LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — December 14, 1989, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

In responding to the question presented by the Commission on Adjudication relative to Bylaw
8.07,b, an identification of the entity which determines whether a person has forfeited his rights
under that bylaw provision, the Commission on Constitutional Matters notes first that the
Commission on Adjudication does not have the right to adjudicate the question of whether the
right has been forfeited unless the respondent raises the issue. It cannot raise the issue on its own
initiative because this would deprive the respondent of the right to adjudication before the church.
The Commission would further note that the emphasis in the bylaw is on when the issue is to be
decided not who has the right to do so. Since the determination of forfeiture involves a matter
which is one of fact, it is a matter for determination of issue by the Commission on Adjudication,
not by the Commission on Constitutional Matters which is not responsible for the determination
of fact.
13. Legality of Board of Regents Meeting (Ag. 1875) : Dr. Norbert Mueller, acting president of
Concordia Theological Seminary, had stated that a person elected to the Board of Regents of the seminary
but not assuming office until after September 24, 1989, had objected to a meeting held by the Board of
Regents of the seminary on September 18. In a letter to the acting president, this member had stated,
This is to inform you that, as a new member of the Board of Regents, I will not go along with the
actions taken by the old board in its conference call meeting of September 18, 1989. In my
opinion, the meeting was illegal both because the new members were not informed and included
(Handbook Bylaw 3.67,e) and because proper notification was not sent out regarding the agenda.
Dr. Mueller stated that whereas it is true that the new members were not informed and included, it
was not true that notification of what the agenda would be was not supplied to the members of the
board. The question being asked was whether the actions taken by the Board of Regents in the
meeting of September 18, 1989, were valid even though the new members had not been informed
or included. The Commission ratified a response which had been sent by the Secretary of the
Commission to Dr. Mueller on November 10, 1989. The response stated:
Inclusion of newly elected board members in meetings held in the interim between the
election of those board members and their assumption of office is, according to Bylaw
3.67,e, for the purpose of helping them "to become acquainted with their new
responsibilities and functions." They are specifically not accorded vote. Consequently, as
to legality, it makes no difference whether or not such newly elected members agree to
(“go along with") the decisions of the "old" board. Until the newly elected members
assume office, the old board has the authority and responsibility of the Board of Regents
as identified in the Bylaws.
The Commission further notes that the actions of a majority of Board of Regents members are binding
even if one or more members do not "go along" with it.
14. Eligibility of Teachers for Pastoral Colloquy (Ag. 1876) : Dr. Mueller, the acting president of
Concordia Theological Seminary, had asked a question regarding eligibility for the pastoral colloquy
under new provisions adopted at the Wichita convention. The question asked was "does the new
eligibility open for 'communicant members in good standing of a synodical congregation who are mature
and have long years of experience in church work and have graduated from an accredited college
supercede 6.912, page 115 of the current Handbook, which says 'graduates of Synod's colleges, whose
names appear on the roster of the Synod as commissioned minister of the Synod, and who have had at
least ten years of successful experience as commissioned ministers of the Synod and are communicant
members in good standing of a congregation of the Synod." The question was prompted by the fact that a
new man who is currently enrolled in the M.Div. program because of the new provisions opening up