LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — December 11-12, 2000, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

As noted above, see CCM opinion 00-2193.
4. Page 9, lines 30-33
How is this being handled now, and how can it be enforced?
The COP will want to direct this question to the Board for Higher Education.
5. Bylaw references will be added to all pertinent sections of the document.
The Commission agrees with this expectation.
187. Questions Re Board for Higher Education Agenda Items (00-2218)
In a letter dated November 28, 2000, a parish pastor addressed a series of questions to the Commission
regarding specific proposals being considered by the Board for Higher Education of the Synod, requesting
that the Commission respond by mid-January, 2001. After preliminary discussion of the questions, the
Commission decided to delay a response to allow time for further research.
188. Review of Proposed Income Management Concept (00-2219)
The Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Synod requested that the Commission review a proposed
income management concept currently being discussed by the Board. One facet of this concept places the
LCMS National Office including the Office of the President into the following income management
category: “LCMS National Office will not accept restricted gifts for areas, products or services unless they
are approved prospectively by the LCMS Board of Directors.” The question addressed to the Commission is
as follows:
QUESTION: Does the proposed policy that is currently being discussed properly regard the
division of powers and responsibilities established by the Synod’s Constitution and
Bylaws?
Opinion: The Commission on Constitutional Matters reviewed information from the Board of Directors
regarding a proposed Income Management Policy. The CCM recognizes that good stewardship requires
prudent management of income and expenditures, which requires management of the sources and uses of
funds, both general and restricted. The CCM observes that our Synod’s structure differs from a
conventional business in that the Board of Directors is charged with managing the temporal affairs of the
church, whereas the Synod’s President is charged with overseeing the spiritual or ecclesiastical affairs of
the church. The CCM expresses its concern that the proposed rules and policies for income management
are too rigid to work successfully within this temporal/ecclesiastical distinction, and observes that to require
that Synod’s President refuse gifts of restricted funds to be used for ecclesiastical purposes unless he has the
prior consent of the Board of Directors would raise questions about the division of responsibilities
established by the Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws. The CCM opines that this division of responsibility
would be better administered through a process of communication and cooperation between the President
and the Board of Directors where the President would consult with the Board of Directors regarding the use
and administration of restricted gifts, but would not be inflexibly required to obtain prior Board of Directors
approval to receive and spend such funds.
189. Clarification re Composition of Boards of Regents (00-2220)

195