Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2019 · 67th Convention, Tampa › Page 180

LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 180

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

180

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

ecclesiastical supervisor to make the decision whether or not to
proceed.
Question 3: Does 2016 Res. 12-14 either authorize or require
the present Bylaw 7.1.2 process to address the
use of Referral Panels in the manner described in
Bylaws 2.14.5–2.14.5.1?
Opinion: The title of Resolution 12-14 is “Regarding the Right
of an Accuser to Appeal When a District President or President of the Synod Fails to Act or Declines to Suspend.”
The first whereas states: “CCM Opinion 16-2791 has indicated that portions of the expulsion processes of the Synod’s
Bylaws are presently in an unconstitutional state with respect to
Constitution Art. XI B 1–3 and Constitution Art. XIII 2.” The
first “Resolved” states: “That the Synod in convention direct the
Board of Directors to act in this manner in order to implement
clear bylaw procedures regarding this aspect of ecclesiastical supervision.” While the focus of the attention of Res. 12-14 is on
the right of appeal when a district president or the President of
the Synod fails to act or declines to suspend, it simply states that
CCM Op. 16-2791 found that portions of the expulsion process
are in an unconstitutional state. The resolution itself does not
designate which portions those are; this is to be inferred from
the opinion itself.
In addition, while the first whereas references only appeals
to the President of the Synod, the title of the Res. 12-14 also
indicates a right of an accuser to appeal should the President
of the Synod fail to act or decline to suspend, broadening the
scope of revision to be performed. By the same token, the Bylaw 7.1.2 process initiated by the resolution may include other
unconstitutional aspects of the expulsion process, the unconstitutionality of which proceeds from CCM Op. 16-2791.
While CCM Op. 16-2791 does not specifically address the
use of Referral Panels in Bylaws 2.14.5 and 2.14.5.1; 2.17.5 and
2.17.5.1, the principle established by CCM Op. 16-2791 is that
ecclesiastical supervision decisions are to be made by ecclesiastical supervisors and not by those the constitution does not
invest with ecclesiastical supervision, i.e. the Praesidium of the
Synod. This principle is also applicable to the use of Referral
Panels in Bylaws 2.14.5 and 2.14.5.1; 2.17.5 and 2.17.5.1. Since
this use of Referral Panels is found unconstitutional based on
CCM Op. 16-2791, and since Res. 12-14 authorizes the Bylaw
7.1.2 process to address those issues found unconstitutional as
a result of CCM Op. 16-2791, the Bylaw 7.1.2 process must address this question also.
Adopted November 18–19, 2016

Voting for Seminary Board
of Regents Appointments (16-2805)
On Nov. 30, the Secretary of the Synod responded to a request by a member of a seminary board of regents and of the
Synod for clarification of Bylaw 3.10.5.2 [4], made in conjunction with an imminent meeting of the seminary board of regents.
The Secretary requested that the CCM review his response and
provide an opinion. (While this is obviously neither the normal
nor the preferred process, the urgency of the question necessitated a response. In such an instance, should the commission’s
eventual opinion contradict the advice given, corrective action
might then be required.) The commission ratified the response
of the Secretary of the Synod, which is as follows:
2019 Convention Workbook

A member of the Synod and of a seminary board of regents posed questions regarding the board’s upcoming vote on
additional board appointments under Bylaw 3.10.5.2 [4], specifically, whether the member designated by the President of
Synod and/or the member appointed by the Council of Presidents could vote on such appointments.
Question 1: Does Synodical Bylaw 3.10.5.2 [4] apply only to
those appointed by the board of regents itself ?
Bylaw 3.10.5.2 gives the composition of a seminary board
of regents, reading (as it has since the production of the 2010
Handbook):
3.10.5.2
The board of regents of each theological
seminary shall consist of no more than thirteen voting members:
1. Three ordained ministers, one commissioned
minister, and three laypersons shall be elected
by the convention of the Synod.
(a) Elected and appointed seminary
boards of regents members may serve
a maximum of two consecutive six-year
terms and must hold membership in a
member congregation of the Synod.
(b) Not more than two of the elected
members shall be members of the same
congregation.
2. A vice-president of the Synod shall be designated
by the President of the Synod.
3. A district president other than the geographical
district president shall be appointed by the
Council of Presidents.
4. Four members may be appointed as voting
members by the board of regents. Appointed
members may not vote on the appointment of
other members of the board.
In order to achieve continuity, a plan of staggered terms for the appointed board members
will be adopted by each board of regents.
The provision in question (that “[a]ppointed members may
not vote on the appointment of other members of the board”)
was added in 2007 Res. 3-05A, when the bylaw was outlined differently (2007 Proceedings, p. 139):
3.8.2.5.2
The board of regents of each theological
seminary shall consist of nine no more than thirteen
voting members:
1. Three ordained ministers, one commissioned
minister, and three laypersons shall be elected
by the convention of the Synod.
(a) Elected and appointed seminary
Seminary boards of regents members
may be elected to serve a maximum of
two consecutive six-year terms and must
hold membership in a member congregation of the Synod.
(b) Not more than two of the elected
members shall be members of the same
congregation.