To Provide Comment to 2019 Res. 7-03 Committee concerning CUS Governance Model Proposal

WHEREAS, The Synod in convention adopted 2019 Resolution 7- 03 “To Direct a Collaborative Process to Propose a New Governance Plan” with respect to university education; and

WHEREAS, 2019 Res. 7-03 resolved “That the proposed new governance plan specifically address the objectives of 2013 Res. 5- 01A and 2016 Res. 7-02B by continuing to:

• strengthen all CUS institutions’ connection to the Synod;

• strengthen the confessional Lutheran identity of all CUS institutions;

• review the composition, size, and selection of boards of regents;

• review the process for selecting presidents of institutions;

• review the overall governance of CUS and the boards of regents of the CUS institutions;

• review the financial models for the institutions;” and

WHEREAS, 2019 Res. 7-03 further resolved “That a report on the initial governance model proposals be disseminated to the Synod for a six month period of comment commencing not later than 15 months prior to the start of the 2022 convention of the Synod”; and

WHEREAS, At the February 19, 2021 meeting of the Board of Directors (BOD) the board approved dissemination of the initial governance model proposal, setting the stage for the “built-in, six- month period of comment … by the Synod’s congregations, districts and circuits, the universities themselves, and others” (David Strand, “BOD advances new CUS governance model” Reporter Online, March 8, 2021, reporter.lcms.org/2021/bod- advances-new-cus-governance-model); and

WHEREAS, In the report of the Texas District president to the woven “life together” with Concordia University Texas (CTX), while also referencing 2019 Res. 7-03 and the solicitation of feedback from constituents (Texas District 2021 Convention Workbook); and

WHEREAS, The Texas District president further reported that the CTX staff and Board of Regents (BOR) continues to be active in this feedback process; and

WHEREAS, The governance model proposal is a 27-page document of bylaw changes that have been and continue to be reviewed and discussed by the CTX president and BOR, as well as the presidents and BOR of other universities in the CUS; and

WHEREAS, This review has produced affirmations, among them being:

• An appreciation of the hard work that the Resolution 7-03 committee has done to review and evaluate the current structure and bylaws and create a new structure that serves the church and its needs.

• Giving to the boards of regents unfettered authority and responsibility in the business matters of the school (Section A, page 3, lines 15–16).

• Defining the universities as affiliates of the church rather than agencies (Section B).

• Providing an ecclesial accreditation process by which the schools demonstrate their commitment to being and remaining Lutheran (Section C).

• Creating structures and opportunities by which church worker programs at LCMS colleges and universities can be strengthened and sustained (Section D). and

WHEREAS, This review has produced concerns, among them being:

• That while the new governance model allows greater autonomy to universities with respect to “lefthand kingdom” responsibilities, the new bylaws are highly prescriptive and give large measures of control outside the local BOR, particularly the selection of members of the BOR. The concerns for both universities and Synod alike are diminishing any true legal separation and increasing any ascending liability rather than reducing it as intended.

• That the Commission for University Education (CUE) can not only and exclusively remove an BOR member for training deficiencies but can force a local BOR to remove an appointed BOR member for the same.

• That the prior approval panel, with a disproportionate amount of influence by the CUE, creates the list of presidential nominees from which the BOR may select their president versus the BOR creating and narrowing a list of nominees to be vetted and approved by the prior approval panel.

• That the Synod BOD, in consultation with the CUE, can specify, amend, or rescind the benefits of affiliation from time to time without the consultation of the local BOR, creating an unclear future for universities legally, financially, strategically, and mission ally, and doing the same to students themselves.

• That the CUE’s decisions regarding accreditation with respect to Lutheran identity and mission outcome standards may not be appealed. Regional (secular) ac creditors all have an appeal process in place that is outlined and known. and

WHEREAS, This review has produced questions, among them being:

• How might the reality of today’s students and the schools as a mission field be more prominent and celebrated in the

Preamble and throughout?

• It appears that the workload of the CUE is even greater than the CUS. Howwill that work be resourced?What will beany added costs to the church and/or schools over time? What is meant by “direct costs” in terms of accreditation visits and board training?

• What happens when the CUS is dissolved? What entities would retain any remaining assets or liabilities? How will all of the endowment funds currently overseen by the CUS be managed? As members of the CUS, would the schools now be liable for any debt that might remain? What are the legal implications of dissolving the CUS?

• What is the difference between being accredited and affiliated? Can a university be affiliated and not accredited?

• While an institution is on probation for up to five years, it can no longer certify graduates for placement on the Synod roster. How do those students become certified for placement? Additionally, while a church work program is on probation for up to three years, would students within the program need to transfer to a Concordia with an accredited program? and

WHEREAS, The Governance and Administration Floor Committee for the 2021 Texas District Convention made an initial assessment of the CUS Governance Model Proposal to foster feedback and comment to the 2019 Res. 7-03 committee as requested of districts; and

WHEREAS, Previous complex proposals involving many changes to Synod bylaws have benefitted from the information-sharing and consensus-building that occurs when those proposals are widely discussed across the Synod (the proposals of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance [BRTFSSG] discussed in regional conferences prior to being acted upon at the 2010 Synod convention being a recent example); therefore be it

Resolved, That the Texas District in convention submit the previously stated affirmations, concerns, and questions to the 2019 Resolution 7-03 Committee; and be it further

Resolved, That the Texas District recommends to the Resolution 7-03 Committee that a process for Synod-wide introduction to, discussion of, and consensus concerning these significant changes be designed and implemented by the Synod BOD, with the concurrence of the Council of Presidents, to be completed no later than six months prior to the convention of the Synod during which these proposals will be considered, using the regional conferences held by the BRTFSSG as a model; and be it further

Resolved, That this resolution should also constitute an overture from the Texas District in convention to the 2023 Synod Convention to further study and/or amend the 2019 Res. 7-03 CUS Governance Model Proposal; and be it finally

Resolved, That congregations and circuits also be encouraged to submit comments to the Res. 7-03 Committee.