LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 287

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
resolution process from participating as a witness. If a party intends
to present testimony or evidence which would necessarily suggest
the potential need for a dispute resolution process administrator to
become a witness, such issue must be raised in a timely manner so
that the administrator can recuse himself and a replacement administrator can be appointed in a manner that will not interfere with the
process or unduly delay resolution of the matter in dispute. It would
be a perversion of the process and inappropriate to raise such an issue
immediately prior to a hearing.
While a Dispute Resolution Panel is not bound by “hearsay,” and
other strict rules of evidence are not applicable to a dispute resolution
process hearing, evidence proffered at the last minute which would
require the disqualification of an administrator in order to allow his
testimony on an issue known by the party to be likely to be contested
should be ruled out of order and inadmissible and disregarded by the
hearing facilitator and/or hearing panel. Even should the administrator desire at such a late point in the process to offer testimony, the
failure to seek his early disqualification exposes him to information
as administrator which could impermissibly impact his testimony.
Therefore, absent agreement by the parties, the hearing panel, and
its administrator, a party may not subvert the process by interjecting such evidence in an untimely manner. The administrator in such
circumstances should complete his responsibilities in the case and
not be replaced. He should not be allowed to be called as a witness in
the matter, and the controverted evidence or testimony which would
necessarily require that the administrator be called in order to rebut
such evidence or testimony should be ruled out of order and inadmissible and be disregarded by the hearing panel to the extent seen or
heard by the members of the panel.
(Adopted 11/7/10)

CUS Course Syllabus Approval Process (10-2587)
In a December 16, 2010, e-mailed letter, a member of a faculty
of one of the Synod’s universities described a proposal before his
faculty, as follows:
Currently there is a proposal in front of the plenary faculty which
will change the oversight and process for the approval of individual
course syllabi. [Currently, the process for review and approval includes the individual departments (from which the syllabus originated), the school dean, the Faculty Curriculum Committee, and
the plenary faculty.] The proposal calls for the review and approval
process to be limited to the departments, school deans, and academic
office. Furthermore, the proposal allows for school deans to create
curriculum review committees within the individual schools and the
proposed syllabus be posted for review and comment by the entire
faculty.
The proposal for change of the syllabus approval process arose
from the concern of the Faculty Curriculum Committee that most
members of the committee could no longer evaluate the individual
course syllabi as most syllabi content fell out of the committee members’ areas of expertise. Additionally, the schools which have external
professional accrediting agencies, e.g. School of Pharmacy, School of
Health Sciences, School of Education require additional elements not
currently required by the faculty handbook. Thus, the Faculty Curriculum Committee recommended limiting the review and approval
process to the schools.
During preliminary discussion, one issue of concern which was
raised was whether the proposal to change the course syllabi approval
process violated the Synod’s Handbook which bestowed curricula
development and implementation onto the faculty, e.g. the plenary
faculty (see 3.8.3.8.10).

287

Having provided that background, the writer inquired as follows;
Question 1: Would the proposal to change the course syllabus
approval process, limiting it to the individual schools
while allowing for plenary faculty review and comment
but no plenary faculty approval, violate the Synod’s
Handbook?
Opinion: No. Synod Bylaw 3.10.5.6.10 (d) [formerly 2007 Bylaw
3.8.3.8.10 (d)] does require that each faculty develop and construct
curricula implementing the recognized and established purposes
of the institution and designed to obtain the objectives of preparation for professional church workers and other Christian leaders
approved by the Synod. This requirement places responsibility on
the entire faculty for the development and construction of curricula
to meet the goals and objectives established by the Synod in founding these educational institutions.
With respect to approval of an individual course syllabus, however, the Bylaws do not require the entire faculty’s involvement. A
syllabus provides an outline and timeline for a particular course. It
may give a brief overview of the course objectives, expectations,
reading assignments, and exam dates. Curriculum, on the other hand,
describes a general focus of study, consisting of multiple individual
courses all designed to reach particular competency or qualification.
The Bylaws prescribed that in Synod schools, the faculty is responsible to develop and construct this focus of study consistent with the
goals and objectives established by the Synod. Nothing in the Bylaws
of the Synod requires that entire faculties review and approve each
individual course syllabus.
Question 2: More generally, in matters of curriculum, how much flexibility does the Synod’s Handbook provide the faculty in
constructing review and approval processes in matters
pertaining to curriculum? In short, do all curriculum
matters require the review and approval of the plenary
faculty or can the plenary faculty delegate review and
approval oversight to duly constituted faculty subgroups, e.g. the faculty of a particular school?
Opinion: As described above, the faculty of each Synod school is
responsible to assure that its curriculum is designed to “obtain the
objectives of preparation for professional church workers and other
Christian leaders as approved by the Synod” (Bylaw 3.10.5.6.10
[d]). While the plenary faculty may delegate review, approval, and
oversight of portions of the overall curriculum of an institution to
a duly constituted faculty subgroup, such as faculty of a particular
school, the plenary faculty must retain such review and control as
is necessary to be able to fulfill its responsibility to see to it that the
institution as a whole develops and constructs a curriculum consistent with the bylaw.
(Adopted February 20, 2011)

Notes
1. Article III 9 of the Constitution identifies as one of the “Objectives” of the Synod to “[p]rovide protection for congregations, pastors, teachers, and other church workers in the performance of their
official duties and the maintenance of their rights.” Among the district
president’s responsibilities in carrying out ecclesiastical supervision
with congregations is to allow lay members of LCMS congregations
to be assured that actions of their congregation will not jeopardize
the congregation’s membership in the Synod and to give counsel
and advice as necessary so as not to have that unintended result and
unintended forfeiture of rights.

2013 Convention Workbook