LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 378

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

378 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

In a September, 1972 “Opinion on Presidential Authority,” (cf. Ag. is no specific directive of the Synod, he shall be authorized to exercise
330, 340, etc.) the Commission noted: such power after consultation with the Vice-Presidents, the Board of

1. That it is the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters that the Constitution and the Bylaws of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod give to the President of the Synod ex-
ceptionally broad responsibilities and correspondingly broad au-
thority.

2. That while the ordinary day to day responsibility not only for ad-
ministration but also for doctrine rests also with other officials,
boards, and commissions created in the course of time by the
Synod, the Synod has never repealed the broad responsibility and
authority vested in the presidential office, but instead the Synod
appears to have increased those powers from time to time. It is
therefore conceivable that the President, acting in accordance
with the appropriate Articles of the Constitution and Bylaws of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, may exercise his pas-
toral judgment to intervene in situations which, in his estimation,
are so important that the exercise of his ultimate constitutional
responsibility is required.

. That when a synodical President feels impelled to exercise that
responsibility it is clearly understood that his action is always
subject not only to the regular appeals procedures involving the
commissions of adjudication and the Board of Appeals, but also
to approval or disapproval, to ratification or rescission, by the
convention of the Synod.

4. That if the Synod does not wish to have such authority reside in
its President, then it is the opinion of the Commission on Consti-
tutional Matters that the Constitution will need to be amended to
limit the authority of the President. Procedures for amending the
Constitution are detailed in Article XIV.

Later, in 1979, while reviewing proposed Task Force proposals

w

to amend the Constitution and/or Bylaws, the Commission noted
(Ag. 1266A):

6. The oft repeated statement that, “No one has any authority
between conventions to make decisions” is held by the
CCM to be completely groundless. The boards and com-
missions of the Synod are empowered to make decisions.
Furthermore, if there is lack of clarity the CCM can al-
ways be asked for an interpretation. In addition, Bylaw
2.89 c specifically states that if there is a conflict between
two boards or commissions of the Synod, the Board of Di-
rectors is empowered to make a final determination. Fi-
nally, if there is no other recourse, the Bylaws (2.29 c) be-
stow upon the President of the Synod executive powers
that he can exercise in consultation with a proper, related
group, with the provision (a good one) that his decision is
always appealable to the next convention. Somehow this
myth of “no possibility of decisions between conventions”
needs to be laid to rest. Furthermore, if the assembly is de-
signed to take care of this alleged problem, the question
arises, “Who makes decisions between the semi-annual
meetings of the assembly?” (A box within a box within a
box, etc.)

In April, 1997, while addressing a concern between the Presi-

dent and the Board for Communication Services, the Secretary of
the Synod had noted:

1). The Bylaws do allow for the exercise of executive pow-
ers by the President of the Synod even when he has not
been expressly invested with such power for a specific
purpose. Bylaw 3.103, b, cannot be read apart from
Bylaw 3.103, c, which speaks to the issue of exercising
executive power for a purpose for which there is no spe-
cific directive. Prior to such exercise of power, however,
the President must consult with one of the four groups
identified, namely, the Praesidium, Board of Directors,
Council of Presidents, or Council of Administrators,
whichever he judges to be most appropriate. As noted in
the final sentence of 3.103, c, “Any member of the Synod
shall have the right to appeal to the convention of the
Synod from his action.”

Opinion Ag. 2073, issued in June, 1997, included the following

comments:

The issue of presidential authority in unforeseen circumstances is
dealt with in Bylaw 3.103, c. “In the event that the affairs of the Synod
require the exercise of executive power for a purpose for which there

2004 Convention Workbook

Directors of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, the Council of
Presidents, or the Council of Administrators, whichever in his judgment
is the most appropriate”...

The CCM agrees that the President must “assume only such rights
as have been expressly conferred ... by the Synod” and “when he has
been expressly invested with such power for a specific purpose.”

These provisions must not be read, however, in isolation from the
remainder of the Constitution and Bylaws. They must be considered in
pari materia. Specific enabling language mandates presidential author-
ity in the areas of doctrine and practice. He has authority over adminis-
tration of the officers and employees of the Synod. He is expressly iden-
tified as the CEO of the Synod. The President is mandated to be
responsible to the Synod for the supervision of doctrine. While a Presi-
dent is prohibited from exercising powers that have not been expressly
conferred upon him, he may exercise executive powers within frame-
work provided by the Constitution and Bylaws. The President may, for
example, exercise broad power under the express language granting him
responsibility for doctrinal supervision. The Bylaws need not articulate
every heresy or aberrant doctrine that might trigger executive action. It
is implicit in the express grant of authority in the Constitution and By-
laws to supervise doctrine.

Despite this broad recognition of authority, the Commission’s
opinion continued:

Having said this, the Commission is concerned that executive power
not be exercised to the extent that it deprives the members of the Synod
of the benefit of receiving various points of views, having access to gen-
eral church news of interest to the Synod, or deprives an accused indi-
vidual of the right of defense. The history surrounding the founding of
the Synod provides adequate evidence for such concern. If it is believed
by a member or members that this is occurring, the remedy is identi-
fied above.

The better approach, an alternative to censorship, would be a dis-
cussion of the rationale for including or not including certain letters to
the editor on a given subject, publication of articles on such subject, or
that a notice be printed in a specific form. It is assumed that all parties
involved are concerned about the welfare of the Church and that in
most, if not all, cases agreement can be reached regarding the printing
of certain materials.

In 1998, the Commission addressed the power of the President

to respond to actions of a District that were contrary to the Consti-

tution and Bylaws of the Synod. In Opinion 98-2122 (September
30, 1998) the Commission referred specifically to the authority of
the President under Bylaw 3.101 ¢ 11:

If therefore a District takes an action that is contrary to the Consti-
tution and Bylaws of the Synod, such action is null and void, and the
President of the Synod could proceed under the authority granted to him
by Bylaw 3. 10 1, C, 11, where the President shall

11. be authorized, in the event that the affairs of the Synod require
the exercise of executive power for a purpose for which there is no spe-
cific directive of the Synod, to exercise such power after consultation
with the Vice-Presidents, the Board of Directors for The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod, or the Council of Presidents, whichever, in
his judgment, is most appropriate. Any member of the Synod shall have
the right to appeal such action to the Commission on Constitutional
Matters and/or the Synod in convention, whichever is appropriate.

As recently as the 2001 convention, the Synod reaffirmed and
reemphasized the duty of the President to assure that all officers
and agencies of the Synod abide by the Constitution and Bylaws
in adopting Resolution 7-03C, the second, third, and fourth resolves
of which read:

Resolved, That we reaffirm the expectation that all officers, staff
members, and agencies of the Synod adhere to the Constitution and By-
laws of the Synod and, where applicable, the articles of incorporation
and bylaws of the entity and assume only those powers granted to them;
and be it further

Resolved, That the President and Board of Directors of the Synod
shall see to it that the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod are ob-
served; and be it further ;

Resolved, That when a failure to comply with the Constitution and
Bylaws is discovered, the President or Board of Directors, whichever
is charged with supervision or oversight, shall act to correct such failure
to comply as quickly as possible.