LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 14–15, 2018, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

SELC: The commission does not have complete articles on file and is awaiting a proposal from the
district (Op. 18-2864).
South Dakota: Proposed articles reviewed by the commission satisfy Bylaw 1.5.3.6 and 2016 Res.
9-02A (Op. 17-2849).
Southeastern: 1948 articles on file lack relationship and asset disposition language (Op. 18-2864).
South Wisconsin: Proposed articles reviewed by the commission satisfy Bylaw 1.5.3.6 and 2016
Res. 9-02A (Op. 17-2862 and 17-2862A).
Southern: 1994 articles on file satisfy asset disposition requirements of Bylaw 1.5.3.6 and 2016
Res. 9-02A, but not relationship requirements (Op. 17-2826).
Southern Illinois: Proposed articles reviewed by the commission satisfy Bylaw 1.5.3.6 and 2016
Res. 9-02A (Op. 17-2842), but seem not to have been filed with the state.
Texas: 1948 articles on file lack relationship and asset disposition language (Op. 18-2876A).
Wyoming: Proposed articles reviewed by the commission satisfy Bylaw 1.5.3.6 and 2016 Res. 902A (Op. 17-2852B).

Agencies lacking the required language in their articles are reminded to continue revising their documents
into compliance with Bylaw 1.5.3.6 and 2016 Res. 9-02A or to apply to the Board of Directors of the Synod
for modification of these provisions with regard to their agencies. The commission asks to be kept apprised
of efforts—including final deposit of amended or restated articles with state governments—so that its report
to the 2019 convention can be as current as possible.
189. Initial Review of North Dakota Board Policy Manual (17-2843) and Eastern District Policy
Governance Manual (17-2807)
By a December 28, 2016, e-mail the president of the Eastern District forwarded his district’s board policy
manual for review. By an August 26, 2017, e-mail the secretary of the North Dakota District forwarded his
district’s board policy manual for review. Having laid these items aside for some time, understanding that
the districts might be contemplating revisions, the commission determined that it was time again to take up
these documents as received, to provide some brief but concrete guidance to these districts—as well as to
others having adopted, to one extent or another, a policy governance model.
Without offering a detailed review of the many provisions of the two manuals, the commission offers two
summary comments that it hopes will be helpful to districts undertaking revision of their policy manuals:
•

The difficulty with using a Policy Governance model in such a committed manner is that it loses
sight of the distinction between the primary responsibilities for the district president (“president”)
vis-à-vis the District Board of Directors (“board”). The balance and dynamic between the president
and the board have both been clearly delineated in the responsibilities and accountability as set
forth in the Synod Bylaws and Article XII of the Synod Constitution. Although it is certainly
appropriate for the board to be concerned with setting policies consistent with the Constitution,
Bylaws and resolutions of Synod and to seek assistance from the district president as chief
executive (Bylaw 4.4.1) to ensure that such are properly executed within the district, this cannot
alter the fact that the primary responsibility for the accomplishment of the board’s duties lies with
the board, regardless of whether the district president has agreed to guide and direct implementation
of the same. (Bylaw 4.4.1 elaborates the district president’s role as “chief executive” in terms of
the execution of resolutions of the district [i.e., district convention], not in terms of the carryingout of board directives or policies, and specifies that he is to report to the district convention [not
to the board].) Moreover, the fact that the district president has agreed to take on this additional
responsibility in no way changes the fact that his primary responsibilities are as an elected officer
representing the Synod in his district (Bylaw 4.4.2) and for the ecclesial supervision of those within
his district and under his charge. The board may establish procedures for evaluating the president’s
performances of activities for responsibilities outside of those set forth in the Synod’s Constitution
and Bylaws; however, such evaluation may in no way address, impair, or interfere with the
CCM Minutes – September 14–15, 2018 – Page 147