# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S325
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 325

Presidents and of all officers of the Synod, including the Vice-Pres-
idents, under what constitutional authority would either a District
President or the synodical Vice-Presidents be charged with the re-
sponsibility of determining the continuation of the roster status of
the President of the Synod under Bylaw 2.27? ;

Opinion: The Commission in its preceding opinion (01-2240),
by deciding that 1992 opinion Ag. 1915 “is the correct one,” has
tuled, based upon the Constitution (Art. XI A 2), that only the
Synod in convention has the right to call the President of the Synod
to account and to determine the continuation of his roster status.
There is no constitutional authority that gives a District President or
synodical Vice-President such responsibility.

Adopted Dec. 9, 2001

Questions re Responsibilities of
Vice-Presidents in Bylaw 2.27 Process (01-2242)

In a December 14, 2001 memo, the President of the Synod re-
viewed Handbook references pertaining to the ecclesiastical super-
vision of District Presidents and asked specific questions relative
to charges filed by a complainant against a District President.

Question 1: Since the President of the Synod is the ecclesiastical
supervisor of all District Presidents, in the event the President of the
Synod “declines to suspend the member or fails to act within 90 days
after receipt of the written complaint...” (Bylaw 2.27 b), are the
charges against the District President thus concluded?

Response: (The Commission notes an apparent error in the By-
laws as printed in the 1998 edition of the Handbook. The last sen-
tence of Bylaw 2.27 g states as follows: “If disqualified for the rea-
sons set forth in section b (emphasis added), the next qualified
officer of the Synod shall function in the place of the President.” It
is apparent that the reference should be to section a 1 and the Com-
mission proceeds on that presumption in this opinion.).

The answer to the question is “no.” Bylaw 2.27 g states that the
President of the Synod shall proceed in the same fashion as a Dis-
trict President if he receives a complaint relative to a District Pres-
ident. Bylaw 2.27 b provides that if a District President declines to
suspend the accused member or fails to act within 90 days after re-
ceipt of a written complaint, the complainant may present the writ-
ten complaint to the Praesidium. Thus, since a complainant can ap-
peal to the Praesidium the non-action or negative decision of a
District President under Bylaw 2.27 b, a complainant can likewise
appeal to the Praesidium the non-action or negative decision of the
President of the Synod under Bylaw 2.27 g.

Question 2: If your answer to question #1 is “No,” I would as-
sume your understanding would be that the charges against the Dis-
trict President may then be submitted by the complainant to the
Praesidium of the Synod, who would consider these charges without
the participation of the President of the Synod (Bylaw 2.27 g). If
that understanding is accurate, my next question is this: Since both
the Constitution and Bylaws clearly state that the President of the
Synod has ecclesiastical supervision of all District Presidents and
of all officers of the Synod, including the Vice-Presidents, under
what constitutional authority would the Synodical-Vice Presidents
be charged with the responsibility of determining the continuation of
the roster status of a District President under Bylaw 2.27?

Response: The President of the Synod has ecclesiastical super-
vision of District Presidents by reason of Article XI B of the Con-
stitution. However, ecclesiastical supervision does not include the
responsibility of determining the continuation of the roster status
of a District President. That matter is covered by Article XIII 2
which provides: “Expulsion shall be executed only after following
such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the Synod.
Bylaws 2.27 and 8.09 establish the steps to be followed to expel a
member from the Synod. Under these Bylaws the President can ei-
ther decline to seek the expulsion of a District President as a mem-
ber of the Synod, or pursue such expulsion by following the proce-
dure set forth in Bylaw 2.27 c. If he does pursue such expulsion,
the decision to expel is not his but, rather, the decision of the Dis-
pute Resolution Panel (or Appeal Panel, if there is an appeal),
which will consider the matter (Bylaw 8.09).

If the President of the Synod declines to seek the expulsion of a
District President as a member of the Synod, the complainant has
the option to appeal such declination to the Praesidium of the
Synod (Bylaw 2.27 b). Should the Praesidium decide to pursue the
expulsion from the Synod of the District President, it must follow
the same procedure in Bylaw 2.27 c as the President would have
had to do should he have decided to pursue the expulsion. As in
the case of the President, the decision to expel is not that of the
Praesidium but, rather, the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel
or Appeal Panel.

Therefore, the synodical Vice-Presidents in their capacity as
members of the Praesidium determine the continuation of the roster
status of a District President only in those very limited situations
where the Praesidium upholds the decision of the President of the
Synod that the alleged actions of the District President are insuffi-
cient to expel the District President as a member of the Synod.

Question 3: Article XI B 2 addresses the accountability of Dis-
trict Presidents (as well as other officers, all employees, and indi-
vidual Districts of the Synod) to the President of the Synod and
specifically charges the President with the “duty to see to it that all
the aforementioned act in accordance with the Synod’s Constitu-
tion.” Under what constitutional authority would this accountabil-
ity ever be assumed by the Praesidium of the Synod, whether with
or without the participation of the President of the Synod?

Response: The Vice-Presidents of the Synod have no constitu-
tional or bylaw “duty to see to it that all the aforementioned act in
accordance with the Synod’s Constitution.” Such duty rests solely
with the President of the Synod (Article XI B) except in those situ-
ations enumerated in Article XI C.

Adopted Jan. 11, 2002

Questions re Publicity of Dispute Cases (01-2243)

A pastor of the Synod, in a December 3, 2001 letter, noted that
Bylaw 8.21 e states that “while a matter in dispute is still undecided or
while an appeal is contemplated or pending, publicity shall not be
given to the issues in the matter by any of the parties involved.” He
asked a series of questions, stating his intent “not that some new
canon laws might be used over against others but rather that all mem-
bers of Synod may deal with one another in a decent, fraternal and
orderly way, especially when certain issues become hotly contested.”

Question 1: Is Bylaw 8.21 e to be interpreted that any party in-
volved in a dispute or any synodical official involved in handling
the dispute may not use the public press or other means to advo-
cate a position in a dispute resolution case?

Response: Bylaw 8.21 e states: “While a matter in dispute is still
undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or pending, publicity
shall not be given to the issues in the matter by any of the parties in-
volved.” The term “any of the parties involved” includes the follow-
ing if the matter is initially commenced under Bylaw 2.27:

¢ The party who brings the matter to the attention of the President
of the Synod (Bylaw 2.27 g) or a District President (Bylaw 2.27
a) or the Praesidium of the Synod (Bylaw 2.27 b)

¢ Any party to whom the matter is presented and who is required to
thoroughly investigate whether the allegations can be substanti-
ated. Such party would be, unless disqualified, the President of
the Synod or a District President or the Praesidium of the Synod,
as the case may be

¢ The respondent (Bylaw 8.03)
¢ The Secretary of the Synod who forms a Dispute Resolution
Panel

* Members of the Dispute Resolution Panel
* Members of the Appeal Panel
¢ Members of the Review Panel

The word “publicity” as used in the bylaw is defined in Web-
ster’s New World Dictionary as “any information or action that
brings a person, cause, etc. to public notice.” Use of the press or
other means by a party involved in the matter to bring to the atten-
tion of the public information regarding the matter or to advocate a
position is “publicity” and is prohibited by the bylaw if it occurs

2004 Convention Workbook