You are currently viewing Two Simple Questions about Concordia Texas Throwing Off the Bylaws of the LCMS

Two Simple Questions about Concordia Texas Throwing Off the Bylaws of the LCMS

Introduction

On November 8, 2022, a majority of the Board of Regents (BOR) of Concordia University Texas (CTX) purportedly made that board self-governing and self-perpetuating in complete independence from the Concordia University System (CUS) and The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS). CTX delivered unauthorized and newly adopted governance documents to the Texas Secretary of State.[1]

Much has been written[2] and said[3] about the pretended separation. In a previous essay, I assessed the action from the perspective of the catechisms and confessions of the Lutheran Church, particularly the Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Commandments, the Treatise Against the Power and Primacy of the Pope, and what the name “Lutheran” means.[4]

In this essay we will consider it from another aspect: the bylaws of the LCMS.

Not many people think it is fun to read bylaws. I am with you. In this essay, however, we do not need to look at them in a heavy way – heavy because of trying to absorb, remember, and manage a mass of dull detail off in the nooks and crannies. No. We are not doing that here. Our reading can be much lighter and easier. The action of the regents was for separation, self-governance, and self-perpetuation. We are looking at the synodical bylaws only to assess that action.

Two Questions

As we look at each portion of the bylaws, we ask ourselves just these two questions:

  1. Does this bylaw show that CTX is independent, or that CTX is a steward of the synod, owing the duties of stewardship to the synod?
  2. Why might the regents not want CTX to be a steward in the way provided in this bylaw? Where is CTX going by shirking the duty of stewardship in this bylaw? Is it walking with us or walking away from us?

    The first question calls for a simple yes-or-no conclusion, which is relatively light, and does not require us to carry a heavier weight of details.

    The second question calls for a simple recognition of whether throwing off the bylaw signals retaining or losing the Lutheran identity of the school, maintaining fidelity to the doctrinal confession of the synod, and accomplishing the purposes for which the synod created the school.

    Those are the questions because of the unauthorized changes the majority regents made to the articles of incorporation of the university. They deleted what had been Article II and substituted a new Article II that says CTX is “not subject to the authority of or governance by, the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod.”[5] They deleted Article V which had said:

    Article V Management:

    The business of this corporation shall be conducted and its affairs shall be controlled by a board of trustees to be elected in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

    They substituted:

    Article V Board:

    The management of the affairs of the corporation is vested in its Board of Regents in accordance with the Bylaws. … All determinations regarding the university’s alignment with the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, including but not limited to, the university’s subscription and adherence to the Confession of the LCMS as currently outlined in Article II of the LCMS Constitution, and qualifications for board members and the presidency, will be subject to and determined by the sole and exclusive discretion of the Board of Regents.

    See, that raises the question: Why would the regents not want to follow the synod’s Lutheran confession of faith? Why would they want to, in effect, determine their own doctrinal stance, their own confession?

    How does that square with their public assurances that their new corporate documents remain true to Article II of the LCMS Constitution? A person must be smarter than I am to see how that is so. In my simple mind, that assurance is, shall we say, questionable.

    In our look at the bylaws, we also will lighten our load by such measures as:

    • looking only at ones that reflect on the two questions.
    • inserting captions that introduce the topic of each bylaw.
    • shortening and simplifying language (although sometimes quoting verbatim).

    A Few Examples

    To get into the swing of asking the two questions about each bylaw, let us look now at a few examples.

    Sitting Ducks, No-brainers, and No-Duhs

    There is no shortage of bylaws that, with respect to our first question, are sitting ducks. For a few examples of such no-brainer or “no duh” bylaws consider these:

    • The regents “shall operate and manage the institution as the agent of the Synod.”[6]
    • The regents shall operate and manage the institution “carefully exercising its fiduciary duties to the Synod.”[7]
    • The regents govern a university subject to the policies set by the synod and CUS.[8]
    • The regents shall develop detailed policies and procedures to confess Jesus Christ “in full accord with the doctrinal position of the LCMS (Constitution Art. II).”[9]
    • It is “the Synod in which ownership [of the institution] is primarily vested and which exercises its ownership through the Board of Directors as custodians of the Synod’s property” with the “board of regents as the local governing body.”[10]

    Apply Question 1. Do those show that CTX is independent, or that CTX is a steward of the synod, owing the duties of stewardship to the synod?  The answer is simple, isn’t it?

