LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — May 5–6, 2017, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

the decision was made.” An inquiry about basis here must be read in the context of Bylaw 3.10.5.7.3 [d],
which states clearly that a board of regents may decline to renew a contract of an initial-level member of
the faculty at its discretion, without formal statement of cause. Because the board of regents at its discretion
may determine not to renew the contract of an initial-level member of the faculty, in no case is the board
required to document its reasons for non-renewal. It is a sufficient response to this inquiry as a whole (i.e.,
the inquiry of the board of regents “to assure that appropriate procedures were followed in reaching the
decision or the basis on which the decision was made”) that the board has followed its own appropriate
procedures for renewal of an initial-level faculty contract, and that the result was non-renewal.
45. Southern Illinois District Bylaws (17-2827)
The Secretary of the Southern Illinois District forwarded a proposed amended version of the district’s
bylaws for review under Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 [a]. The commission made a single note regarding spelling:
•

Bylaw 1.07 c: recision should be rescission

The commission thanks the Southern Illinois District for submitting its bylaws, with proposed changes, for
review. The commission gives its approval, required by Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 [a], to the proposal as submitted.
The commission requests a clean copy of the bylaws as amended by the convention, for its files, and notes
the new procedure of Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 [b], which may be of use to the district, should the convention wish
to amend the preapproved proposal at the time of the convention.
46. Request for Reconsideration of Op. 16-2791 (17-2828)
A district president, later joined by others, requested the commission’s reconsideration of CCM Op. 162791, entitled “Constitutionality of Historical Appeal to President and Praesidium in Expulsion Cases.”
Under Bylaw 3.9.2.2 [a], a district president requested, was granted, and made an appearance before the
commission. The Council of Presidents was notified of the request for opinion, and several members
submitted written comment. All this input was gratefully received and carefully considered by the
commission. The request lists three questions and proposes three answers (not reproduced here):
Question 1:

What empowerment does the Synod Constitution give the Synod President as
compared to the District Presidents in ecclesiastical supervision, suspension and/or
expulsion of an individual member of the Synod?

Question 2:

Does the Synod President have empowerment by the Synod Constitution to have
ecclesiastical supervision, suspension and/or expulsion authority of an individual member
of the Synod?

Question 3:

Does the Synod President have empowerment by the Synod Bylaws or resolutions to have
ecclesiastical supervision and/or expulsion of an individual member of the Synod?

The commission received the questions and input offered and considered these along with the matters
raised. The commission scheduled a conference call on Friday, May 12, to give additional consideration to
its response, with the intention of providing definitive guidance to the Board of Directors, meeting the
following week.
47. Review of Res. 12-14 Ecclesiastical Supervision Bylaw Draft (17-2822)
The commission reviewed and approved, as consonant with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod and
with the requirements of 2016 Res. 12-14, the Secretary’s draft of bylaws proposed under Res. 12-14, as
modified after final consultation with the Council of Presidents on April 24–25. This draft was approved,
as to language and organization, by the Commission on Handbook in its May 3 web conference. With
consultation with the Council of Presidents concluded and with both commissions’ approval, the draft is
expected to be brought to the Board of Directors for approval at its meeting of May 19–20. Op. 17-2828,
above, is expected to be available at that time, to provide definitive guidance to the Board of Directors as
to the constitutionality of Op. 16-2791 and its implications for the implementation of 2016 Res. 12-14.
CCM Minutes – May 5–6, 2017 – Page 31