LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 25, 1997, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

authority suggested that the President had considerable power to act under the provisions of Bylaws 3.101,
h, and 3.103, c. The same provisions also establish constraints in the exercise of that power.
Additional restraints on executive authority also rest directly with the Board of Directors of Synod. Article
XI, F, 2, states the "voting members of the Board of Directors are the legal representatives of the Synod and
the custodians of all property of the Synod, and upon them are incumbent the general management and
supervision of all the business affairs of the Synod."
Bylaw 3.191, c, vests the synodical Board of Directors with "the general management and supervision of
the Synod's business . . . " Bylaw 3.191, e, states that the Board of Directors "shall receive periodic reports
on the operations of the various synod wide corporations, councils, boards, commissions, and departments
and shall have the right to call up for review, criticism or suggestion any policy of a corporation, council,
board, or commission of the Synod."
The Board of Directors has the authority under the Constitution and Bylaws to review governing documents
or policies as it chooses. If, in its judgment, the Board of Directors approved written policies of the Board
for Communication Services as being compatible with the Constitution and Bylaws, it would have the
power to limit the actions of a President who attempted censoring the publications of the BCS.
Having said this, the Commission is concerned that executive power not be exercised to the extent that it
deprives the members of the Synod of the benefit of receiving various points of views, having access to
general church news of interest to the Synod, or deprives an accused individual of the right of defense. The
history surrounding the founding of the Synod provides adequate evidence for such concern. If it is believed
by a member or members that this is occurring, the remedy is identified above.
The better approach, an alternative to censorship, would be a discussion of the rationale for including or not
including certain letters to the editor on a given subject, publication of articles on such subject, or that a
notice be printed in a specific form. It is assumed that all parties involved are concerned about the welfare
of the Church and that in most, if not all, cases agreement can be reached regarding the printing of certain
materials.
Prohibiting or directing items for publication in the official periodicals of the Synod should be done by the
President of the Synod only in exceptional circumstances. The official periodicals of the Synod are just that,
official periodicals of the Synod. They are not an unaffiliated publication with no allegiance to any church
body. Yet, Bylaw 12.01 indicates what the Synod expects of its official periodicals. Any limitation on such
expectations through an exercise of executive power should be done only on those occasions when the
affairs of the Synod so require. It is hoped that the President and those charged with the responsibility of
publishing the official periodicals of the Synod would engage in dialog regarding those occasions when the
President deems it necessary to exercise his executive power. As provided in Bylaw 3.103, c, an appeal
from what is deemed to be an inappropriate exercise of executive power by the President may be made to a
convention of the Synod.
119. Response to District President (Ag. 2077): The President of the Central Illinois District had
forwarded a letter in which he expressed his disagreement with and concern for an opinion which had been
provided by the Commission on Constitutional Matters with respect to a pastor who had been suspended by
the District President. Chairman Tesch had provided a response which clarified the functions of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters. These functions are often misunderstood when individuals believe
that the Commission is responsible for the determination of facts or that the Commission must make its
decisions on the basis of specific situations which exist rather than on the basis of the provisions of the
Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod. The Commission agreed with the response which had
been provided.