LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — October 26, 2000, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

opinion provided by the Commission to the board’s earlier questions and had “taken his arguments to the
Office of the President of the Synod,” who in turn “suggested that we return to you for clarity in this
matter.” Accordingly, the Chairman on behalf of the Board of Regents addressed two additional questions
(questions 2 and 3 below) to the Commission.
QUESTION 1:

“When a university board of regents “receives a complaint against a member of
that institution’s faculty or administration concerning any matter, including those
specified under Bylaw 6.43, c, 1-6” (Bylaw 6.47, a), may the board of regents
choose not to follow the requirements of Bylaw 6.47?”

Opinion: Bylaw 6.47 requires a Board of Regents to follow the prescribed procedure when it receives a
complaint against a member of that institution’s faculty or administration concerning any matter. Thus the
answer to the question is “no.” There are no exceptions. The prescribed procedure of Bylaw 6.47 must be
followed in every instance.
QUESTION 2: “Does the wording of Bylaw 6.47, a (“If the Board of Regents receives a complaint
against a member of that institution’s faculty or administration concerning any
matter…” [emphasis added]) mean that anyone can charge any faculty member
or administrator with anything and demand that the procedures of the bylaw be
set in motion? Or are there charges which by their nature under civil law or
Synodical bylaw are excluded from further consideration?”
Opinion: See the Opinion to Question 1 above. Any complaint from any person requires that the
procedure set forth in Bylaw 6.47 be followed by a Board of Regents.
QUESTION 3:

“In view of the Commission’s ruling of 28 July 1999, may an individual involved
in the recommendation of a faculty member for appointment be lawfully charged
under Bylaw 6.47 for his/her role in the recommendation process?”

Opinion: Bylaw 6.23 establishes the following described procedure for the appointment of full time
members of the faculty of a synodical educational institution:
1) The appointment must be recommended by the president of the institution.
2) The candidate must meet theological and professional competency standards established by
the Board for Higher Education (BHE).

3) If it is an initial appointment to the faculty of a seminary or to a faculty of a college/university
theological faculty, the appointment must have the prior approval of the BHE.
4) All other initial appointments shall include a thorough theological review involving the District
President and selected members of the Board of Regents.
5) The terms of the proposed appointment must be set forth in writing and be in the possession of
both the institution and the prospective faculty member prior to the appointment.
6) When the prior five requirements have been met, the proposed appointment must be
considered by the Board of Regents and then be approved by vote of the Board of Regents.
As answered previously, Bylaw 6.47 states that a complaint by any person concerning any matter must be
handled in the manner set forth in the bylaw. Therefore, a complaint regarding the actions of a party
involved in the recommendation process who is a member of that institution’s faculty or administration
183