LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 18, 1998, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Once the Praesidium has issued a decision on an appeal, does this end the matter, or may the appellant
protest the decision and gain a reversal?
Responding to the question, the Commission offered the following opinion:
You have asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters whether a decision by the Praesidium under
Bylaw 2.27, b, can be reversed by a further appeal. The answer is: no.
Bylaw 2.27, b, states: "If after investigation the Praesidium concludes that the facts form a basis for
expulsion of the member under Article XIII of the Constitution, the Praesidium shall proceed in the
same fashion as hereafter required of the District President. If the Praesidium determines not to
proceed, it shall in writing so inform the complainant and the involved member, which shall terminate
the matter." This bylaw is very clear. If the Praesidium decides to proceed, the procedure it is to follow
is stated. If, on the other hand, the Praesidium decides not to proceed, the matter is concluded and
cannot be revived by any further appeal. It is terminated.
Should further allegations be made by the complainant against the same involved member, a
determination would first have to be made as to whether the new allegations are a restatement of the
former charges. If they are, the complainant is to be so advised and no further action is to be taken since
that matter is terminated. However, if the further allegations raise new issues not previously considered,
it is a new matter and is to be processed as such under Bylaw 2.27. The decision as to whether the
further allegations are a restatement of the former charges or are new charges can be appealed under the
Synod's dispute resolution procedures set forth in Chapter VIII of the Bylaws of the Synod.
This letter had also previously been reviewed by the Commission and sent and was now ratified.
141. Reduction in Force (Ag. 2093): The following questions had been posed to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters for an opinion:
1. Is Bylaw 6.44, a, violated if faculty positions are terminated under a RIF policy based on a rating of a
particular professor's contribution to the institution? ("Contribution to the institution" cannot, in my
opinion, be distinguished in practice from the standards of "competency and faithfulness," which is
the language of 6.44, a.)
2. Are Bylaw 6.44, c, or 6.44, e, violated if full-time faculty positions are terminated under a RIF policy
and then replaced with part-time, adjunct faculty positions in the same academic field?
3. Are Bylaws 6.44, c, or 6.44, e, violated if a college transforms its full-time staffing of a particular
academic field to part-time, adjunct staffing under a RIF policy, but does not offer the former fulltime faculty member the new part-time, adjunct courses, as many courses as are available and for
which he or she is eligible to teach?
The questioner had also stated that he was not seeking, and would ignore, an unofficial, personal opinion of
the synodical Secretary. In reply, the Commission stated the following:
The Commission on Constitutional Matters has carefully considered your request for an opinion
regarding issues relating to action involving reduction in force and has reached the following
conclusions:
1. In response to your first question, the opinion of the Commission is that it does not agree that
"contribution to the institution" cannot be distinguished in practice from "competency and