LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 1–2, 2019, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

any person connected with an institution who is a member of Synod shall also remain
under the ecclesiastical supervision of the Synod, and nothing in any such CUS
institution policy shall be construed to limit or constrain any action that may be taken,
or the rights or responsibilities of any party, pursuant to the Synod’s Handbook with
respect to a member of Synod.
13. Shared Concordia University President (19-2924)
The chairman of a board of regents of a Concordia college or university inquired of the commission whether
two Concordia colleges / universities could, while remaining distinct institutions and agencies of the Synod,
be served simultaneously by the same president.
Opinion:
The commission does not find such a dual call to be contraindicated by the Constitution or
Bylaws of the Synod, provided that the calls extended by both schools are compatible with such an
arrangement and the respective boards of regents, both of which must approve the arrangement, are able to
satisfy themselves that the duties of a college or university president, to serve as “spiritual, academic, and
administrative head of the institution” as further delineated in Bylaw 3.10.6.6, are adequately provided for
at both institutions.
The Concordia University System (CUS) also has authority with respect to Synod’s colleges and
universities, especially with respect to their coordination (Bylaw 3.6.6.1), and a key role in arranging for
their presidential transitions. While this particular circumstance is not directly contemplated in the bylaws,
the import of such an arrangement to the governance of two of the System’s schools would require that it
be undertaken only in close consultation with CUS. The provisions of Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2, regarding the
selection of a college/university president, including the process for prior approval, would be fully
applicable to the process for each institution. If such a possibility is contemplated, the transition review
(Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2 [a]) and boards of regents’ definition of the institution’s needs and evaluation of
characteristics of a sought-after president (Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2 [b]) would need to address its impact, in
comparison with the customary alternative.
14. Adjournment and Upcoming Meetings
Noting a relative lack of pressing business, though it expects to begin to see district bylaw changes for
review as the district convention season draws nearer, the commission did not schedule an in-person
meeting for the winter or early spring. The commission will be able to meet by internet conference or to
schedule an in-person meeting if business requires.
The commission has already set a meeting for April 24–25, 2020, meeting Saturday morning and for lunch
with the Council of Presidents. A possible substantive topic for discussion (among others) might be review
of the dispute resolution and suspension panel procedures. The commission noted that it awaits the council’s
appointment of committee members for the study of Synod voting privilege requested by the convention
(2019 Res. 9-17).
The commission set July 31–Aug. 1, 2020, as a tentative date for its summer meeting.
With its agenda for the present meeting concluded, the commission adjourned at 11:30 a.m. Saturday.
John W. Sias, Secretary

CCM Minutes – November 1–2, 2019 – Page 6