LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 337

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 337

tions of Bylaws 3.75 and4.109 pertain to appointments by the
Board of Directors of the Synod under Bylaw 3.501?”

Opinion: The Commission notes that the Constitution and By-
laws of the Synod offer no clear definition of the word “office,”
particularly as pertains to the question that has been asked. There-
fore, no clear answer can be provided to this question. The Board
of Directors may wish to turn this matter over to the Commission
on Structure for its attention.

The Commission notes, however, that Bylaws 3.75 and 4.109
both contain the provision that “doubtful cases shall be decided by
the President of the Synod.” Until such time as clarification may
be provided by a convention of the Synod, this provision is avail-
able for a solution to the case at hand.

Adopted June 10-11, 2002

Question re Visitation and Electoral Circuits (02-2273)

A chairman of a Commission on District Bylaws, in a letter
dated June 3, 2002, explained that his District is considering the
realignment of its Circuits and is considering making a distinction
between visitation and electoral Circuits. As his committee pre-
pares recommendations for the next District convention, it is re-
questing clarification regarding matters pertaining to Circuits and
Circuit Forums in Chapter V of the Synod’s Bylaws.

Question: “Is the definition of a Circuit given in Synod Bylaw
5.01 (i.e. -3.05 Electoral Circuit) to be applied to every occurrence
of the word Circuit in Chapter V of the Synodical Bylaws? If not,
in which instances in Chapter V is the word Circuit used with a dif-
ferent definition? Specifically does the definition of Circuit in Syn-
odical Bylaw 5.01 apply to Bylaw 5.03, 5.31, 5.33, 5.35, & 5.37, so
that only Electoral Circuits, that is, Circuits with either sufficient
communicant membership and number of congregations to qual-
ify, or which have been granted an exception by the Synodical
President for the previous convention, constitute a Circuit Forum?”

Opinion: Chapter V of the Handbook of the Synod provides for
“visitation Circuits,” called such by Bylaw 3.03 when it describes
an electoral Circuit as consisting “either of one or two adjacent vis-
itation Circuits.” The membership requirements for a visitation Cir-
cuit are provided by Bylaw 5.01. The various functions of a visita-
tion Circuit and its officers are provided by Bylaws 5.03—-5.51.
Every occurrence of the word “Circuit” in Chapter V of the Hand-
book refers to visitation Circuits.

Bylaws 5.31-5.37, which refer specifically to Circuit Forums,
therefore also speak of visitation Circuits. Each congregation of a
visitation Circuit is to be represented at its Circuit Forum by its
pastor and one member designated by the congregation. Among its
functions, a visitation Circuit serves also as an electoral Circuit
(Bylaw 5.35), although two adjacent visitation Circuits may be
joined together by a District (Bylaw 3.03). In such case, a com-
bined meeting of the Circuit Forums of the two adjacent visitation
Circuits will be necessary to carry out the functions of an electoral
Circuit as described in Bylaws 5.35 and 3.05. In all cases, for both
visitation and electoral Circuits, specific membership requirements
must be honored unless exception is made by the President of the
Synod upon request of a District’s Board of Directors.

Adopted June 10-11, 2002

Questions re BHE/CUS Board Approval
of Board of Regents Appointments (02-2274)

The Commission is currently considering a request for an opin-
ion regarding the relative authority and relationships of college and
university boards of regents and the BHE/CUS Board. That deci-
sion is pending (02-2270). In a June 7, 2002 memorandum, the Ex-
ecutive Director of the BHE/CUS Board submitted the following
separate question with an urgent request for a more immediate re-
sponse.

Question: “In the area of initial appointments to seminaries and
to colleges/universities of theology faculty members, what is the
role of the Board for Higher Education over against the local
Boards of Regents in granting prior approval for theological fac-
ulty? How do the approvals differ?”

Opinion: The appointment of faculty is governed by Bylaw 6.23 a,

The Board of Regents on recommendation of the president of the
institution shall appoint all full-time members of the faculty. The Board
for Higher Education shall require certification of theological and pro-
fessional competency. All initial appointments to seminaries and to col-
lege/university theology faculties shall require the prior approval of the
Board for Higher Education. All other initial full-time appointments
shall require prior approval of the Boards of Regents and shall include a
thorough theological review involving the District President and se-
lected members of the Boards of Regents.

Under the bylaw, the Board for Higher Education must require
certification of the theological and professional competency of all
full-time faculty members hired. In the case of initial appointments
to the seminaries or the theological staff of a college or university,
the Board for Higher Education must itself approve the certifica-
tion and also approve the candidate or candidates prior to actual
appointment by the Board of Regents. (This responsibility of the
Board for Higher Education is also contained in Bylaw 3.409 h.)
In all other cases of initial appointment, the Board of Regents is it-
self responsible for approval of the candidate or candidates after a
thorough theological review of each candidate in consyltation with
the local District President and selected board members. In such
cases, the Board of Regents reports the certification of the theolog-
ical and professional competency of all faculty hired to the Board
for Higher Education. ~

Adopted June 10-11, 2002

Questions re Authority of BHE/CUS Board
and Concordia University System (02-2276)

In a June 9, 2002 e-mail memorandum, a pastor of the Synod
asks a series of questions concerning the relationship between the
BHE/CUS Board and the Boards of Regents of the Concordia Uni-
versity System.

Question 1: “Does the Board of Higher Education have doctri-
nal oversite (sic) over the Boards of Regents of the Concordia Uni-
versity System?”

Opinion: Bylaw 3.101 A 1 places the responsibility of supervi-
sion of the doctrine taught and practiced in the Synod, including

Synodwide corporate entities, under the Office of the President:

“The President of the Synod has ecclesiastical supervision of all
officers of the Synod and its agencies, the individual Districts of
the Synod, and all District Presidents.” Bylaw 3.101 A 2 addition-
ally requires that the President shall ‘at regular intervals officially
visit or cause to be visited all the educational institutions of the
Synod to exercise supervision over the doctrine taught and prac-
ticed in those institutions.” Bylaw 3.101 B 2 adds that he shall of-
ficially visit or cause to be visited all of the Synod’s educational
institutions “to see to it that they are in accordance with the Con-
stitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod.” The Bylaws,
therefore, place the responsibility for doctrinal oversight of boards
of regents of the Concordia University System under the Office of
the President and not the BHE/CUS Board.

Question 2: “Does the Board of Higher Education have the au-
thority if needed to remove Regents whom (sic) are not upholding
the official positions of Synod?”

Qpinion: The Bylaws of the Synod grant no such authority to
the BHE/CUS Board.

Question 3: “Do the universities of the Concordia System have
the authority to begin foundations for the purposes of keeping
monies away from Synodical control?”

Opinion: Bylaw 3.607 reads: “Since the Foundation serves all
the Synod, no new foundations shall be established by Districts,
colleges, seminaries, universities, and agencies without prior ap-
proval of the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church—Mis-
souri Synod.” Bylaw 6.63 adds: “All surplus institutional funds
above an adequate working balance shall be deemed to be surplus
and shall be deposited with the Vice-President—Finance—Treasurer
of the Synod for investment. Earnings from such investments shall
be credited to the depositing institution.” Therefore, universities of
the Concordia University System do not have the authority to begin

2004 Convention Workbook