Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2016 · 66th Convention, Milwaukee › Page 369

LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 369

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
Resolved, That Bylaw 3.10.5.5.2 (d) (2) be amended to state that
the decision to remove a name from the short list shall require a majority vote by the panel.
Prince of Peace
Portland, OR
7-14

COMMISSION ON HANDBOOK
2016 LCMS Convention
OMNIBUS OVERTURE #6
(Concordia University System)
The Commission on Handbook recognizes that its proposed overtures to the 2016 convention can be grouped together according to
same-subject matter to facilitate the work of the floor committee. This
“omnibus” overture groups the commission’s bylaw change proposals regarding the Concordia University System into a single overture
for the floor committee’s convenience.
––––––––––––
A. To Clarify How District-Appointed College/University
Board of Regents Members’ Terms of Office Are Established
Rationale
The CCM has opined (CCM Opinion 14-2722) that boards of
regents of the Synod’s colleges and universities must determine when
to appoint members for three-year terms (since this is not currently
regulated in the Synod’s Bylaws), so long as such terms are consistent
with the Bylaws’ plain sense of “a three-year term.” The Commission
on Handbook proposes the following action by the 2016 Synod convention to amend item 3 under Bylaw 3.10.5.2 accordingly.
Proposed Action
PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
3.10.5.2 The board of regents of each college and university shall
consist of no more than 17 voting members.
1. One ordained minister, one commissioned minister, and two laypersons shall be elected by the conventions of the Synod.
2. One ordained minister, one commissioned minister, and two laypersons shall be elected by the geographical district in which the institution is located.
3. No less than four and no more than eight laypersons shall be appointed as voting members by the board of regents according to a
process determined by the individual institution.
4. The president of the district in which the college or university is located … .

B. To Provide Clarity to Bylaws Governing Concordia
University System Faculty Policies and Dispute Resolution
Rationale
The 2013 Res. 5-06A “To Revise Bylaw 3.10.5.6 re College
and University Faculties” removed much of the content of Bylaws
3.10.5.6ff as being no longer relevant at the Synod level, thereby to
allow boards of regents to set their own policies governing faculty
and academic matters.
Res. 5-06A replaced the deleted bylaw paragraphs with new paragraphs requiring each educational institution to state policies and
procedures related to faculty matters (3.10.5.6.1), to state terms and

369

conditions of employment and limitations on academic freedom in
appointment documents (3.10.5.6.2), and to provide a formal procedure for carrying out performance reviews on a regular basis
(3.10.5.6.3).
Res. 5-06A also detailed proper causes for termination of faculty employment (3.10.5.6.4), retained bylaw language regarding
consequences of the removal of faculty members from the roster of
the Synod (3.10.5.6.4.1), and added a bylaw requiring Concordia
University System dispute resolution guidelines for use by faculty
members who wish to challenge a termination decision (3.10.5.6.4.2).
This process of removing former Bylaws 3.10.5.6ff resulted in
newly adopted bylaws that are less than clear in their expectations
for dispute resolution related to faculty employment and academic
matters. In addition, Res. 5-06A also removed the former Bylaw
3.10.5.6.9 governing the handling of complaints against academic
institutions’ faculty or administration.
The following proposed bylaw amendments will clarify the wording of the replacement bylaw paragraphs and essentially restore the
dispute resolution process for addressing complaints against faculty
or administration members.
Proposed Action
Therefore be it
Resolved, That new Bylaws 3.6.6.7 and 3.6.6.8 governing
Concordia University System policy administration and dispute resolution be adopted as follows:
PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
Concordia University System
…
3.10.5.6.1
3.6.6.7 The Concordia University System Board of Directors shall
maintain in its policies a list of subject matters that Eeach educational
institution shall statemust address in its own policies and procedures,
related to include faculty appointments, employment contracts, contract
renewal, contract termination, faculty organization, modified service,
and sabbaticals., and dispute resolution within the Concordia University
System’s Standard Operating Procedures Manual for Dispute Resolution.
3.6.6.8 The Concordia University System Board of Directors shall
maintain and implement the following dispute resolution process to respond to any complaint regarding an institution’s faculty or administration, including those arising out of Bylaw 3.10.5.6.4, with the exception
of complaints belonging under Bylaw sections 2.14 and 2.17 that must
be referred to a district president.
(a) If a board of regents receives a complaint against a member of that
institution’s faculty or administration concerning any matter, it shall,
except in situations which may place the complainant at personal
risk, direct him/her first to meet face-to-face with the respondent in
the manner described in Matthew 18:15 in an attempt to resolve the
issue. The president of the institution shall ordinarily assist in this
attempt. If he is the respondent, the chairman of the board of regents
shall act in his stead.
(b) If the complainant is of the opinion that such informal reconciliation
efforts have failed and wishes to continue to pursue the matter, he/
she shall prepare a written statement of the matter in dispute and a
written statement setting forth in detail the efforts that were made to
achieve information reconciliation. These statements shall be provided to the board of regents and the respondent.
(c) Within 21 days after receipt of the written statements of the complainant, the respondent shall submit a written reply to the board
of regents and the complainant. If the respondent fails to reply, the

2016 Convention Workbook