To Suspend Recommendations of 2019 Res. 7-03 Committee

WHEREAS, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) in convention adopted 2019 Resolution 7-03, “To Direct a Collaborative Process to Propose a New Governance Plan,” with respect to the Concordia University System (CUS); 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 CUSinstitutions’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” (Proceedings, 172); and

WHEREAS, At the Feb. 19, 2021, meeting of the LCMS 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, The governance model proposal is a 27-page document of bylaw changes that have been and continue to be reviewed by the presidents and boards of regents of the universities in the Concordia University System (CUS); and

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

• 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 “left-hand kingdom” responsibilities, the new bylaws are highly prescriptive and give large measures of control outside the local board of regents, particularly the selection of members of the board of regents.

• The concern is that the Commission for University Education (CUE) proposal seems to diminish the legal separation between the national Synod and the universities, which would therefore increase the liability risk to the Synod.

• That the CUE can not only and exclusively remove an elected BOR member for training deficiencies but can force a local board of regents to remove an appointed board of regents 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 board of regents may select their president vs. the board of regents creating and narrowing a list of nominees to be vetted and approved by the prior approval panel.

• That the LCMS 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 board of regents, 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 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 LCMS 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 Michigan District Board of Directors responded to the LCMS 2019 Res. 7-03 Committee request for comments in a letter dated Aug. 17, 2021, expressing their concern over proposed changes to the governance model for our Concordias; and

WHEREAS, The current and former chief executives of the Concordias publicly shared at the Council of Presidents meeting, Wednesday, Nov. 17, 2021, their concerns over the proposed changes; and recommended rescinding the 2019 Res. 7-03 recommendations; and

WHEREAS, The Michigan District board has examined these concerns and concurs with the executives of the Concordias; and

WHEREAS, These concerns need to be addressed in an open and transparent manner throughout Synod before any changes to our governance model are made; therefore be it

Resolved, That until these concerns are addressed, the implementation of the recommendations of the 2019 Res. 7-03 Committee should be suspended.