LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — March 17-18, 1989, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

140. Removal of Tenured Faculty Members, Not for Cause (Ag. 1840, A, B; Mins. 118, 133) :: It was
suggested that President Ralph Reinke of Concordia Teachers College, Seward, Nebraska, be contacted
regarding the possibility of forwarding an overture relative to removal of tenured faculty members for
reasons other than malfeasance, for example, financial exigency. The Secretary noted that the Board for
Higher Education Services is proposing bylaws which would cover this matter.
141. Release of Minutes (Ag. 1852) : The Secretary of the Board of Regents of Concordia College, St.
Paul, Minnesota, had requested an opinion regarding the matter of the release of minutes of the Board of
Regents. Specific questions raised were the following:
1. Is the Board of Regents considered a program board?
2. Under what conditions can copies of minutes of regular meetings, special meetings and
executive meetings be released by the Secretary of the Board of Regents?
3. Do the minutes have to be approved before they can be released?
In response to these questions, the Commission responded that on the basis of 3.51 a, a program board is
an officially established group of elected persons charged with policy making and evaluative
responsibilities for a programmatic function of the Synod and that definition fits a board of regents. The
Board of Regents is therefore considered a program board. With regard to the second question, the
Commission noted that on the basis of 3.69 1, a copy of regular and special meetings is to be made
available upon request. The Commission did note that the section contains a caveat with regard to
executive sessions. It is the opinion of the Commission that while discussions leading up to decisions may
take place in executive session and that such discussion as recorded need not be released, no actual
decisions can be made in executive sessions.
Responding to the third question, the Commission concluded that the minutes need not be approved
before they can be released but that if they are, it should be indicated that they must still be approved.
142. Applicability of Bylaw 8.35 to Charge of False Doctrine (Ag. 1853) : The Commission was
notified by a member of a synodical faculty that he had been informed that a pastor intended to formally
charge him with false doctrine on the basis of the content of an article which he had written for InterConnections, a campus ministry publication of the Synod. He had also been informed that the pastor
would be using Bylaw 8.35 to establish jurisdiction in the matter. The faculty member indicated that since
he was a member of a synodical college faculty, it was his view that Bylaw 6.47 sets forth the appropriate
procedure for addressing the pastor's concerns. The Commission was requested to determine which
jurisdiction and procedure was proper in the case.
Responding, the Commission noted that jurisdictional determinations were, in the first instance, not
within the authority of the Commission on Constitutional Matters. It would not be possible to make a
prospective determination on the basis of the information before the Commission. The resolution of
disputed issues of jurisdiction, namely whether a matter is to be considered by a district or a synodical
Commission on Adjudication, is, of course reserved to the Commission on Appeals under Bylaw 8.37. At
this juncture, the Commission on Constitutional Matters would note that the procedures called for in
Bylaw 8.05 pursuant to which the resolution of all controversies must begin, has, on the basis of
information available to the Commission, not even been initiated. The Commission is clearly of the
opinion that these must first be followed. Since this does not appear to have been the case, the
Commission believes that it is inappropriate at this time to provide an opinion to the question which is
speculative.