LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 340

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

340 - OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

committees (Bylaw 3.1.7). The convention itself retains ultimate
control of the conduct and business of the convention.

Question 5: Does any article of the Synod’s Constitution or its By-
laws give authority to the President of the Synod to in-
terfere with an authorized, solemn and divine call that
has been properly issued?

Opinion: Various agencies of the Synod have been authorized to
issue divine calls on behalf of the Synod. Bylaw 3.11.1 (c) requires
that all positions of the Synod requiring called ministers shall be
filled in consultation with the President of the Synod.

It is the Synod that has commanded the President to carry out
such authority (Constitution Art. XI B 1-4):

1. The President has the supervision regarding the doctrine and the
administration of

a. All officers of the Synod;

b. All such as are employed by the Synod;
c. The individual districts of the Synod;

d. All district presidents.

2. It is the President’s duty to see to it that all the aforementioned act
in accordance with the Synod’s Constitution, to admonish all who
in any way depart from it, and, if such admonition is not heeded,
to report such cases to the Synod.

. The President has and always shall have the power to advise, ad-
monish, and reprove. He shall conscientiously use all means at
his command to promote and maintain unity of doctrine and prac-
tice in all the districts of the Synod.

4. The President shall see to it that the resolutions of the Synod are

carried out.

Since the Synod has given the President such authority and such
supervisory powers in the Constitution, as well as the authority of
ecclesiastical and administrative powers and duties in the Bylaws
(3.3.1-3.3.1.3), including Bylaw 3.3.1.3 (k) cited above under
question 1, the President has the authority to intervene in the offi-
cial duties and functions of all officers of the Synod, all such as are
employed by the Synod, all district presidents, and all agencies of
the Synod.

In September, 1972, the Commission on Constitutional Matters
issued an opinion on “Presidential Authority” (Ag. 330, 340, et al.)
which applies to the current questions being asked of the Commis-
sion. The 1972 opinion states:

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

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 (emphasis added).

3. 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 recision, by the con-
vention of the Synod.

Question 6: When there is a specific directive of the Synod or the
Synod’s Board of Directors—and when that specific
directive has been assigned to a program board—has
not Synod determined that the authority of the Presi-
dent of the Synod is limited?

Opinion: Bylaw 3.3.1.3 (k) reads, “{The President] shall be autho-
rized, in the event that the affairs of the Synod require the exercise
of executive power for a purpose for which there is no specific di-
rective of the Synod, to exercise such power (emphasis added).

w

2007 Convention Workbook

Note that the Synod’s Board of Directors is not included in the
bylaw phrase “specific directive of the Synod” (emphasis added).

For the answer to this question see also section B of the Com-
mission’s Opinion 06-2462, also issued on this date.

Question 7: If the President of the Synod elects to use his execu-
tive power and that, in turn, has the effect of interfering
with the ability of an entity of the Synod to carry out
its legitimate and specific directives, does that not con-
stitute an improper use of his executive power or an
improper interference with the rights and responsibili-
ties that an agency of the Synod has to carry out its du-
ties in a faithful and timely manner?

Opinion: If and when the President, in his judgment, elects to use
his executive power, and such use is in compliance with the Consti-
tution and Bylaws, including Bylaw 3.3.1.3 (k), it is a proper use of
his executive power unless determined otherwise through the ap-
peal processes provided.

Question 8: If the Board for Communication Services is not di-
rectly answerable to the President in facilitating his
communications responsibilities—which facilitation
includes content, media, and personnel, does not then
any attempt to cause the Board for Communications
Services to hold anything in abeyance or to refrain
from taking action represent a disregard of the limita-
tions placed upon the President of the Synod and con-
stitute an illegitimate use of executive power and a di-
rect contravention of Opinion 02-2259 of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters?

Opinion: The Board for Communication Services is directly re-
sponsible to the Synod in convention. However, the President has
supervisory responsibilities as set forth in Bylaws 3.3.1-3.3.1.3.

To the first part of this question, “does not then any attempt to
cause the Board for Communications Services to hold anything in
abeyance or to refrain from taking action represent a disregard of
the limitations placed upon the President of the Synod and consti-
tute an illegitimate use of executive power,” the answer is “no” as
long as the action(s) of the President is consistent with the Consti-
tution and Bylaws of the Synod.

To the second part of this question, “constitute...a direct contra-
vention of Opinion 02-2259 of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters,” the answer also is “‘no.”’ Opinion 02-2259 correctly states:

...the Board for Communication Services is an independent board
not directly answerable to the Board of Directors. Similarly, while the
President influences the Board for Communication Services through his
ecclesiastical role and as a primary recipient of the services of the Board
for Communication Services in facilitating his communication respon-
sibilities, the Board for Communication Services is not directly answer-
able to the President.

But the opinion also refers to the authority of the President
under Constitution Art. XI B and Bylaw 3.101 (2004 Handbook
Bylaws 3.3.1 - 3.3.1.3). The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod
define the duties of the President and impose on and grant to him
the ecclesiastical supervision of the Synod. No board, including the
Board of Directors, may control his ecclesiastical purposes or re-
strict his ecclesiastical power (Cf. Opinion 02-2259).

Question 9: What is the relationship between Bylaw 3.3.1.2 (c),
which authorizes the President of the Synod to call up
for review any action by an individual officer (request-
ing that such action be altered or reversed and report-
ing it to the Synod if necessary) and Bylaws 3.3.1.3 (j)
and 3.3.1.3 (k), which authorize the President of the
Synod to exercise power when the affairs of the Synod
demand and require it?

Opinion: Each of these bylaws provides a means (together with
other bylaws) for the President to carry out his constitutional duties
(Constitution Art. XI B). Bylaw 3.3.1.2 (c) does not limit or restrict
the exercise of Bylaws 3.3.1.3 (j) and 3.3.1.3 (k) and these two by-
laws do not limit or restrict the exercise of Bylaw 3.3.1.2 (c).

Bylaw 3.3.1.2 (c) states: “He shall call up for review any action
by an individual officer, executive, or agency that, in his view, may