LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 26 – 27, 2014, Page 18

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Opinion: Bylaw 3.10.5.6.4 makes no distinction between “categories of faculty” other than full-time and
part-time. Its provisions, therefore, apply to all faculty members.
Question 2: Does “termination of faculty employment” in the 2013 LCMS Handbook include refusing to
renew a faculty contract after it has expired, as well as firing a faculty member during the
term of a contract?
Opinion: Bylaw 3.10.5.6.4 excludes only “honorable retirement” from its application. The provisions of
the bylaw certainly apply when “firing a faculty member during the term of a contract.” However,
preceding bylaw paragraphs clearly anticipate that contracts or other such documents will have a stated
duration. After a faculty contract has expired, employment is ended and Bylaw 3.10.5.6.4 no longer
applies unless/until the contract is renewed.
Question 3: If, for the purpose of limiting the university’s responsibility toward faculty employment to
the number of years specified in faculty contracts, the policy of 2013 LCMS Handbook
3.10.5.6.4 is modified to add the words in italics, “Other than honorable retirement,
termination of faculty employment within a faculty contract may only be the result of the
following…,” is the modified policy in agreement with the LCMS Handbook policy, or does
the modified policy unduly restrict the protection granted to faculty by the LCMS Handbook
policy?
Opinion: The Handbook of the Synod is not a policy manual. It contains the Constitution and Bylaws of
the Synod. Accordingly, combining bylaw wording and policy wording by inserting additional wording
into what is essentially a quotation of a bylaw of the Synod may be confusing. That being said, however,
the wording in question does not contradict or unduly restrict the protection granted to faculty by Bylaw
3.10.5.6.4. As opined in the commission’s response to question 2 above, refusal to renew a faculty
contract does not fall under Bylaw 3.10.5.6.4 and its requirements for termination of faculty employment.
Question 4: If “termination of faculty employment” in the 2013 LCMS Handbook does not include
refusing to renew a faculty contract, then could a university legitimately have a policy to
issue its faculty roll-over contracts on a daily basis without violating the LCMS Handbook?
“Roll-over contracts on a daily basis” here means contracts that have a duration of one day,
but automatically reset the ending date of the contract ahead by one day at the conclusion of
the previous day, unless administrative action is taken to stop the roll-over contract. Such a
contract would allow the university to refuse to renew a faculty contract “at will” without
having to show legitimate cause, if “termination of faculty employment” does not include a
refusal to renew a faculty contract.
Opinion: Since roll-over contracts are not addressed in the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the
Synod, this question is beyond the purview of the commission.
Question 5: If it would not be legitimate for a university to issue faculty roll-over contracts on a daily
basis, is there any minimum time duration required for roll-over contracts, after which the
university could refuse to renew a faculty contract without having to show legitimate cause?
Opinion: See the answer to Question 4.
Question 6: If it is legitimate for universities to issue faculty roll-over contracts with some minimum
time duration specified in the contract, should any distinction be made between contracts
issued to faculty with divine calls as commissioned or ordained ministers, and to faculty
CCM Minutes – September 26–27, 2014 – Page 48