LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — undated, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

added language is not explained in the draft document as a change intended to have substantive impact on
the Bylaws, yet it opens a new avenue for establishing a right of appeal from a Board of Regents'
determination in a discipline matter—an avenue which, if established by policy and procedure separate and
apart from the Bylaws, would be created by an entity other than the Synod's convention.
These examples were noted after such review as has been possible in the short time this latest draft of the
Proposed Handbook has been available. The CCM receives many requests for interpretation of the existing
Bylaws of the Synod, which have been more or less in their present form for many years. While some of
these questions no doubt result from the lack of clarity that the Commission on Structure sought to address,
it appears clear from the review that has been possible by the CCM to date that the proposed Handbook is
likely to lead to many more questions of interpretation from such language changes.
III. Format of the Proposed Handbook
The proposed Handbook has been presented in a dual format, with the entire language of the proposed
version printed in the front and the existing Bylaws, with proposed changes, in the rear. Although the
proposed changes are shown in "red-line strike-out" typography in the portion showing the existing Bylaws,
the proposed Bylaws contain only references to the source of each section, without showing what deletions
and additions that were made to the prior bylaw when it was moved. This makes it very difficult to compare
and contrast the proposed and existing Bylaws. Given the impact of subtle changes in language illustrated
above, a careful evaluation of the proposed Bylaws is not possible given the format of the proposal and the
time available to carry out the evaluation. The analysis of the proposed Bylaws would be greatly aided if the
draft had red-line strike-out annotation similar to what was done in the case of the existing Bylaws.
207. Question re Terms of Office of University Regents (01-2230)
A question was presented to the Commission during the 2001 convention of the Synod regarding the
elections for the Board of Regents of Concordia University, Selma at the 1998 convention.
Question: Were the regents elected at the 1998 convention elected to three-year or six-year terms?
Opinion: The Commission makes the following observations:
(1) The election in question was reported in session 9, July 16, 1998, of the convention
(see page 35 of the 1998 convention Proceedings).
(2) Resolution 5-06, which amended Bylaw 6.01 by changing the term of office of elected
regents from three years to six years, was adopted in session 10, July 16, 1998, of the
convention. This resolution was therefore adopted after the election in question was
finalized.
(3) The convention’s parliamentarian has ruled that bylaw changes take effect immediately
upon passage.
(4) Therefore the change in term of office of regents from three years to six years did not
occur until after the Concordia, Selma board election was finalized.
Based upon this information, the regent who presented the question was elected to a three-year term of
office. The Commission notes that a footnote on page 43 of the Synod’s 1998 Handbook, commenting upon
Bylaw 3.59, indicates that “Six-year terms for elected Board of Regents members for colleges and
universities will take effect at the next elections” [i.e., at the 2001 synodical convention]. Based upon the
chronology set forth above, this footnote is correct.
208. Question re Presidential Appointments (01-2231)

207