LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 22-23, 1991, Page 1

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Minutes of the Commission on Constitutional Matters - February 22-23, 1991
55. Board of Regents Election (Ag. 1896,B,C): The Commission had previously received requests for
an opinion regarding the eligibility of Board of Regents members elected by the Board of Regents itself to
participate in elections for their successors. A member of the Board of Regents who disagreed with the
opinion of the Commission as well as with the forwarding of the request for an opinion by an individual
member of that board, had written and indicated his displeasure. In response to his objections, the
Secretary had indicated that when the Commission receives a request for an interpretation of Bylaws, it
takes Bylaw 3.533,d seriously and believes that when it receives a legitimate request from a member of
the Synod, it is obligated to respond. Furthermore, the person making the request had not indicated that he
was a member of the Board of Regents, a circumstance which would have made little difference since he
was a member of the Synod. In addition, it was pointed out that the Commission responds to questions in
the abstract. If the situation which gave rise to the questions which were forwarded was not accurately
described, the Commission stated that it did not believe it was its responsibility to determine that. It
merely interprets the Bylaws and applies them to the situation presented. If a challenge is raised on the
basis of facts, it is the responsibility of Commission on Adjudication or the Commission on Appeals to
determine those facts. Finally, it was noted that if the matter of board confidentiality was a concern it was
one with which the board itself would have to deal if it felt that a member of the board had acted
improperly.
Following that response, the Secretary of the Board of Regents of Concordia College, Seward, had
forwarded the following questions for consideration by the Commission:
The Bylaws (3.55) state that "a Board of Regents for each educational institution shall be ... elected
by the convention of the Synod." In light of this bylaw, we request an answer to the following:
1. Does this bylaw conflict with Bylaw 6.01 which states, that one member of the Board of
Regents shall be "the President of the district in which the college is located or a district vice
president as his standing representative ...?
2. Does this bylaw conflict with 6.01,b,2, which declares that a membership shall include (3)
persons "elected by the geographical district in which the institution is located"?
3. Does this bylaw conflict with 6.01,b,3, which specifies that the membership shall include "two
lay persons elected by the Board of Regents"?
4 Is there a conflict between 3.55 and 6.01,b,3 if those who vote for the election of the abovementioned lay persons which are elected by the Board of Regents were not themselves elected at
a convention of the Synod or of one of its districts?
In response, the Commission decided to reply as follows:
The bylaw statements referred to in questions 1-4 could be interpreted as being in conflict with Bylaw
6.01. By adopting them, however, it appears the Synod did not view them as such. Rather, they
viewed Bylaw 6.01,b,2,3 as being authority delegated by the Synod to the district and the Board of
Regents.
Since the Bylaws can be harmonized in the above manner, there need not necessarily be a conflict.
This does not preclude the idea that the Bylaws might well be modified in order to eliminate the
possible thought of conflict between then.