    Apply Question 2. Why might CTX not want to be a steward in the way provided in those bylaws? Where is CTX going by shirking the duty of stewardship in those bylaws? Is it walking with us or walking away from us? Again, simple.

    A Moment’s Reflection

    A large number of bylaws, on just a moment’s reflection, point in the same direction. Consider a few examples.

    The composition of the board of regents is set by the synodical bylaws, not by its own governing instruments.[11]

    • Q1: independent or a steward? On a moment’s reflection, this bylaw shows stewardship.
    • Q2: walking with us or walking away from us? On moment’s reflection, the change in the university’s articles of incorporation shows walking away from us.

    All regents must “demonstrate familiarity and support for the doctrinal positions of the Synod” and possess at least two qualifications from a list of 12, one of which is “theological acumen.” The qualifications of nominees to be elected by the convention must be verified by the Secretary of the Synod or designee and by the President of the CUS or designee. The qualifications of nominees to be elected at district conventions shall be verified by the chair and secretary of the district board of directors or their designees.[12]

    • Q1: independent or a steward? On a moment’s reflection, this bylaw shows stewardship.
    • Q2: walking with us or walking away from us? On moment’s reflection, the change in the university’s articles of incorporation shows walking away from us.

    The regents shall ensure “that all faculty receive appropriate formal, ongoing training in the doctrines of Holy Scripture as rightly taught in the Lutheran Confessions as they relate to their academic disciplines, consistent with the CUS Lutheran Identity Statement.”[13]

    • Q1: independent or a steward? On a moment’s reflection, this bylaw shows stewardship.
    • Q2: walking with us or walking away from us? On moment’s reflection, the change in the university’s articles of incorporation shows walking away from us.

    For the office of president of a university, its core duties, term of office, mandatory consultation with synod before renewal of term of office, procedure with the synod and approvals by the synod to fill a vacancy of the office, and synod attendance in meetings for election to the office all are governed by synodical bylaws.

    • Q1: independent or a steward? On a moment’s reflection, this bylaw shows stewardship.
    • Q2: walking with us or walking away from us? On moment’s reflection, the change in the university’s articles of incorporation shows walking away from us.

    Having used these examples of applying the two simple questions, we are now ready to go through the relevant bylaws with that perspective.

    Order of Consideration

    We will look at bylaws under the headings and in the order that the bylaws themselves present them. This means that I have not sorted the discussion into my own perceived order of importance but am just letting the principles stand in the order in which they occur in the bylaws. The headings are:

    • Concordia University System
    • Concordia University System Boards of Regents
    • Concordia University System Presidents

    Pole Vaulting a Mountain with a Toothpick

    As we go through the relevant bylaws, you might feel that it is quite a pile-up.

    It is. It is a mountain.

    But you do not have to climb the mountain. We are looking at these to assess the action of the CTX regents. You only need to see that it is a mountain. You only need to see how much the regents think they have pole vaulted over by the toothpick of their pretended fiat – by pretending that they can make it so simply by decreeing that it is so.

    Concordia University System

    We are not observing principles of the bylaws about the BOD of CUS per se. We are observing only those that reflect on regents of the universities and their relationship to the synod.

    A Corporation with Members. CUS is a corporation operated by its members and BOD.

    Designation of Members. The members of the CUS are:[14]

    • The Synod. The BOD of the Synod and the COP of the Synod each shall appoint delegates representing the Synod.
    • The colleges and universities of the Synod. The BORs of the colleges and universities shall appoint delegates representing them.

