LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — May 4-5, 1972, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

transmitted by Rev. Charles Jones of Chicago, was postponed by common consent until it would be
possible to hear Dr. William Kohn on this matter.
131. Pagel Reinstatement (Ag. 331): President Stanfel of the Ontario District inquired whether a District
President could reinstate after an interval of time into the clergy a man who was declared ineligible and
had his appeal denied both on the District and synodical levels with the stipulation that the decision of the
Board of Appeals would be final. After considerable discussion the Commission ruled that the District
President has the necessity to make the decision in harmony with Bylaw 3.51 and that the action of the
Board of Appeals does not preclude the possibility of reinstatement, although its action may well be
considered by the President.
132. Length of Board for Higher Education Terms (Ag. 295): The Board for Higher Education had asked
the Commission to reverse its earlier ruling that the terms of those appointed at this time should be for
two (2) years to enable the entire board to become an elected board at the New Orleans convention. The
Commission acceded to this request and adopted a communication (attached to the Minutes) ruling that
the appointments are to be for four (4) years.
133. Presidential Authority Re Board Decisions (Ag. 330): The New York State Pastoral Conference had
submitted a resolution asking the CCM to rule, and to publish its ruling, on the following questions:
1.

Does the duty of the President of the Synod to supervise the doctrine and the
administration of the Synod as outlined in the Constitution, Article XI a. b. and Bylaw
2.27, give the President the authority and power to alter, cancel, reverse, or nullify a
decision of the Board of Control of one of the Synod's colleges or seminaries, or the
decision of any other board of the Synod?

2.

May the President by executive order cause an administrative employee of the Synod to
take an action which is in conflict with a decision of the board to which the employee is
responsible?

This item was considered in connection with the next mentioned in the Minutes (134). It was finally
resolved, with the understanding that the Secretary could improve the wording, to inform the conference:
"Several studies related to these questions have been received or are underway. In due time the
Commission may issue a detailed statement which hopefully might also cover your concerns. If not, the
Commission will once again take up your request."
134. Further Stud of Presidential Authority (Ag. 324, 330, 335 A, B, C, D, E, 336): Rev. Louis Rush had
submitted a document "Government in the Missouri Synod" (Ag. 324). See also the New York Pastoral
Conference request above (Ag. 330). President John Tietjen Od asked (Ag. 336) that the Commission not
rule on this issue until he or other college presidents had been able to submit their views. Several other
documents bearing on this matter were distributed: "The Exercise of the Supervisory Power of the
Synodical President" (Ag. 335 A), "Critique of Rush Paper" (Ag. 335 B), "To What Extent Do Bylaws
...Abrogate the Constitutional Authority...?" (Ag. 335 C), "Some Historical Sidelights" (Ag. 335 D), and
"District Presidential Power Is Untouchable" (Ag. 335 E). By common consent the Commission agreed to
devote most of its time at a July 21 - 23 meeting to this issue and to authorize the chairman and secretary
to determine from which persons to seek papers or personal presentations. Suggestions made included:
Preus, Tietjen, Suelflow, Harms (in person); Ahlschwede, Suelflow, Zimmermann, Niedner, Goetz,
Streufert, Wessler, E. J. Friedrich, Wolbrecht, Kuhlmann, Wollenburg, Scherer (papers). Questions which
might be explored include: Too much presidential power? Too little? How to be exercised? Any
constitutional or bylaw amendments? Collegiality? How to be structured on both synodical (District
presidents consulted) and on District (Counselors consulted) level?