LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 336

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

336 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

3. As part of that investigation and because a dispute has arisen
among members of the body of Christ, the President is 10 follow
the guidelines for dispute resolution as set forth in Matthew
18:15-16.

4. As part of that investigation, the President may appoint a small
committee to assist him in his efforts to reconcile the parties.

5. The President reaches a decision as to whether or not the charges
in the complaint can be substantiated and thus lead to the expul-
sion of the member from the Synod.

Because the goal of all Christians should first be reconciliation,
it is incumbent upon those within the church to always follow
Matthew 18.

Thus in those matters commenced under Bylaw 2.27, Matthew
18 is part of the process during the investigative actions of the Pres-
ident, whereas in those matters which would not lead to the expul-
sion of a member from the Synod and thus commenced under
Chapter VIII of the Bylaws, the parties involved in a dispute must
meet together, face to face, as set forth in Matthew 18, before a rec-
onciler is appointed to assist in reconciliation efforts. In either pro-
cedure, Matthew 18 is central for it is the methodology our Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ mandated for brothers to reconcile their
differences.

Adopted May 20, 2002

Questions re Interim Directors of
Synodwide Corporate Entities (02-2269)

A pastor of the Synod, in a letter dated May 13, 2002, asked
two questions of the Commission in light of its recent opinion 02-
2237 regarding the appointment of interim directors.

Question 1: “When a program board, commission or governing
board of a Synodwide corporate entity appoints an interim execu-
tive director or chief executive officer, is it appropriate for that in-
dividual to send correspondence to the members of the Synod with
his signature under a title which would indicate that he is the per-
manent executive of that corporate entity?”

Opinion: The Commission has been given the responsibility, ac-

cording to Bylaw 3.905 d, to interpret the Constitution, Bylaws, .

and resolutions of the Synod. The question that has been asked is
outside that responsibility. The Commission suggests that this is a
question that is best directed to the governing board of the execu-
tive officer in question.

Question 2: “If the interim executive of a corporate entity has
not been approved by the President of Synod, when a list is pre-
pared for the permanent position, shall the President of the Synod
approve such a list before a call can be extended to that interim ex-
ecutive?”

Opinion: Bylaw 3.69 e clearly states that the “slate of candi-
dates for the initial appointment of the executive officer of a board,
commission, or Synodwide corporate entity shall be selected by the
board or commission in consultation and mutual concurrence with
the President of the Synod.” This requirement pertains to the en-
tire list of candidates. See again opinion 02-2237.

Adopted June 10-11, 2002

Questions re CUS Board and Boards of Regents
Authority (02-2270)

The Executive Director of the Board for Higher Education, in a
May 22, 2002 memorandum, asked for clarification regarding “the
meaning and limits of authority of the BHE/CUS Board as the
‘governing board’ of higher education, further stating that this
question is critical since “the relationship between the BHE/CUS
Board and the Board of Regents will determine the future of ac-
creditation for Synod’s institutions of higher education.”

Question 1: “Bylaw 3.401 identifies the BHE/CUS Board as the
‘governing board of the Concordia University System.’ What does
this mean? What authority and limits of authority does the
BHE/CUS Board have in respect to the oversight of the Concordia
institutions?”

2004 Convention Workbook

Opinion: Bylaw 3.401 a identifies the Board for Higher Educa-
tion, a program board of the Synod, as “the Board of Directors of
the Concordia University System.” Bylaw 3.401 b provides that
this board “has authority with respect to the Synod’s colleges and
universities” and “to all the Synod’s institutions of higher educa-
tion, including its seminaries.” The Synod has outlined the “overall
responsibility” of the board in Bylaw 3.409, thereby establishing
its authority to supervise and coordinate the activities of the
Synod’s colleges, universities, and seminaries “‘as a unified system

‘through their respective boards of regents.” Bylaw 3.409 also es-

tablishes limits to its authority by detailing the functions of the
board “in keeping with the objectives and the Constitution, Bylaws,
and resolutions of the Synod.”

Question 2: “Bylaw 3.401 b identifies the BHE/CUS Board as
having ‘authority with respect to all the Synod’s institutions of
higher education, including its seminaries.’ What does this mean?
What authority and limits of authority does the BHE/CUS Board
have in respect to the oversight of the institutions of higher educa-
tion?”

Opinion: Bylaw 3.401 b identifies the Board for Higher Educa-
tion as having “authority with respect to all the Synod’s institutions
of higher education, including its seminaries.” Bylaw 3.51 k de-
fines such supervision as “to have authority over, to direct actions,
to control activities” as to the unified synodical system. Therefore,
the board has overall responsibility and the authority to direct ac-
tions and control activities to the extent provided by Bylaw 3.409.
However, the board must respect the duties that have been ex-
pressly given to the boards of regents of each institution of higher
education as delineated in Bylaw 6.03.

Question 3: “Bylaw 6.01 notes that ‘each college, university,
and seminary of the Synod shall be governed, subject to the general
policies set by the Synod, by a Board of Regents.’ What does this
mean? What authority and limits of authority does the Board of Re-
gents have in respect [to] the governance of the respective institu-
tion?”

Opinion: The functions of a board of regents have been delineated
by Bylaw 6.03. The Synod thereby has also provided the authority to
carry out these duties as well as the limits to such authority.

Question 4: “At question is the role and limits of authority of
the BHE/CUS Board and the Board of Regents. There are some
who believe the BHE/CUS Board has authority over the local in-
stitution ‘through the Board of Regents.’ If this is correct, what au-
thority does the local Board of Regents have? Those of us who
work in education know that accreditation agencies require that the
institution is governed by the local Board of Regents and not by an
outside source. With this in mind, is the BHE/CUS Board a ‘coor-
dinating board’ with ‘oversight’ but not the governing board?”

Opinion: A board of regents has the responsibility and authority
outlined by Bylaw 6.03 and thereby “governs” its institution “sub-
ject to general policies set by the Synod” (Bylaw 6.01). As already
noted in answer to question 2 above, the Board for Higher Educa-
tion must respect the duties that have been expressly given to
boards of regents as delineated in Bylaw 6.03. To the extent of its
functions outlined in Bylaw 3.409, however, the Board for Higher
Education does have “overall responsibility” over boards of regents
and their institutions as a unified synodical system and is required
to carry out these responsibilities.

Adopted Oct. 21-22, 2002

Question re Definition of “Office”
in the Handbook of the Synod (02-2272)

In a June 4, 2002 letter, the Secretary submitted a question on
behalf of the Board of Directors of the Synod regarding the defini-
tion and application of the term “office” in Bylaws 3.75 and 4.109.

Question: “When Bylaws 3.75 and 4.109 prohibit holding ‘more
than one elective office; or more than two offices,’ what is the de-
finition of ‘office’? Does it refer only to officer positions and mem-
bership on boards, or is it to be understood more generally to in-
clude any elected or appointed position of the Synod and its
Districts that is prescribed by bylaw? In particular, do the prohibi-