    General Authority. The BOD of the CUS has authority with respect to the Synod’s colleges and universities. It shall have the overall responsibility to provide for the education of pre-seminary students, ministers of religion–commissioned, other professional church workers of the Synod, and others desiring a Christian liberal arts education by facilitating prior approval for theology appointments to faculties and by coordinating the activities of the colleges and universities as a unified system.[15]

    Specific Authority. The bylaws list specific authority for various aspects of the universities.[16]

    Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy, The BOD of the CUS shall adopt standards for ensuring curricular fidelity to the doctrine (orthodoxy) and practice (orthopraxy) of the Synod, and monitor compliance with these standards and criteria.[17]

    Faithfulness to Article II of Synod Constitution. The BOD of the CUS shall assist the President of the Synod in monitoring and promoting the ongoing faithfulness of CUS colleges and universities to Article II of the Constitution of the Synod.[18]

    Consolidate, Relocate, Separate, or Divest a University. Upon consent of the BOD of synod by a two-thirds vote; and upon either consent of the affected BOR by a two-thirds vote or consent of the COP by a two-thirds vote, the BOD of the CUS has authority to consolidate, relocate, separate, or divest a college or university.[19]

    Lutheran Identity; Christ-Centered Values. The BOD of CUS shall adopt policies and ensure that the regents and campus administrators are:

    • Active Preservation of Lutheran Identity. Actively working to preserve their Lutheran identity by supporting the objectives of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (Constitution Art. III) and complying with an emphasis on mission-focused leadership in service to church and community.[20]
    • Christ-Centered Values. Delivering academic and student programs designed to give students Christ-centered values.[21]
    • Preparation of Ministers of Religion Commissioned and Ordained. Preparing graduates for service as ministers of religion―commissioned and for continued study for service as ministers of religion—ordained for the Synod.[22]
    • Accountability to Systemwide Board. Maintaining accountability of its institutions to the system-wide board.[23]

    Policies That Universities Must Address. The CUS BOD shall maintain in its policies a list of subject matters that each educational institution must address in its own policies and procedures, to include faculty appointments, employment contracts, contract renewal, contract termination, faculty organization, modified service, sabbaticals, and dispute resolution.[24]

    Model Operating Procedures Manual. The CUS shall maintain a Model Operating Procedures Manual, in consultation with the Commission on Constitutional Matters, regarding the handling of faculty complaints and dispute resolution by college/university boards of regents.[25]

    Members of Synod Remain under Ecclesiastical Supervision and Discipline. Any person connected with an institution who is a member of the Synod shall also remain under the ecclesiastical supervision of the Synod, and nothing in any university policy may limit or constrain any action that may be taken or the rights or responsibilities of any party, pursuant to the Synod Handbook with respect to a member of Synod.[26]

    Concordia University System Boards of Regents

    Subject to Synod and CUS. The regents govern a university subject to the policies set by the synod and CUS.[27]

    Primary Duty Within Assignment. A primary duty of the regents is to fulfill the mission of the university within the assignment of the synod.[28]

    Composition of BOR. The composition of the BOR is set by the synodical bylaws, not by its own governing instruments.[29] Its governing instruments must conform to the synodical bylaws. The BOR may not itself select all its members or be self-perpetuating. The composition must be:

