# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S324
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

324 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Bylaw 8.07 h. In this case the “complainant” is the member who
is contesting the expulsion, and the “report of the reconciler” is the
District President’s “statement of the matter in dispute and ... writ-
ten memorandum describing the manner in which there was com-
pliance with the mandate of Matt. 18:15-16" required by Bylaw
2.27 d.

Therefore, in response to the question, Bylaw 2.27 and Chap-
ter VIII of the Bylaws do not operate independently of and without
regard for each other.

May a District President in responding to a complaint received
under Bylaw 2.27 direct one or more of the parties to file the complaint
with the Secretary of the District who then, by blind draw, selects and
appoints a District reconciler to work with the parties in dispute?

The Commission’s answer is “no.” The Secretary of the Synod
forms a Dispute Resolution Panel only if the accused member of
the Synod contests a proposed expulsion (Bylaw 2.27 d). The
“written complaint of any person” (Bylaw 2.27 a) is never pre-
sented to the Secretary of either District or Synod. Rather, it is the
basis for the investigation of the matter by the District President
who then decides if the facts form a basis for expulsion of the
member from the Synod in accord with Art. XIII of the Constitu-
tion. It is to be noted that Bylaw 2.27 does authorize a District Pres-
ident to appoint a small committee to assist in reconciliation ef-
forts. An expulsion from the Synod occurs only if the District
President (or the Praesidium under Bylaw 2.27 b) decides to pursue
the matter. Any person can make a written complaint but only a
District President (or the Praesidium) can formally seek expulsion.

If a District President operating according to Bylaw 2.27 can direct
one or more of the parties with whom he is working to file a complaint
with the Secretary of the District, who then, by blind draw, selects and
appoints a District reconciler to work with the parties in dispute, does
that action on the District President's part mean that he has met the time

constraints for his action as they are identified in Bylaw 2.27 b?

As stated above in the response to the previous question, a Dis-
trict President cannot direct one or more of the parties to file a com-
plaint with the Secretary of the District if it is an action to terminate
congregational or individual membership under the procedures of
Bylaw 2.27. The only Secretary involved in a Bylaw 2.27 proce-
dure is the Secretary of the Synod and then only under the circum-
stances set forth above. As stated previously, Bylaw 2.27 ties into
Chapter VIII of the Bylaws at Bylaw 8.07 h. Bylaw 8.07 a-g is not
utilized in a Bylaw 2.27 action.

Instead, Bylaw 2.27 authorizes a District President to appoint a
smal] committee to assist in reconciliation efforts. The District
President is free to appoint one or more of the District reconcilers
to this smal] committee, but they are then acting as members of the
smal] committee and not as reconcilers under Bylaw 8.07. Bylaw
2.27 e further directs the District President to continue efforts to
resolve those matters which led to the commencement of the formal
action against such member.

Bylaw 2.27 b indicates that the complainant may present the
written complaint to the Praesidium if the District President de-
clines to suspend the member or fails to act within 90 days after
receipt of the written complaint. The Commission previously is-
sued an opinion regarding what constitutes “failure to act” (Com-
mission File 98-2097). A copy of that opinion is forwarded here-
with.

Adopted July 8, 1999

Question re Late-Triennium Appointments
by Synod’s Board of Directors (99-2152)

A pastor of the Synod, noting that Bylaw 3.67 c requires that
“no appointments to synodical boards or commissions shall be
made and no new programs shall be initiated by the outgoing Pres-
ident or the boards of directors or elected or appointed boards or
commissions during the interim” between a convention and Sep-
tember 1, asked the following question:

Do the synodical Bylaws (especially 3.67 c) explicitly or implicitly
prohibit the synodical Board of Directors from making new appoint-
ments——that is, appointing board members who will begin their service

2001 Convention Workbook

during the following triennium—at its May or June meeting in a syn-
odical convention year?

The Commission responds as follows:

The first sentence of Bylaw 3.67 c states, “No appointments to
synodical boards or commissions shall be made and no new pro-
grams shall be initiated by the outgoing President or the boards of
directors or elected or appointed boards or commissions during the
interim.” The phrase “during the interim” is that period between
the commencement of a synodical convention and the date when
the newly elected and reelected members of these boards and com-
missions are inducted into office. The question asked of the Com-
mission is whether the definition of the phrase “during the interim”
or any other Bylaw could be expanded to conclude that appoint-
ments by the Board of Directors in May or June prior to a synodical
convention also come under the umbrella of prohibited appoint-
ments. The Commission concludes that the answer is “no.” The
Bylaws are silent on this matter except for the phrase “during the
interim,” and the Commission finds no basis to expand the meaning
of those words. If the period of prohibition of appointments is to
be expanded, it must come from an amendment to the Bylaws.

Adopted July 8, 1999

Review of Proposed Synodical Convention
Floor Nominations Process (99-2154)

In a memorandum dated June 3, 1999, the chairman of a com-
mittee charged with the responsibility for reviewing the operations
of the synodical convention asked the Commission to review a pro-
posal for a different process to obtain floor nominations at synodi-
cal conventions. He explained that this process is being considered
because it would make the procedure more orderly, would ensure
that the information specified by the Bylaws regarding nominees
would be uniformly received, would allow every delegate equal op-
portunity to nominate candidates for office, and would use less con-
vention floor time than the process that has been in use. The fol-
lowing is the proposed process:

1. At the appropriate time the nominations committee would pre-
sent the slate of candidates it has prepared.

2. After presenting the slate, the nominations committee would in-
form the convention that nominations would be received from the
floor. The committee would explain that in order to allow nomi-
nations from the floor of candidates other than those whose
names were previously received by the nominations committee,
the convention would have to vote to do so. The committee
would then move (or entertain a motion) to open the floor nomi-
nations to such other candidates,

. If the convention voted to allow such other floor nominations, the
committee would explain that these nominations must be pre-
sented in writing on the appropriate form, [Note: these forms
along with instructions for how to make nominations from the
floor would be distributed with the materials sent to the delegates
before the convention and would be available at the convention
site.] The form must be signed by the nominee (satisfying the re-
quirement of Bylaw 3.985 a) and by the nominating delegate and
another delegate seconding the nomination (meeting parliamen-
tary requirements) and submitted to the chairman of the nominat-
ing committee or his designee in a specified place by a specified
time. The written pertinent information concerning the nominee
as detailed in Bylaw 3.983 e would have to be attached to the
form by the nominating delegate.

4. The committee would then move (and the convention would
vote) to close floor nominations automatically at a specified time,
probably several hours later in the day in order to allow time for
the forms to be submitied to the commiltee.

5. The committee would check the nominations for validity and sub-
sequently report on the nominations received via Today's Busi-
ness and would include all validly nominated candidates on the
appropriate ballots later in the convention.

The chairman of the convention committee noted, however, that
his committee recognizes that it is proposing a change to a long-
established process of nomination and election. Therefore, “for the
sake of good order and a peaceful conscience, both for ourselves
and for the delegates to the convention, we are seeking a formal

Ww