LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 372

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

372 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

quency of publication stay the same and that REPORTER remain both
a paper publication as well as an electronic one. At the same time, the
BOD reduced the BCS allocation of unrestricted funds by more than
$150,000 from current-year levels, which means that BCS staff and pro-
grams not related to REPORTER must be cut or eliminated. The effect
is that the Board of Directors, rather than the BCS, is determining the
communication-program priorities of the Synod.

There seems to be a lack of clarity between the role of the Board of
Directors and that of the BCS regarding the management and prioriti-
zation of BCS activities, including oversight of REPORTER. While the
Synod’s Bylaws direct the Board of Directors to “allocate available
funds to the program boards, commissions, councils, and departments of
corporate Synod and hold them accountable therefore” (3.183 d), those
same Bylaws direct the Board for Communication Services to:

“organize the communications activities of the church...”

(3.183 a);
“authorize and supervise the production of the necessary print and
broadcast materials for the church and its publics” (3.813 b);
and

“have responsibility for the official periodicals of the Synod”

(3.813 c). .
The questions submitted to the Commission were as follows.

Question 1: Does the Synod’s Board of Directors have the au-
thority to hold a program board “accountable” to the extent that it,
the BOD, can dictate how the unrestricted funds allocated to that
program board specifically are to be spent?

Opinion: See Opinion 03-2358. The Board of Directors may
suggest priorities in the use of funds and ultimately has responsi-
bility for the allocation of available funds. However, the Board of
Directors may not mandate specific use of funds allocated to a pro-
gram board or commission where the Synod in convention has
given responsibility for carrying out a particular function of the
Synod to a particular program board or commission.

Question 2: Does the Board of Director’s action usurp the pre-
rogatives of the Synod acting in convention to make bylaws dele-
gating responsibility for the management of synodical programs to
synodical program boards?

Opinion: The responsibilities of the Board of Directors as de-
scribed in Bylaw 3.183 have been discussed in other opinions (see
Opinions 03-2357 and 03-2358). With respect to the general au-

thority of various boards and commissions, Bylaw 1.07 d states:
“Each board and commission or other agency that serves the Synod
or a District in a specific area of program or ministry in accordance
with the Synod’s Constitution and applicable Bylaws adopts pro-
grams in its assigned area of responsibility; administers the pro-
grams and resources as provided or authorized by the Constitution
and applicable Bylaws, or as assigned by the respective convention
or agency; and proposes modifications thereto. It also provides pro-
gram policies, as well as directions, for its staff and shall establish,
together with staff, evaluation criteria for its programs.”

An action of the Board of Directors dictating, as opposed to
suggesting, how the unrestricted funds allocated to a program board
specifically are to be spent would be a usurpation of the preroga-
tives of the Synod acting in convention to make bylaws designed to
achieve its primarily ecclesiastical purposes by delegating respon-
sibility for management of synodical programs to synodical pro-
gram boards created by the Synod in convention to achieve the
convention’s stated goals.

Question 3: May the Board of Directors in the exercise of its
constitutional mandate to supervise the business affairs of the
Synod “micro-manage” the policy, program, and other day-to-day
decisions of the program boards to which the Synod in convention
has delegated such responsibilities?

Opinion: While the Board of Directors is responsible to hold
others accountable under Bylaw 3.183, the Board of Directors is
not authorized to “micro-manage” the policy, program, and other
day-to-day decisions of the program boards to which the Synod in
convention has delegated such responsibilities.

Question 4: May the Board of Directors require what in effect
are unfunded mandates of the program boards by not providing
along with its requirements the funds to carry out those require-

2004 Convention Workbook

ments? Is this, in effect, order the same number of bricks but with-
out providing any straw (Ex. 5:6-8)?

Opinion: Please refer to the answers above.
Adopted Sept. 30, 2003

Election of Delegates to a Convention of the Synod
(03-2360)

A pastor of the Synod, in a June 19, 2003 e-mail letter, asked
two questions regarding the election of delegates to a convention of
the Synod.

Question 1: What is the proper/prescribed method and timetable
for notice for the convening of a circuit caucus for the election of
synodical delegates?

Opinion: The Commission assumes that what is meant by “cir-
cuit caucus” is the meeting of the electoral Circuit for the purpose
of electing delegates to a convention of the Synod. Bylaw 3.05 a
states, “Each electoral Circuit shall meet at the call of the Coun-
selor(s) to elect its delegates not later than nine months prior to the
opening day of the convention.” The same paragraph also states,
“The privilege of voting shall be exercised by one pastor and one
layperson from each member congregation of the Circuit, both of
whom shall have been elected in the manner prescribed by the con-
gregation.” Furthermore, Bylaw 3.05 b states, “Prior to the meeting
of the electoral Circuit, each congregation may nominate one
layperson, either from its congregation or from the Circuit. These
names must be submitted to the Circuit Counselor prior to the day
of the Circuit meeting and shall constitute the slate of candidates.”

Therefore, although there is no prescribed method and timetable
for notice for the convening of an electoral Circuit in the Constitu-
tion and Bylaws of the Synod, ample notice is necessary to provide
opportunity for each congregation to elect its representatives to the
meeting in the manner prescribed by its Constitution and Bylaws
and to submit the nomination of a layperson to the Circuit Coun-
selor(s) prior to the day of the meeting.

Question 2: Does subscription to a non-approved confessional
statement (“That They May Be One” or “The Keller Resolution”)
invalidate the election of a delegate to the synodical convention?

Opinion: Members of the Synod continue to hold all rights
under the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod with the single ex-
ception of individual members on suspended status. While individ-
ual members are on suspended status, they may continue to per-
form the duties of the positions they hold, but they are relieved of
their duties as members of the Synod, including service as a dele-
gate to a convention of a District or the Synod (Bylaw 2.25 b).

Adopted June 23, 2003

Criticism of the CCM by an Elected Officer of the
Synod (03-2361)

In a letter addressed to the Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters dated June 6, 2003, an ordained minister of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod has asked the following questions:

Question 1: When [an officer of the Synod] in his criticism
against the CCM Opinion 02-2309 failed to quote “It should be
noted, however, that when an ecclesiastical supervisor discovers
error in his counsel, it is incumbent on that supervisor to correct or
amend it. The member should then be held to consider the cor-
rected counsel]. Failure to consider such amended admonition could
form the basis for disciplinary action as spelled out in Article XII,”
did he give inaccurate and misleading information by this misin-
terpretation to the Synod?

Opinion: This question does not ask for an interpretation of the
Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws or resolutions and therefore an an-
swer is not the responsibility of the CCM. It is not the responsibil-
ity of the Commission to judge the actions or communications of a
member or officer of the Synod. Procedures for dealing with such
an alleged “offensive conduct” (Article XII of the Constitution)
are set forth under Bylaw 2.27 if it is considered that the offence
calls for expulsion from membership. The use of the Synod’s dis-
pute resolution procedure as set forth in Chapter VIII of the By-