    • Four Elected by Synod Convention. One ordained minister, one commissioned minister, and two laypersons shall be elected by the synod convention.[30]
    • Four Elected by LCMS District. One ordained minister, one commissioned minister, and two laypersons shall be elected by the geographical district in which the institution is located.[31] For example, for CTX, these members shall be elected by the convention of the Texas District of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.
    • Four to Eight Appointed by BOR. No fewer than four and no more than eight shall be appointed by the BOR.[32] This is a large part of the problem we have had in recent years with a few of the universities.
    • District President. The district president or a district vice president as his standing representative shall be an ex officio member.[33]
    • One Appointed by Praesidium. The praesidium (the president and vice presidents of the synod) shall appoint one member who may be an ordained minister, a commissioned minister, or a layperson.[34]
    • LCMS Members. Regents must be members of LCMS congregations.[35] No more than two of the elected members may be members of the same congregation.[36]
    • Term Limits. Regents may serve up to three three-year terms.[37]
    • Verified Qualifications. All regents must “demonstrate familiarity and support for the doctrinal positions of the Synod” and possess at least two qualifications from a list of 12, one of which is “theological acumen.” The qualifications of nominees to be elected by the convention must be verified by the SOS or designee and by the President of the CUS or designee. The qualifications of nominees to be elected at district conventions shall be verified by the chair and secretary of the district board of directors or their designees.[38]
    • Filling Vacancies. Vacancy in a position appointed by the BOR is filled by the BOR; in a position previously elected by a district convention is filled by the district BOD; and in a position previously elected by synod in convention is filled by the BOD of the CUS.[39]

    Conformity to Synod Policy. The regents shall become familiar with and develop understanding of policies, standards, and guidelines of the synod and the BOD of the CUS.[40]

    Full Accord with LCMS Doctrine. The regents shall develop detailed policies and procedures for the governance of the university with attention to specific ways to confess Jesus Christ “in full accord with the doctrinal position of the LCMS (Constitution Art. II).”[41]

    Formal Ongoing Training of All Faculty in Lutheran Confessions. The regents shall develop detailed policies and procedures for the governance of the university with attention to specific ways to ensure “that all faculty receive appropriate formal, ongoing training in the doctrines of Holy Scripture as rightly taught in the Lutheran Confessions as they relate to their academic disciplines, consistent with the CUS Lutheran Identity Statement.”[42] Query: Does the happen?

    Synod BOD Property Guidelines. The regents shall acquire, manage, use, preserve, improve, and dispose of property within guidelines set by the BOD of the CUS.[43]

    Agent of Synod. The regents “shall operate and manage the institution as the agent of the Synod.”[44]

    Primary Vesting of Ownership. It is “the Synod in which ownership [of the institution] is primarily vested and which exercises its ownership through the Board of Directors as custodians of the Synod’s property” with the “board of regents as the local governing body.”[45]

    Fiduciary Duties. The regents shall operate and manage the institution “carefully exercising its fiduciary duties to the Synod.”[46]

    Conforming Governing Instruments to Synod. The regents shall conform the charter, articles of incorporation, and bylaws of the university to those of the synod.[47]

    Prohibition of Closing or Selling. The regents has no power to close the institution or sell all or any part of the main campus without the consent of the BOD of the CUS and the BOD of the Synod.[48]

    Student Life and Behavior. The regents shall establish a comprehensive policy on student life and behavior consistent with the doctrine and practice of the Synod.[49]

    Concordia University System Presidents

    Spiritual Head. The president “shall serve as the spiritual … head of the institution.”[50] He cannot disclaim spiritual responsibility and say that he is just a business administrator.

    Pursuit of Synod’s Rules and Regulations. The president shall direct the institution and all its departments pursuant to the rules and regulations of the synod, its boards, and its agencies.[51]

    Core Duties Set by Synod. Many core duties of the president, rather than being left to definition in the governing instruments of the institution, are defined by synod in convention in the bylaws.[52]

    Term of Office. Each president of universities serves a five-year renewable term.[53]

    No Academic Tenure. Each president of universities shall relinquish academic tenure.[54]

    Mandatory Consultation with Synod for Renewal of Term. Based on an evaluation of the president’s effectiveness in the current term, the regents may confer another five-year term. The regents are required, however, to consult with the President of the Synod and the chairman of the Board of Directors of the CUS.[55] The rgents may consult with other boards, commissions, and councils of the Synod.[56]

    How a Vacancy is Filled. Upon a vacancy or impending vacancy in the office president of a university,

