# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S334
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

334 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

spondence and other communication which follow, the status of
proceedings or deliberations, the President’s actions pertaining
thereto, and his opinion as to who is right or wrong.” Accordingly,
tHe information given by example in question 7, since it pertains to
“the status of proceedings or deliberations,” is therefore included in
“a matter in dispute” and should not receive publicity until the case
is decided and the time for appeal has expired.

Adopted June 10—11, 2002

Question re Propriety of Action of President
of the Synod (02-2260)

In a February 20, 2002, e-mail message to the chairman of the
Commission, a pastor asks whether the President of the Synod
usurped the authority of the Commission by sending out a memo to
all congregations of the Synod regarding an event that is currently
being addressed by the dispute resolution process.

The Commission does not know the content of the memo re-
ferred to and therefore cannot respond to the specific question. The
Commission reiterates the fina] paragraph of its opinion 02-2251
that has already addressed the matter in question:

Properly understood, the opinion of the Commission does not in-
fringe upon the duties of the President that are set forth in the Constitu-
tion and Bylaws of the Synod. There is no prohibition against the Pres-
ident communicating with the members of the Synod as to the
underlying doctrinal topics that are involved in a disputed matter. The
President cannot give publicity to the particular matter in dispute. Some
confusion appears to exist as to the Commission’s use of the term “mat-
ter in dispute” to which the prohibition of publicity applies. This phrase
includes the details of the charges or allegations made, the correspon-
dence and other communication which follow, the status of proceed-
ings or deliberations, his actions pertaining thereto, and his opinion as to
who is right or wrong. The duty of the President of the Synod under Ar-
ticle X1 B of the Constitution is to supervise the doctrine and adminis-
tration of officers, employees, Districts, and District Presidents, to see to
it that they act in accordance with the Synod’s Constitution, to admon-
ish all who in any way depart from it, and, if such admonition is not
heeded, to report such cases to the Synod. This duty, as well as the
power to advise, admonish, and reprove, is tempered by the provisions
of Article XIII and the bylaws that flow from it.

Adopted April 15-17, 2002

Question re Continued Participation
in Dispute Process (02-2261)

In a letter dated February 25, 2002, a pastor of the Synod re-
quests clarification regarding the continued participation of a per-
son who has withdrawn, has been recused or dismissed, or has in
any other way discontinued participation in the process governed
by Bylaw 2.27 and Chapter VIII of the Bylaws.

Question: “May any member of Synod who has been officially in-
volved in a formal complaint or dispute (as clarified in CCM ruling
#01-2243) be free to give publicity to the issues of matters involved in
that complaint or dispute before the matter itself has been concluded
as specified in Bylaw 8.21 e if that member has withdrawn, been re-
cused, dismissed, or.in any other way discontinued his participation in
that complaint or dispute?”

Opinion: In its April 1975 opinion, Ag. 809, 809 —-A and —D,
the Commission on Constitutional Matters responded to questions
in a then-current dispute case. To one of those questions from a
board of control of a seminary which had forwarded to its District
President the charges that had been brought against a member of
its faculty, “In what way does the Board’s role in the remaining
procedures make it a ‘party of the proceeding’ (Bylaw 5.31, j),” the
Commission responded: “The Board of Control has been involved
in the proceedings and therefore comes under the phrase ‘any
party’ in the bylaw.” Consistent with this previous opinion, the
Commission therefore rules that any of the parties involved in a
dispute, as that term is defined in opinion 01-2243, remains a party
involved until final resolution of the dispute, regardless of whether
such a party has withdrawn, been recused, dismissed, or in any way
discontinued participation in the dispute.

Adopted April 15-17, 2002

2004 Convention Workbook

Challenge of Secretary’s Decision
in Dispute Resolution Process (02-2262)

In a March 22, 2002 letter, the President of the Synod forwarded
a concern addressed to him by a pastor of the Synod who is involved
in a dispute resolution process, challenging a decision by the Secre-
tary of the Synod as administrator of the process. The matter in
question: a decision by the Secretary to allow the process to con-
tinue despite the pastor’s contention that a request for a reconsider-
ation of a dispute panel’s decision by the other party in the dispute
was not filed in timely fashion. The Commission responds to issues
raised by the challenge to the Secretary’s decision. The Secretary
of the Synod did not participate in the discussion or decision.

Question 1: Bylaw 8.09 d states: “Within 30 days after receiv-
ing the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel, any party to the
dispute...may request a decision regarding a reconsideration.
...Such request for a reconsideration shall be mailed to the Secre-
tary of the Synod, each member of the Dispute Resolution Panel,
and the other parties to the dispute, and shall be accompanied by a
written memorandum stating the basis for the request.” When does
the 30-day-period commence?

Opinion: For the complainant and the respondent, the 30-day-
period commences for each on the day such party to the dispute
receives a written copy of the decision of the Dispute Resolution
Panel.

Question 2: In what form must a party to the dispute transmit
their request for a reconsideration?

Opinion: Such request for a reconsideration must be in writing.
The Commission further determines that the term ‘“‘shall be mailed”
includes regular mail, e-mail, or facsimile.

Question 3: Are the 30-day-period and other like time limits in
Chapter VIII of the Bylaws to be strictly construed, or may some
latitude be applied to such time periods under extenuating circum-
stances?

Opinion: The Preamble to Chapter VIII of the Bylaws is in-
structive in responding to this question. There it is stated that the
purpose of the Synod’s dispute resolution process is to bring about
peace, truth, justice, and reconciliation. Such purpose will be better
accomplished if there is a reasonable application of the time limi-
tations rather than a strict application that would lead to a termina-
tion of the process before it has had an opportunity to be fully uti-
lized. The purpose of the time limitations in Chapter VIII is to
move the matter forward rather than allow technicalities to possibly
abort the search for truth, justice, and reconciliation. What is “rea-
sonable” is a matter to be determined on a case by case basis by
the Secretary of the Synod who has a duty to administer the
Synod’s dispute resolution process (Bylaw 3.143 0), provided such
time delay does not have a negative impact on the orderly progress
of the dispute resolution process.

Question 4: Does Bylaw 8.09 d require that the request for re-
consideration of a dispute resolution panel’s decision and the writ-"
ten memorandum actually reach all of the parties involved within
the 30-day-period or does it require simply that the request for re-
consideration be filed within the 30-day-period?

Opinion: The answer to this question is “neither.” The bylaw
provides that the request for a reconsideration accompanied by the
written memorandum is to be mailed (as defined in the opinion to
question #2 above) within 30 days after the complainant or respon-
dent receives the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel.

Question 5: If the request for reconsideration and accompanying
memorandum does not reach all of the parties involved within the
30-day-period, does it make the request nul] and void, thereby ef-
fectively upholding the Dispute Resolution Panel’s decision?

Opinion: This question has been answered in the previous opin-
ions herein.

Adopted April 15-17, 2002