# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S373 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS ‘373 laws is encouraged when disputes, disagreements or offenses arise among the members when it does not involve expulsion from mem- bership. Question 2: May [the officer], as an elected officer of the Synod, be free to criticize an opinion of the CCM in which he with- holds basic information, thus criticizing on the basis of his misin- formation, rather than using the bylaw channels, which Synod re- quires of members to use to challenge or appeal a CCM decision? Opinion: While criticism or dissent may not be prohibited, offi- cers of the Synod, just as individual members, commit themselves as members of the Synod to act in accordance with the synodical Constitution and Bylaws under which they have agreed to live and work together and which the congregations alone have the author- ity to adopt or amend through conventions (Bylaw 1.05 d). An officer of the Synod must recognize that “Elected officers serve the Synod in accordance with duties assigned to them or oth- erwise authorized by the Constitution and appropriate Bylaws...” (Bylaw 1.07b), that “Every member of the Synod shall diligently and earnestly promote the purposes of the Synod by word and deed” (Bylaw 2.35) and that “The Constitution, Bylaws, and all other rules and regulations of the Synod apply to all congregational and individual members of the Synod” (Bylaw 2.39a). In their accountability to the Synod, “All officers, boards, and commissions shall be accountable to the Synod for all their actions, and any decision of such officers, boards, and commissions may be appealed to the national convention of the Synod” (Bylaw 3.73). And as such, an officer of the Synod must especially respect the requirement that “An opinion rendered by the commission shall be binding on the question decided unless and until it is overruled by a synodical convention” (Bylaw 3.905 d). As an officer of the Synod, the officer must assume only such rights as have been expressly conferred upon him/her by the Synod, and in everything pertaining to their rights and the performance of their duties they are responsible to the Synod. It is the Synod that at all times has the right to call its officers to account (Article XI A). Adopted Aug. 15-16, 2003 The Final Decision of a Dispute Resolution Panel (03-2364) In an e-mail communication addressed to the Commission on Constitutional Matters dated July 29, 2003, an ordained minister of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has asked the following questions: Question 1: Do the Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod allow for the Synod in convention to overrule a decision of a DRP? Opinion: Bylaw 3.73 states: “All officers, boards, and commis- sions shall be accountable to the Synod for al] their actions, and any decision of such officers, boards, and commissions may be ap- pealed to the national convention of the Synod.” Members of a Dis- pute Resolution Panel are not officers of the Synod and a Dispute Resolution Panel is not a board or commission. It must also be noted: “The final decision of a Dispute Resolu- tion Panel shal] be binding upon the parties to that dispute subject to request for review;”(Bylaw 8.09 c 4 a). When and if the review has been requested, ‘The final decision of the Review Panel shall 1. be binding upon the parties to that dispute and not be subject to fur- ther appeal” (Bylaw 8.09 e 1). Accordingly, the Bylaws of the Synod do not allow the Synod to overrule a Dispute Resolution Panel or a Review Panel decision. Question 2: If the Bylaws do not allow the Synod to overrule this decision, then should the overtures be returned to the congre- gations making them, informing them that the decision cannot be overturned? Opinion: Depending upon the overture, its nature and contents and the circumstances of the case, either Bylaw 3.19 c or Bylaw 3.19 d are applicable. These are as follows: [3.19] c. Overtures with reference to a case in which a member has been suspended or expelled and which is at present in the process of or subject to appeal, as well as overtures which, upon advice of legal counsel, may subject the Synod or the corporate of- ficers of the Synod to civil action for libel or slander, or which con- tain libel or slander, shall not be accepted for convention consider- ation. [3.19] d. The synodical President shall determine if any over- ture contains information which is materially in error, or contains any apparent misrepresentation of truth or of character. He shall not approve inclusion of any such overture in the convention man- ual and shall refer any such overture to the District President who has ecclesiastical supervision over the entity submitting the over- ture for action. If any published overture or resolution is found to be materially in error or contains any misrepresentation of truth or of character, it shall be withdrawn from convention consideration and referred by the President of the Synod to the appropriate Dis- trict President for action. The President of the Synod must handle any such overture ac- cording to the above bylaw provisions. Question 3: If so, then should the President’s office or the Sec- retary of Synod return them? Opinion: This question is answered under question 2 above. Adopted Aug. 15-16, 2003 Authority of the Board of Directors Over Restricted Funds (President’s Office) (03-2365) In an e-mail letter received July 31, 2003, a pastor of the Synod pursues a question regarding President’s Office expenses paid by restricted giving. Question: Does the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod have fiscal review and authority con- cerning restricted funds given to the President’s Office? May the Board of Directors intervene if such spending is at odds with the purpose and objectives of the Synod? Can the Board provide over- sight on restricted funding? Can the Board stop such spending with proper cause? Opinion: The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod give the Board of Directors broad authority in the areas of fiscal responsi- bility, as outlined in Article XI F of the Constitution and Bylaw 3.183. Those powers and responsibilities are subject to a number of restrictions. For example, “restricted funds” as referenced in the question is understood to include gifts in trust, accepted by the Synod with particular restrictions. If accepted, the trust provisions must be honored and the restrictions complied with. With respect to restricted funds given to the President’s Office, the same principle applies. Bylaw 3.183 c does include a general recognition of responsibility of the Board of Directors in the busi- ness and legal affairs of the Synod and, as discussed in Opinion 02- 2259, the general duty to see that the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod are observed, as directed in 2001 convention Resolution 7-03C. As further discussed in the response to Question 2 of Opin- ion 02-2259, however, the President is the chief ecclesiastical offi- cer of the Synod, and the Board of Directors may not restrict the ecclesiastical functions of the President and the means chosen by him to carry out those functions within the resources available to him. It is expected that the Board of Directors, as well as all mem- bers of the Synod, will provide such constructive input as they may have to assist the President in the performance of his office. Adopted Sept. 30, 2003 Role of District Board of Directors in the Configuration of Visitation Circuits (03-2368) A pastor of the Northern Illinois District, in a letter dated Au- gust 20, 2003, asked a series of questions regarding the responsi- bilities of a District board of directors in the determination of the configuration of visitation and electoral Circuits. Question 1: Is it permissible for a District board of directors to approve the dividing of two visitation circuits into four permanent visitation circuits when the original circuits were specifically es- tablished by the District in convention? 2004 Convention Workbook