LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 19-20, 1996, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

quite understandably, some special responsibility with regard to an institution to which they are
more intimately related than anyone else. The president of any district more removed, on the other
hand, sits on the board of a seminary purely by virtue of his election by the Council of Presidents,
which has no rationale to be involved, even indirectly, in the election of the president of a seminary.
1.

Bylaw 6.11, f, of the synodical Handbook gives one of the four votes in the election of the
president of any synodical college or seminary, not to "the district president," but rather to "the
President of the synodical District," which is a phrase much less capable of being understood of any
president other than president of the synodical district in which the institution is located. Whereas
"the district president" who is a member of a Board of Regents is rightly excluded by this bylaw
from voting with the Board of Regents in electing the president of any synodical college or
seminary (in the case of a seminary by virtue of points 5 and 6 enunciated above), the phrase "the
President of the synodical District" is the verbal and real parallel of "the President of the
geographical District in which the seminary is located" in Bylaw 6.01, a, 3, of the synodical
Handbook in the same chapter on "Colleges and Seminaries."

The Secretary of the Commission had provided a response to each of the items as follows:
1.

Prior to 1992 the "President of the synodical District" meant the District President of the
synodical district in which the institution was located because that President was a member of the
Board of Regents of each institution, including the seminaries. After 1992 that was no longer true
with respect to the seminaries.

1.

The phrase was so understood in connection with the election of the Concordia, River Forest,
President because in the case of all colleges and universities of the Synod, the District President
who serves on the Board of Regents is the President of the district in which the institution is
located.

1.

We have no record of a response from the committee chairman which indicates that the
committee did not intend to make the change in regard to the election of a seminary president. Even
if we did, it would not change the meaning of the words or support the fact that such was the
understanding of the convention delegates.

1.

The overture proposed by the Board for Higher Education but not acted on by the convention was
simply meant to clarify the Bylaws and have them conform to the opinion issued by the
Commission on Constitutional Matters, an opinion which is binding since it was not overturned by
a convention.

1.

One of the reasons for the change was the fact that a District President who has ecclesiastical
supervision should not be placed in a position where he, as a member of the Board of Regents,
would already have made certain decisions which would affect his role and judgment as the
ecclesiastical supervisor.

1.

It must be remembered that the seminaries are more synod wide institutions than the colleges and
universities which are more closely aligned to the districts in which they are located. This was one
of the reasons for the change adopted in 1992. In addition, this view is supported by the fact that
districts elect certain members to college and university boards of regents. This is not the case with
seminary boards of regents where all members are elected by the national convention.

1.

The rationale provided by the Commission on Constitutional Matters deals with point 7 of your
rationale.