    • Informing Synod. The regents shall inform the BOD of the CUS, the President of the Synod, and an official periodical of the Synod.[57]
    • Interim President. The regents shall appoint an interim president whose title must be “Interim President.” The interim president may not serve more than 18 months without the concurrence of the President of the Synod.[58]
    • Ineligible for Permanent Appointment without Concurrence of Synod President. The interim president shall be ineligible to serve on a permanent basis without the concurrence of the President of the Synod.[59]
    • Permission to Invite Nominations. The regents shall request that the BOD of the CUS authorize the institution to publish a request for nominations for the position of president.[60]
    • Mandatory Transition Review. The regents shall request the BOD of the CUS to schedule a transition review of the campus. The review is to provide a report on the state of the campus for use by the search committee, the regents, and the candidates.[61]
    • Search Committee Members Must Be LCMS Members. A search committee shall be formed, and all of its members must be members of LCMS congregations.[62]
    • CUS Conference before Call for Nominations. Before publishing a call for nominations, the President of the CUS shall convene an in-person conference involving the board of regents, the search committee, and the prior approval panel to discuss the qualifications that will be sought and the search criteria.[63]
    • Who May Nominate Candidates. The request for nominations shall be submitted to the parties who are authorized to nominate. Candidates may be nominated by congregations of the Synod, the Board of Directors of Concordia University System, the board of regents, and the faculty of the institution.[64]
    • CUS Prior Approval Panel. The regents shall forward the list of nominees who have agreed to let their names stand, together with all materials received from such candidates, to the President of CUS to enable him to convene a prior approval panel consisting of the President of the Synod, the district president serving on the institution’s board of regents, and the chair of the Board of Concordia University System. The names of the nominees shall not otherwise be disclosed outside the board of regents.[65] The panel may remove names from the list by its two-thirds majority vote. The President of the CUS shall transmit the finalized list back to the regents and shall cause the list to be published in an official periodical of the synod. The regents shall then announce the list of nominees who have received approval but shall not publicize the names of those not receiving approval. The announcement shall contain contact information to submit correspondence regarding the nominees and provide a reasonable deadline for receiving correspondence.[66]
    • Election by BOR from Approved List. The regents may only elect a president from a slate it submitted that received prior approval.[67]
    • CUS President Attendance at Election Meetings. The President of the CUS or a designee shall attend the regents’ meeting at which an election occurs as a guest and advisor.[68]

    Conclusion

    The bylaws provide an overabundance of evidence that:

    • CTX and its regents are stewards, agents, fiduciaries, and custodians of the LCMS on assignment of the synod.
    • CTX and its regents are subject to the doctrine, constitution, bylaws, purposes, mission, policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines of the synod.
    • The regents shall conform the charter, articles of incorporation, and bylaws of the university to those of the synod.
    • The election and appointment of regents is controlled by synodical bylaws.
    • The election of president is controlled by synodical bylaws.

    The regents’ separation from the synod and amendment of the articles and bylaws are without authority. The self-perpetuating self-appointment of regents creates an imposter board of regents.

    [1] “The CUS board regrets to inform the delegates to the 2023 Synod convention of an unprecedented action that was taken by the board majority of Concordia University Texas (CTX) though a significant minority voted against such an action on or about Nov. 8, 2022. Without the approval of the CUS board, the board majority purportedly adopted a governance model in an attempt to transform its governance into a self-governing and self-perpetuating board completely independent of the CUS and the LCMS and delivered its newly adopted governance documents to the Texas Secretary of State.” Report 14, “Concordia University System,” Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures 2023, 68th Regular Convention, The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, p. 67. At the end of the report, Concordia University System President, Rev. Dr. Dean O. Wenthe, concludes, “The preceding analyses should demonstrate that any suggestion of separation from the LCMS is without fiduciary clarity and theological merit.” Ibid., p. 69.

