etc. (Bylaw 3.10.5.6.1), which policies could
include such provisions as provided in this Question so long as they
do not contradict the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the
Synod.
Question 10: Since tenure is commonly used to mean “a senior
academic’s contractual right not to have his or her position terminated without just cause” (Wikipedia, sub
voc., accessed 7/10/2014), and since the 2013 LCMS
Handbook grants university faculty the right not to have
their positions terminated without just cause, is it legitimate for a university to state in its handbook that it does
not offer tenure (CUW Faculty Handbook, July 1, 2014,
pg. 42)?
Opinion: Tenure is no longer mentioned in the Bylaws of the
Synod that govern Concordia University System schools and faculties. So long as educational institutions “state policies and procedures related to faculty appointments, employment contracts,
contract renewal, contract termination,” etc. (Bylaw 3.10.5.6.1) and
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”
(Bylaw 3.10.5.6.2), the use (or not) of the term “tenure” is not an
issue.
Adopted September 26–27, 2014
Ecclesiastical Supervision Responsibilities of the President
of the Synod (15-2750)
Via a February 2, 2015, email, a district president submitted
three questions pertaining to the responsibilities of the President of
the Synod in the exercise of ecclesiastical supervision of individual
members of the Synod.
Bylaw 1.2.1 (i) states in part:
(i)

Ecclesiastical supervision: The responsibility, primarily of the
President of the Synod and district presidents, to supervise on

139

behalf of the Synod the doctrine, life, and administration of its
members, officers, and agencies. Such supervision, subject to the
provisions of the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions,
includes visitation, evangelical encouragement and support, care,
protection, counsel, advice, admonition, and, when necessary, appropriate disciplinary measures to assure that the Constitution,
Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod are followed and implemented. [italics added]

Bylaw 1.2.1 (l) states, as it defines “member of the Synod”:
(l) Member of the Synod: See Constitution Art. V. Members of the
Synod are of two classes: corporate members (congregations that have
joined the Synod) and individual members (ministers of religion—ordained and ministers of religion—commissioned on the roster of the
Synod).

Question 1: Since Bylaw 1.2.1 (i) states that ecclesiastical supervision rests primarily with “the President of Synod and
district presidents,” does the President of the Synod
have the responsibility, when necessary, to discipline
members of the Synod as a district president disciplines
members of the Synod?
Opinion: This definition alone does not define the roles of the
President of Synod and the relevant district president in a case of
discipline (expulsion), as the remainder of the definition (1.2.1[i])
indicates. Constitution Art. XIII 2 states: “Expulsion shall be executed only after following such procedure as shall be set forth in
the Bylaws of the Synod.” Such procedure is set forth, as applies to
members of the Synod under district supervision, in Bylaw sections
2.14 and 2.17. This procedure, while of an obligatory as opposed to
a discretionary nature, is to be carried out by the respective district
presidents: “[T]he district president of the accused shall commence
the following action when he becomes aware of information or allegations that could lead to expulsion of a member from Synod”
(Bylaw 2.14.4, emphasis added; see also Bylaw 4.4.5 and Constitution Art. XII 7). In doing so, the district president is responsible to
and reports to the President of Synod (Constitution Art. XII 9 b) as
the chief ecclesiastical supervisor of doctrine and practice (Bylaw
3.3.1.1; Constitution Art. XI B 1).
The district president thus carries out within his district the charge
assigned principally to the President of the Synod as the “chief ecclesiastical officer of the Synod” (Bylaw 3.3.1.1), who is to “conscientiously use all the means at his command to promote and maintain
unity of doctrine and practice in all the districts of the Synod” (Constitution Art. XI B 3). “In the districts of the Synod, [the President of
Synod] shall carry out his ecclesiastical duties through the district’s
president” (Bylaw 3.3.1.1.1 [b], emphasis added).
The President of Synod, who “has the supervision regarding the
doctrine and the administration of (a) all officers of the Synod; (b)
all such as are employed by the Synod; (c) the individual districts of
the Synod; (d) all district presidents” (Const. Art. XI B 1; see also
paragraphs 2, 3, and 4), has broad responsibility and authority to
supervise (in the sense of ecclesiastical supervision [Bylaw 1.2.1(i)])
and to oversee (Bylaws 3.3.1.2; 3.3.1.2 [b]; 1.2.1[o]) the activity of his
district presidents in this regard (see Bylaws 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2 [c])
and, ultimately, to “see to it that [district presidents] act in accordance
with the Synod’s Constitution, to admonish all who in any way depart
from it, and, if such admonition is not heeded, to report such cases
to the Synod. The President has and always shall have the power to
advise, admonish, and reprove. …” (Const. Art. XI B 2–3; see also
Bylaw 3.3.1.2 [b]–[c]).
In response, therefore, to the Question asked, the President of the
Synod exercises his authority to supervise doctrine and practice in
the districts of the Synod as the Constitution (Art. XII 8) and Bylaws
(2.14, etc.) specify, namely, through his supervision of district presi2016 Convention Workbook