LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 30, 2003, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

also discussed concerns regarding other changes of substance it believes to have been incorporated into
the Handbook revision. Evaluation of the report will continue. A letter to the pro tem commission will be
prepared to communicate additional concerns regarding the project.
199. Reconsideration of Opinions re Ecclesiastical Supervision (03-2338, 03-2338A, 03-2338C)
In letters received February 27 and March 1, 2003, two pastors of the Synod encouraged the Commission
to reconsider its January 20-21, 2003 decisions regarding “Consequences of Actions Taken Upon
Approval of Ecclesiastical Supervisor” (02-2296; 02-2320) and all others in any way pertaining to
ecclesiastical supervisors.
In a letter received April 7, 2003, a voters assembly of a member congregation of the Synod offered “An
Appeal to the [Commission] on Constitutional Matters of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod to
Declare Invalid Opinions 02-2296; 02-2320; and 02-2309,” expressing concern that these opinions leave
the supervised member free from responsibility or accountability and thereby change the public nature of
the Synod.
The Commission’s response to these requests was again deferred to allow time for further study and
review.
200. Authority of the Board of Directors re Radio Station KFUO (03-2357)
In a letter received June 9, 2003, a District President questioned the right of the Board of Directors of the
Synod to assume direct responsibility for the operation of KFUO radio in light of past convention actions.
He also inquired regarding the possibility of a similar action by the Board of Directors over against
entities owned by Districts, such as a radio station or resource center.
Question 1:

Since 1986 Resolution 1-12 explicitly delegated responsibility for the management of
KFUO to the Board for Communication Services, may the Board of Directors of the Synod
reverse that delegation and assume direct control of the administration of KFUO under
Bylaw 3.183 c?

Opinion: A general discussion of authority as between the Board of Directors and various agencies and
boards of the Synod is set forth in Opinion 03-2358. The specific functions of the Board for
Communication Services are set forth in Bylaw 3.813. Those functions may be expanded by synodical
resolution, as in the case of 1986 Resolution 1-12. Where an express delegation of authority has been
made by bylaw or resolution of the convention, the general authority of the Board of Directors under
Bylaw 3.183 c (the Board is “authorized to take on behalf of the Synod any action related to such business
and legal affairs which has not been expressly delegated…to other officers and agencies of the Synod”) is
inapplicable. Rather, the authority of the Board of Directors in such circumstances is under Bylaw 3.183 d
2, “to call up for review, criticism, modification, or revocation any action or policy of a program board,
commission, or council,” and under Bylaw 3.183 b, to “communicate to the appropriate boards and
commissions suggestions for improvement.” Absent a voluntary relinquishment of authority from the
Board for Communication Services to the Board of Directors, the Board of Directors may not reverse the
delegation of authority as described.
Question 2:

If the Board of Directors is able to do this, may it also take over responsibilities for entities
owned by the various Districts (such as our radio station and resource center)?

Opinion: The division of the Synod into Districts was established by Article XII of the Constitution. The
procedure for the formation and realignment of Districts is the subject of Bylaw 4.03. Bylaw 4.07 sets
143