    [2] For example, Cheryl Magness, “Walking away: Concordia University Texas holds to ‘ill-advised course,’” Reporter, June 8, 2023, https://reporter.lcms.org/2023/walking-away-concordia-university-texas-holds-to-ill-advised-course/

    Rev. Michael W. Newman (President, Texas District, LCMS), letter to Texas District, November 23, 2022, https://congregationsmatter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Newman-Letter-November-23-2022.pdf

    Alan Taylor, “CTX Board of Regents – Minority Report,” April 19, 2023, https://stjohngalveston.360unite.com/posts/news/ctx-board-of-regents?month=4&year=2023

    Report R64, “Ecclesiastical Visitation of Concordia University Texas,” Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures 2023, 68th Regular Convention, The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, 173-179.

    See under the heading “A Special and Urgent Matter: Concordia University Texas,” in Report R13, “Concordia University System,” Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures 2023, 68th Regular Convention, The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, p. 67-69.

    “University Board of Regents Unilateral Separation (232-3006),” Today’s Business 2023, First Edition, pp 30-34.

    President’s Report, Part 2, suggested resolutions, Committee 5, Theology and Church Relations, first suggestion, Today’s Business 2023, First Edition, p. 24, ll. 33-36.

    T. R. Halvorson, “The Sovereignty of Nebulous Ethos at Concordia Texas,” Brothers of John the Steadfast, June 11, 2023, https://steadfastlutherans.org/2023/06/the-sovereignty-of-nebulous-ethos-at-concordia-texas/

    [3] For example, Todd Wilken and Mark Stern, “An Attempt by a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod University to Reject the Governance and Oversight of the LCMS” Program 1032, Issues Etc., 4/13/23, https://issuesetc.org/2023/04/13/1032-an-attempt-by-a-lutheran-church-missouri-synod-university-to-reject-the-governance-and-oversight-of-the-lcms-mark-stern-4-13-23/

    Todd Wilken and Tom Halvorson, “An Attempt by Concordia University Texas to Reject the Governance and Oversight of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod,” Program 1731, Issues Etc., 6/22/23, https://issuesetc.org/2023/06/22/1731-an-attempt-by-concordia-university-texas-to-reject-the-governance-and-oversight-of-the-lutheran-church-missouri-synod-tom-halverson-6-22-23/

    Don Christian, Kristi Kirk, and Tim Ahlman “‘A Conversational Response from CTX’ with Pres. Don Christian and Provost Kristi Kirk,” Lead Time Podcast, Unite Leadership Collective. June 13, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq5yXzbYYNs (video) and https://leadtime.buzzsprout.com/200797/13028046-a-conversational-response-from-ctx-with-pres-don-christian-and-provost-kristi-kirk (audio).

    [4] T. R. Halvorson, “The Sovereignty of Nebulous Ethos at Concordia Texas,” Brothers of John the Steadfast, June 11, 2023, https://steadfastlutherans.org/2023/06/the-sovereignty-of-nebulous-ethos-at-concordia-texas/

    [5] Certificate of Amendment, Concordia University Texas, November 8, 2022.Texas Secretary of State File No. 10277001.

    [6] Bylaw 3.10.6.4(i), Handbook 2019, 168.

    [7] Bylaw 3.10.6.4(i)(1), Handbook 2019, 168.

    [8] Bylaw 3.10.6, Handbook 2019, 165.

    [9] Bylaw 3.10.6.4(a)(1), Handbook 2019, 167.

    [10] Bylaw 3.10.6.4(i), Handbook 2019, 168.

    [11] Bylaws 3.10.6.2, Handbook 2019, 165.

    [12] Bylaw 3.10.6.2(8), Handbook 2019, 166.

    [13] Bylaw 3.10.6.4(a)(2), Handbook 2019, 167.

    [14] Byaw 3.6..6.2, Handbook 2019, 130.

    [15] Bylaw 3.6.6.1, Handbook 2029, 130.

