LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 301

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 301

the Council of Presidents, which has no rationale to be involved,
even indirectly, in the election of the president of a seminary.

7. Bylaw 6.11 f of the synodical Handbook gives one of the four
votes in the election of the president of any synodical college
or seminary, not to “the District President,” but rather to “the
President of the synodical District,” which is a phrase much less
capable of being understood of any President other than presi-
dent of the synodical District in which the institution is located.
Whereas “the District President” who is a member of a Board of
Regents is rightly excluded by this Bylaw from voting with the
Board of Regents in electing the President of any synodical col-
lege or seminary (in the case of a seminary by virtue of points 5
and 6 enunciated above), the phrase “the President of the syn-
odical District” is the verbal and real parallel of “the President
of the geographical District in which the seminary is located”
in Bylaw 6.01 a 3 of the synodical Handbook in the same chap-
ter on “Colleges and Seminaries.”

The Secretary of the commission had provided a response to
each of the items as follows:

1. Prior to 1992 the “President of the synodical District” meant the
District President of the synodical District in which the institu-
tion was located because that President was a member of the
Board of Regents of each institution, including the seminaries.
After 1992 that was no longer true with respect to the seminar-
ies.

2. The phrase was so understood in connection with the election
of the university President because in the case of all colleges
and universities of the Synod, the District President who serves
on the Board of Regents is the President of the District in which
the institution is located.

3. We have no record of a response from the committee chairman
which indicates that the committee did not intend to make the
change in regard to the election of a seminary president. Even if
we did, it would not change the meaning of the words or sup-
port the fact that such was the understanding of the convention
delegates.

4. The overture proposed by the Board for Higher Education but
not acted on by the convention was simply meant to clarify the
Bylaws and have them conform to the opinion issued by the
Commission on Constitutional Matters, an opinion which is
binding since it was not overturned by a convention.

5. One of the reasons for the change was the fact that a District
President who has ecclesiastical supervision should not be
placed in a position where he, as a member of the Board of Re-
gents, would already have made certain decisions which would
affect his role and judgment as the ecclesiastical supervisor.

6. It must be remembered that the seminaries are more synodwide
institutions than the colleges and universities, which are more
closely aligned to the Districts in which they are located. This
was one of the reasons for the change adopted in 1992. In addi-
tion, this view is supported by the fact that Districts elect certain
members to college and university Boards of Regents. This is
not the case with seminary Boards of Regents, where all mem-
bers are elected by the national convention.

7. The rationale provided by the Commission on Constitutional

Matters deals with point 7 of your rationale.

In reviewing the entire matter, the Commission on Constitu-
tional Matters concluded that the response which it had previously
provided was correct and that it saw no reason to change its opin-
ion.

Adopted Jan. 19-20, 1996

Transfer of Property to the Books
of Concordia University System
A District President had asked the commission the following
question, “Does Bylaw 3.192 permit the transfer of the properties
of the colleges and seminaries to the Concordia University Sys-
tem?”

In its discussion, the commission initially noted that in view of
Bylaw 3.188 of the 1989 Handbook it would appear that the trans-
fer was permitted. In further consideration of the matter, the com-
mission concluded that it was not in a position to provide a defini-
tive response. Specifically, it noted that there would need to be a
definition of the meaning of the word transfer. Basically the ques-
tion is whether the transfer is meant to refer to a legal transfer, to
the transfer of effective control, or to the transfer of properties for
accounting purposes only. In view of this uncertainty, the commis-
sion concluded that it was not in a position to respond to the ques-
tion as presented.

Adopted Jan. 19-20, 1996

Change of Status of Board of Directors’ Member

The President of the Synod had addressed a communication to
the Commission on Constitutional Matters regarding the continuing
services of a member of the Board of Directors of The Lutheran
Church—-Missouri Synod in view of the fact that his status within
the Synod was no longer that of a lay member, but rather that of a
commissioned minister of religion. It was noted that his change of
status was due to no initiative or action on his part, but rather was
due to the action of delegates at the convention. The specific ques-
tions which were asked were as follows:

1. Is there a distinction to be made in status changes on the basis of
the manner in which the change occurs?

2. Does it make a difference in terms of eligibility that one’s status
was changed by convention action apart from any activity on
the person’s part, as opposed to a change in status occasioned
by a person’s action on his own behalf?

3. Is there no provision for a grandfathering sort of situation?

In reviewing the matter which had been called to its attention
and for which an opinion had been requested, the commission first
noted that there is no “‘grandfathering” provision contained in the
Bylaws. It further noted that when on a previous occasion a man
had moved from the status of commissioned minister to that of or-
dained minister, he had been declared ineligible for continued ser-
vice on the board to which he had been elected. As was noted in
the questions addressed to the commission, the change in status on
that occasion was initiated by the member.

In reviewing the Bylaws relating to membership on the Board
of Directors, it was noted that the Bylaw states that the board
“shall” consist of 13 voting members and clearly identifies the ratio
of those members. In view of this, the commission concluded that
the ratio of ordained ministers, commissioned ministers, and lay
members is an important factor and that in order for that ratio to be
maintained, the status of those elected to membership must remain
what it was when elected. If the status changes, then one whose
status has changed becomes ineligible. The manner in which the
status change is brought about is immaterial.

The commission therefore concluded that if the status change
approved by the convention delegates is also approved by the con-
gregations of the Synod, a member whose status changed as a result
of this action from lay member to that of commissioned minister
would be ineligible to continue to serve as a member of the Board
of Directors after the date established for a vote by the congrega-
tions, in this case, March 15, 1996.

Adopted Jan. 19-20, 1996

Authority of Dispute Resolution Panel

On Jan. 22, 1996, a Dispute Resolution Panel had posed three
questions to the Commission on Constitutional Matters. The ques-
tions related to a matter which had involved a settlement requiring
action by the Council of Presidents which would reinstate some-
one to membership on the roster of the Synod. The Council of Pres-
idents, however, had declined to reinstate the person in question.
The questions which were now posed were, in effect,

I. In view of Bylaw 8.09 3 e 1, which states that the decision of a

Dispute Resolution Panel is “binding” and is to be carried out

by “group or members of the Synod” and the action of the