LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 28–March 1, 2014, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

3.10.5.5.2). In the resolution that adopted this new procedure (2010 Res. 5-06A), the rationale for the
change stated that allowing a board of regents to cast the votes for a college or university president was
more in line with the responsibilities that belong to a board of regents. At the same time, the rationale
indicated that the new process maintained a legitimate level of participation by the Synod, accomplished
by the addition to the process of the prior-approval panel with the authority to remove names from the
final “short list” of candidates prepared and submitted by the board of regents.
In this new process, the board of regents, using a search committee, determines the needs of the institution
and the characteristics desired in a new president. The search committee also develops written criteria
which it uses to screen the list of nominees who have consented to serve if elected. These same criteria
are then used by the board of regents to guide the presidential election.
Utilizing the work of the search committee, the board of regents itself then develops a short list of at least
five names from the list of all nominees who consented to serve if elected. This short list is then presented
to the prior-approval panel consisting of the President of the Synod, the chair of the Board of Directors of
Concordia University System, and the president of the district in which the college or university is
located.
The prior-approval panel, by a two-thirds vote, may choose to remove names from the short list, which is
then returned to the board of regents. If the returned list has less than two names, the election process is
terminated and the board of regents must decide whether it will develop a new short list from the current
list of nominees who have consented to serve, or whether it will open the nominations process to generate
additional nominations before developing a new short list.
The questions now before the commission pertain to that point in the process when the short list is
returned to the board of regents by the prior-approval panel (Bylaw 3.10.5.5.2 [d] [3]) and the board of
regents then elects the new president of the college or university (Bylaw 3.10.5.5.2 [e]).
Question 1: When the board of regents creates the ballot of candidates to use on the day of the
presidential election, does the board of regents have the authority not to include candidates
that received prior approval?
Opinion: No. Bylaw 3.10.5.5.2 (e) directs the board of regents to use the slate that was returned by the
prior-approval panel and contains no provision for altering the list.
Question 2: Does the board of regents have the authority to stop the process of filling the office of
president if it is their determination that stopping would be in the best interest of the
institution?
Opinion: No. Bylaw 3.10.5.5.2 (e) contains no provision for stopping an election.
22. CTCR Policy Manual Review (13-2698)
The executive director of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations having submitted the policy
manual of his commission for review, the Commission on Constitutional Matters offered the following
corrections and/or recommendations for changes to the content of the manual:
•

The wording of Bylaw 3.9.5.2.2 (c) as quoted in the manual is awkward and difficult to read and
understand. The Commission on Constitutional Matters is recommending to the Commission on
Handbook that the sentence will better read: “When a small formative, emerging confessional
Lutheran church body (identified as such by the President of the Synod as chief ecumenical

CCM Minutes – Feb. 28–March 1, 2014 – Page 9