    [16] Bylaws 3.6.6.4, Handbook 2019, 131-122.

    [17] Bylaw 3.6.6.4(e), Handbook 2019, 132.

    [18] Bylaw 3.6.6.4(h), Handbook 2019, 132.

    [19] Bylaw 3.6.6.4(i), Handbook 2019, 132.

    [20] Bylaw 3.6.6.6(a), Handbook 2019, 133.

    [21] Bylaw 3.6.6.6(b), Handbook 2019, 133.

    [22] Bylaw 3.6.6.6(c), Handbook 2019, 133.

    [23] Bylaws 3.6.6.6(f), Handbook 2019, 133.

    [24] Bylaw 3.5.5.7, Handbook 2019, 133.

    [25] Bylaw 3.6.6.7, Handbook 2019, 133.

    [26] Bylaw 3.6.6.7, Handbook 2019, 133.

    [27] Bylaw 3.10.6, Handbook 2019, 165.

    [28] Bylaw 3.10.6.1, Handbook 2019, 165.

    [29] Bylaws 3.10.6.2, Handbook 2019, 165.

    [30] Bylaw 3.10.6.2(1), Handbook 2019, 165.

    [31] Bylaw 3.10.6.2(2), Handbook 2019, 166.

    [32] Bylaw 3.10.6.2(3), Handbook 2019, 166.

    [33] Bylaw 3.10.6.2(4), Handbook 2019, 166.

    [34] Bylaw 3.10.6.2(5), Handbook 2019, 166.

    [35] Bylaw 3.10.6.2(6), Handbook 2019, 166.

    [36] Bylaw 3.10.6.2(7), Handbook 2019, 166.

    [37] Bylaw 3.10.6.2(6), Handbook 2019, 166.

    [38] Bylaw 3.10.6.2(8), Handbook 2019, 166.

    [39] Bylaw 3.10.6.3, Handbook 2019, 166-167.

    [40] Bylaw 3.10.6.4, Handbook 2019, 167.

    [41] Bylaw 3.10.6.4(a)(1), Handbook 2019, 167.

    [42] Bylaw 3.10.6.4(a)(2), Handbook 2019, 167.

    [43] Bylaw 3.10.6.4(h), Handbook 2019, 168.

    [44] Bylaw 3.10.6.4(i), Handbook 2019, 168.

    [45] Bylaw 3.10.6.4(i), Handbook 2019, 168.

    [46] Bylaw 3.10.6.4(i)(1), Handbook 2019, 168.

    [47] Bylaw 3.10.6.4(i)(2), Handbook 2019, 168.

    [48] Bylaw 3.10.6.4(i)(7), Handbook 2019, 168.

    [49] Bylaw 3.10.6.4(i)(9), Handbook 2019, 169.

    [50] Bylaw 3.10.6.6, Handbook 2019, 169.

    [51] Bylaw 3.10.6.6(a), Handbook 2019, 169.

    [52] Bylaw 3.10.6.6, Handbook 2019, 169-170.

    [53] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.1, Handbook 2019, 170.

    [54] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.1(a), Handbook 2019, 170.

    [55] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.1(c)(1), Handbook 2019, 170.

    [56] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.1(c)(2), Handbook 2019, 171.

    [57] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2(a), Handbook 2019, 171.

    [58] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2(a), Handbook 2019, 171.

    [59] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2(a), Handbook 2019, 171.

    [60] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2(a)(1), Handbook 2019, 171.

    [61] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2(a)(2), Handbook 2019, 171.

    [62] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2(b)(1), Handbook 2019, 171.

    [63] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2(b)(2), Handbook 2019, 171.

    [64] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2(b)(4), Handbook 2019, 171-172.

    [65] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.(b)(6), Handbook 2019, 171.

    [66] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2(b)(6)-(8), Handbook 2019, 172.

    [67] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2(d), Handbook 2019, 172.

    [68] Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2(d), Handbook 2019, 172.