LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 26–28, 2010, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

it will of necessity consider the input of the BCS board and others on the ability of that agency to fulfill
its mandated functions without an asset currently being managed and operated by that agency.
Question 3: Should a decision to sell an “instrument of delivery” used by the BCS to carry out a “designated function” be a decision of a convention of the Synod, since it was the Synod in convention that approved the following directive:
3.8.5.2 The Board for Communication Services shall provide resources to the various boards, commissions, congregations, and other agencies of the Synod … (a) It shall provide creative ideas
and information along with program, production facilities, and other assistance for print and
electronic media. (Emphasis added by questioner)
While the decision may be submitted to the Synod in convention, unless the Synod reserves to itself or
otherwise restricts the right to sell an asset, the Board of Directors as legal representative of the Synod has
that power. Whether the FM license of KFUO is an asset which is sold or continues to be managed by the
BCS, the BCS will continue to have the responsibility to fulfill the duties assigned by the quoted bylaw.
The continued ability of an agency to fulfill its convention-mandated responsibilities without an asset
whose management has been entrusted to that agency by the Synod in convention is a necessary issue
which the BOD, in its fiduciary responsibility to honor the will of the Synod, must consider in exercising
its discretion to sell any asset, including the license in question.
(The secretary was instructed by the commission to send early copies of Opinion 09-2564 to the President
of the Synod, the chairmen of the Board of Directors and the Board for Communication Services, the
member of the Synod who submitted the questions, and legal counsel of the Synod.)
156. Application of Bylaw 3.8.8.2.2 to Recognized Service Organizations (09-2568)
Given questions that have surfaced regarding this opinion, the secretary of the commission was asked to
follow up on the matter, requesting a formal response from the Synod’s legal counsel.
157. Reconsideration of Response to Second Question of Former Opinion 99-2157 (09-2573)
Omnibus Res. A of the 2007 convention referred Overture 8-44 “To Request CCM Reconsideration of
Opinion 99-2157 re Art. VII” to the Commission on Constitutional Matters (cf. 2007 Proceedings, p. 169;
2007 Convention Workbook, p. 275). Opinion 99-2157, “Questions re Rights of Individuals and Congregations” (Sept. 14, 1999), responded to seven questions submitted by a Dispute Resolution Panel.
This reconsideration of Opinion 99-2157 addresses the commission’s response to the second question:
“What does the phrase ‘inexpedient as far as the condition of a congregation is concerned’ mean, and how
is it applied to matters relating to the right of self-government of LCMS congregations?” The commission
responded to that question with the following two paragraphs:
What then is meant by a “congregation’s right of self-government”? Since 1854, conventions of the Synod have refused to adopt resolutions which were thought to interfere with
the “self-government” of the local parish, explaining that the Synod “is an advisory
body.” Historically, four areas of self-government have been recognized: (a) the calling
3

“(a) [The Board of Directors] shall have the right to request review of any action or policy of a program board,
commission, or council which primarily relates to business, property, and/or legal matters and, after consultation
with the agency involved and when deemed necessary, require modification or revocation thereof, except opinions
of the Commission on Constitutional Matters.” (Bylaw 3.3.5.5 [a] [2])