Collection › LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1990–1994 › Page 7
LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 30, 1990, Page 7
Source: LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters minutes, file copy
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
ranking? I don't think that is what is meant but, if it is, my suggested wording change would not
be appropriate.
45. Protection and Discipline Certified Church Workers-Lay (Ag. 1901) : The Clergy Call and Roster
Committee of the Council of Presidents had noted that as a result of resolutions adopted at the 1989
convention, certified church workers are now to be placed by the Council of Presidents and are to be
under their supervision. The Bylaws do not presently indicate how discipline is to be carried out by
district presidents with regard to such certified church workers, nor does it provide for their eligibility to
utilize the provisions of Chapter VIII on reconciliation, adjudication and appeal. The Commission on
Constitutional Matters noted that it had the responsibility for revising the synodical Handbook
immediately after each convention of the Synod to bring it into harmony with the resolutions or changes
adopted by the convention, Bylaw 3.533,c. Although no bylaw changes have been made, the Commission
concludes that on the basis of Article 111, 9 of the Constitution. of the Synod, which states that one of the
objectives of the Synod is to "provide protection for congregations, pastors, teachers, and other church
workers in the performance of their official duties and the maintenance of their rights," certified church
workers should have access to rights granted under the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws of the
Synod. It will be asking that the proper amendments to the Bylaws be proposed for the 1992 synodical
convention in order to deal with this issue.
46. Access to Board of Regents Minutes (Min. 89, 141) : The President of Concordia Lutheran College,
Austin, had asked whether the Board of Regents of the college is considered to be a program board
subject to Bylaw 3.69,k, which states that, "Program boards shall make available upon request and at a
reasonable price a verbatim copy of the minutes of their meetings except for their executive sessions."
The Commission notes that it has previously decided this question and reaffirms its opinion which states,
"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." The
Secretary was asked to provide a copy of the minutes containing that opinion to the President of the
college in order to respond to his question.
47. Adjournment : The meeting of the Commission was adjourned with prayer led by Judge Groh.
Walter L. Rosin, Secretary
Minutes of the Commission on Constitutional Matters - November 9, 1990
48. Opening Devotion : The meeting was begun with prayer led by Chairman Gene Schnelz.
49. Voting Rights of Board of Regents Members (Ag. 1896,A) : At a previous meeting, the
Commission had dealt with a question pertaining to the voting rights of boards of regents members as
these pertained to the filling of positions on the board by board of regents members themselves in
accordance with the Bylaws. The question was asked a's to whether those whose terms had been
completed could vote for themselves or their successors in filling these, positions. The Commission had
previously stated that "None of the board of regents are appointed, and the district president is not elected
to the board but is an ex-officio member." It had also stated that "there is no bylaw preventing the
incumbent board of regents members previously elected by the Board of Regents from voting for their
successors. The synodical Handbook is silent on the matter." In spite of this decision by the Commission
which had been forwarded to the Board of Regents, the Board of Regents determined not to allow two
men to vote for their successors. It was felt that the ruling which had been provided was not clear and