LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 21-22, 1973, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINION RE APPLICABILITY OF BYLAW 6.79
(Procedures for Exercising Board Supervision)
The Board of Control of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, has submitted to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters a "Statement of Facts" in which it raises three questions:
1.

Whether 6.79 applies to the president of Concordia Seminary as president?

2.

Whether 6.79 authorizes suspending the president as-president or whether such suspending is
limited only to teaching duties?

3.

If either or both of the above are answered affirmatively, was 6.79 properly followed?

It is contended that Bylaw 6.79 cannot apply to the president of a synodical college or seminary. It
is argued that the Board of Control may suspend a faculty member only "from his teaching duties." Since
in several instances the president teaches no courses, it is claimed that the bylaw cannot be applied to him,
or, at best, can be applied only to his teaching function and not to his position or functions as president of
the institution.
It is also asserted that the requirements of Bylaw 6.79 were not properly fulfilled. h timetable in
support of this assertion has becn supplied in the "Statement of Facts."
I
In answer to the first and second questions raised by the Board of Control the Commission on
Constitutional Matters replies as follows:
1.

The Commission on Constitutional Matters calls attention to the fact that the entire Bylaw
6.79 was formulated at one time and adopted by the Synod at one time. It does not represent a
patch-work procedure. Therefore,. one may expect an inner unity among all sub-paragraphs
of Bylaw 6.79 which governs "Procedures' for Exercising Board Supervision" at the
seminaries and colleges of the Synod when accusations are brought against .faculty members.

2.

That Bylaw 6.79 does include the president of every institution. in its scope is clear from the
statement of paragraph b: "Charges against the president of the institution shall be dealt with
by .he chairman of the Board of Control."

3.

In the light of this fact, the statement of paragraph d, "... the Board may suspend the faculty
member from his teaching duties" must be looked upon in its widest context. The principal
duty of a faculty member is ordinarily thought of :as being one of teaching. There are
instances, however, when faculty members assume an administrative position on a part time
or even full time basis. When they accept such positions, they are not exempt from the
synodical regulations governing faculty members as long as they remain members of the
faculty. It would seem somewhat cumbersome for the bylaws constantly to enlarge upon all
the various aspects in which a faculty member might be serving.
4.

That the interpretation given above is valid is substantiated also by paragraph k,
Bylaw 6.79. There it is stated explicitly that a faculty member is removed not
simply from his teaching activity but from the faculty. There it is also stated that
lie is to be notified that his "appointment to the faculty is being terminated."