LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 20-21, 2003, Page 10

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Question 4:

If the answers to Questions 1 and 3 above are “no,” would it ever be in accord with the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod for a majority of the Vice-Presidents of the Synod to
determine that the President of the Synod should be recused from handling charges filed
against a District President that could result in his being removed from the clergy roster of
the LCMS?

Opinion: As indicated in the opinion to Question 3, the only reasons which allow the Vice-Presidents of
the Synod to determine that the President should be disqualified from investigating charges filed against a
District President are the three reasons articulated in Bylaw 2.27 a 1.
Question 5:

If the answers to Questions 1 and 3 above are “no,” what effect, if any, does the absence of
a “conflict of interest” have in a Bylaw 2.27 g case against a District President who has
been suspended and whose suspension is currently under appeal, when the President of the
Synod was recused by a majority of the Vice-Presidents of the Synod on the basis of an
alleged conflict of interest?

Opinion: As indicated above in the opinion to Question 3, Bylaw 2.27 a provides for the disqualification
of the investigating officer (in this instance the President) only where he is a party to the matter in dispute,
has a conflict of interest, or is unable to act. If the President believes that the Vice-Presidents of the Synod
have misunderstood the issue of conflict of interest or have disqualified him for a reason other than those
provided in this bylaw, he should request reconsideration by the Praesidium.
For another treatment of the issue of “conflict of interest,” see the Commission’s response to question 8 of
Opinion 02-2309.
119. Role of BHE/CUS Board in Light of Board of Directors Resolution (02-2315)
The Executive Director of the BHE/CUS Board, in a memorandum dated October 29, 2002, asked the
Commission for assistance in understanding the consequence of a recent action by the Board of Directors
of the Synod which resolved “That each agency of the Synod keep the Board of Directors informed by
direct communication with the administrative officer of the Synod and the chairman of the Board of
Directors of any contemplated action which falls under the supervision and oversight of the Board of
Directors and/or which will result in the spending of funds beyond that currently budgeted or which will
obligate future funding, and such notification is to be made while the contemplated action is still in the
planning stage.”
After asking a series of questions (“What is the role of the BHE/CUS Board and staff? Is this an
appropriate and proper interpretation of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod? What does this mean
for the colleges/universities/seminaries and the policies of the BHE/CUS Board for oversight and
governance? Are the agencies of Synod to ask permission from Synod’s Board of Directors in order to do
[their] work before it has processed with the BHE/CUS Board and staff? Is the BHE/CUS Board excluded
from its role of oversight and governance of the institutions of higher education?”), he asked the
following “basic question”:
Question:

Should the institutions of higher education make direct communication with the executive
director and chairman of the Synod’s Board of Directors, bypassing the BHE/CUS Board?
What is the role of the BHE/CUS Board and its staff if this resolution is applied.

Opinion: Bylaw 3.183 c provides that the Board of Directors is “responsible for the general management
of the business and legal affairs of the Synod.” It also assigns to the Board “general oversight
responsibility” for officers and agencies of the Synod for business and legal affairs, even when these have
88