LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 301

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 301

quest of a member...of the Synod,” and since the question as posed
goes beyond the scope of these responsibilities, the Commission
suggests that the question would better be posed to the Commis-
sion on Theology and Church Relations.

Adopted Aug. 3, 2004

CUS Continuing Level Appointments (04-2403)

In an E-mailed letter dated July 27, 2004, an associate professor
of a Synod university asked whether the failure to offer continuing
level appointments in the Concordia University System (CUS) is a
violation of a synodical bylaw.

Question: I have learned from several CUS colleagues and from
some inquiries I have had that some CUS schools do not
offer “continuing level” appointments to their faculty
(often called “tenure”). They only offer roll-over con-
tracts (that theoretically could end without cause at some
point in time, making them initial level appointments ac-
cording to the definition in the Handbook). Is this a vio-
lation of Bylaw 3.7.1.7.2 (former Bylaws 6.21 and
6.25)? The reason I ask is because two items in the
bylaw seem to require all CUS schools as well as the
seminaries to offer continuing level appointments to
their faculties:

1. The bylaw states that “there shall be two levels of appoint-
ments” and that one will be continuing level (which can only
be terminated for cause).

2. The bylaw states under point (b) that normally at least 35% of
a faculty’s full-time members shall serve at the continuing ap-
pointment level.

So—is not offering continuing level appointments a violation of the
bylaw or do CUS schools have the option of offering only roll-over con-
tracts?

Opinion: Bylaw 3.7.1.7.2 (former Bylaw 6.21 a) clearly establishes
two levels of faculty appointments: “Each educational in-
stitution shall have established policies and procedures
related to appointments. There shall be two levels of fac-
ulty appointments:

1. Initial level, where the appointment can be terminated with no

formal requirement for a show of cause.

2. Continuing level, where termination requires a formal show of

cause.”

* The bylaw clearly requires that there be two levels of faculty ap-
pointments, an initial-level and a continuing-level. For a Board of Re-
gents of an educational institution to offer no continuing level appoint-
ments to its faculty as a whole would be a violation of this bylaw.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Bylaw 3.7.1.7.2 (former Bylaw 6.25)
also state, “Each educational institution of the Synod normally shall
have at least thrity-five percent of its full-time faculty serving at
the continuing appointment level....Each institution shall require
specific action by the Board of Regents for promotion from an ini-
tial-level appointment to a continuing-level appointment.” While a
specific promotion from the initial-level to the continuing-level is
not required, continuing-level appointments are required, although
the “at least thirty-five percent” requirement is qualified by the
word “normally.”

In the promotion from an initial-level appointment to a continu-
ing-level appointment, the specific action of the Board of Regents
of a CUS school is based on specific standards or qualifications
and specific steps. If a faculty member is not promoted to the con-
tinuing-level, the individual may continue at the initial-level or be
terminated (Bylaw 3.7.1.7.2 (d) and (e); former Bylaw 6.25 a and
b). A Board of Regents is not required to promote a faculty mem-
ber to a continuing-level appointment. However, a faculty member
may petition the Board of Regents to do so (Bylaw 3.7.1.7.2 (e)
(1); former Bylaw 6.25 b 1).

The Bylaws do not use the term “roll-over contract.” The refer-
enced bylaw does state, “Any continuation of employment at the
initial-level appointment shall be on a year-to-year basis.” And fur-
ther, the bylaw also states: “Other types of faculty appointments
may be established by institutions as the need arises.”

Adopted Aug. 3, 2004

Higher Education Representation
in Election Process (04-2408; 04-2408A)

Two questions with related backgrounds and overlapping an-
swers have been asked of the CCM. In an E-mailed letter dated Au-
gust 6, 2004, the chairman of the current Board for Higher Educa-
tion/Concordia University System Board asked:

Question: As Chairman of the BHE/CUS I am one of four electors
for college and university presidents. On August 24 I
will be the BHE/CUS elector to establish a slate of can-
didates for the presidency of CURF. On September 15
& 16 interviews will be held at [Concordia University—
River Forest] with an election to follow the interviews.
The new [Board for University Education (BUE)] will
not be installed until September 18, and probably will
not organize until after the [Council of Members] meets
and elects 3 more members of the BUE. Will I continue
to serve as an elector for the presidency of CURF on
Sept. 16, there being no other person chosen for that po-
sition at that time?

Also in an August 6, 2004 letter, the Acting President of Con-
cordia University—River Forest asked:

Question: Since the BHE goes out of existence on September 1*
and Gene Oesch is therefore no longer its chair, and the
new BUE will not be organized until perhaps September
20th, who will be authorized to cast the BUE chairman’s
vote in the River Forest election on September 15-16?

Opinion: As indicated in Opinion 04-2398, the Board for Higher
Education/Concordia University System Board (BHE) ceases to
exist effective September 1, 2004, and as of that date, a new Board
for University Education and a new Board for Pastoral Education
have been assigned various of the duties previously assigned to the
BHE. Under the prior system, the chairman of the BHE participated
in the selection of a university president pursuant to the provisions
of Bylaw 6.11, and particularly the election process described in
Bylaw 6.11 f. Since the position of the chairman of the BHE ceases
to exist as of September 1, the current chairman of the BHE ceases
to have authority to cast a vote in the election of a university pres-
ident after that date.

Pursuant to Bylaw 3.905 c, the Commission on Constitutional
Matters is charged to “revise the synodical Handbook immediately
after each convention of the Synod to bring it into harmony with
the resolutions or changes adopted by the convention.” In doing so,
the Commission will delete all references to the BHE and replace
the existing references with references to the appropriate new
board. In the case of Bylaw 6.11, the role of the chairman of the
BHE will be replaced with the chairman of the Board for Univer-
sity Education (BUE).

The new BUE created by Resolution 5-02A of the 2004 con-
vention includes nine voting members—two ordained ministers
elected by the Synod, one commissioned minister elected by the
Synod, two lay members elected by the Synod, three lay members
appointed by the Concordia University System Council of Mem-
bers, and the synodical President or his designated representative.
There are also nonvoting members. Until the new BUE is fully con-
stituted and convenes, it will be unable to perform its important ini-
tial task of selecting a chairman who will carry out critical func-
tions on its behalf, including participation as an elector in the
election process as described in Bylaw 6.11.

Bylaw 6.11 f provides that, at a meeting held to elect a univer-
sity president, the four designated electors shall be present and vot-
ing. Therefore, unless the new BUE is able to be properly consti-
tuted and convened before the scheduled election and is able to
accomplish the task of selecting a chairman, it will not be possible
to complete an election on September 16. In such a circumstance,
the election must be postponed as contemplated in Bylaw 6.11 h,
which provides that “[t]he election shall be held on the day desig-
nated in the notice published in the official periodical of the Synod
or as soon thereafter as feasible.” In the event an election is not
completed on September 16, Bylaw 6.11 i further provides: “If the
electors are unable to finalize the slate or complete the election,

2007 Convention Workbook