# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S345
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 345

should affairs of the Synod require it in his opinion after appropri-
ate consultation with the vice-presidents, Board of Directors, or
Council of Presidents of the Synod” (06-2462). In the absence of
other provisions to carry out the terms of vacating an office under
Bylaw 1.5.12.1, should a board pass a resolution identifying the
reasons for the vacating of a position of one of its members serving
on such board pursuant to Bylaw 1.5.12.1(b) (5), appropriately doc-
umenting that such member engaged and continues to engage in
inappropriate action detrimental to the Synod and its agencies, the
President pursuant to Bylaw 3.3.1.3, after consultation with the
Board of Directors and/or the Council of Presidents, and/or the vice
presidents, may choose to exercise his executive power to vacate
the position on the board held by such member.

It should also be noted that, in lieu of exercising such authority,
a President may instead choose to exercise his constitutional au-
thority under Article XI B in supervising the administration of offi-
cers of the Synod by submitting appropriate matters between con-
ventions of the Synod to a written vote of its member congregations
as provided in Article XI B 8: ;
When matters arise between meetings of the Synod in convention
which are of such a nature that action thereon cannot be delayed until
the next convention, the President is authorized to submit them to a
written vote of the member congregations of the Synod only after full
and complete information regarding the matter has been sent to member
congregations by presidential letter and has been published in an official
publication of the Synod. If such matters are related to the business af-
fairs of the Synod, such a vote shall be conducted only after the Presi-
dent has consulted with the synodical Board of Directors. In all cases at
least one-fourth of the member congregations must register their vote.

Adopted Feb. 2, 2007

Bylaw 1.10.1.1 and Conflict Resolution
Procedures (06-2482)

A member of the Synod in an E-mailed letter dated August 24,
2006, submitted the following series of questions to the Commis-
sion regarding Bylaw 1.10.1.1: “The Synod, in the spirit of 1
Corinthians 6, calls upon al] parties to a disagreement, accusation,
controversy, or disciplinary action to rely exclusively and fully on
the Synod’s system of reconciliation and conflict resolution. The
use of the Synod’s conflict resolution procedures shall be the exclu-
sive and final remedy for those who are in dispute.”

Question 1A: Can a member of a congregation of the LCMS hold-
ing a position within the Synod itself avai! and/or be
subject to the dispute resolution process of the Synod?

Opinion: Bylaw 1.10.2 indicates that the dispute resolution process is
the exclusive process, subject to the exceptions provided by Bylaw
1.10.3, to resolve disputes involving as parties “(1) members of the
Synod, (2) the Synod itself, (3) a district or an organization owned
and controlled by the Synod, (4) persons involved in excommunica-
tion, or (5) lay members of congregations of the Synod holding posi-
tions with the Synod itself or with districts or other organizations
owned and controlled by the Synod.” A member of a congregation of
the LCMS holding a position within the Synod is expressly included
within the list of those who may avail themselves of and/or are sub-
ject to the provisions of Bylaw section 1.10, to the extent that the
dispute relates to the position of service with the Synod.

Question 1B: If so, can a member of the Board of Directors of the
Synod both avail and be subject to the dispute resolu-
tion process of the Synod?

Qpinion: Yes, a member of the Board of Directors of the Synod
may both avail himself/herself of as well as be subject to the dis-
pute resolution process of the Synod so long as the issue relates to
the position held.

Question 1C: If 1B above is so, is a member of the Board of Di-
rectors of the Synod obligated pursuant to the Consti-
tution and Bylaws of the Synod to avail himself or
herself of the dispute resolution process if faced with
an unresolved dispute relating to matters pertaining
to the Synod and/or its members?

Opinion: Bylaw 1.10.2 includes the provision, “It shall be the ex-
clusive remedy to resolve such disputes that involve theological,

doctrinal, or ecclesiastical issues except those covered under Bylaw
sections 2.14-2.17 and except as provided in Bylaw 1.10.3.” Bylaw
1.10.3 exempts from the dispute resolution process expulsion from
membership under Bylaw sections 2.14-2.17 and board of regents’
supervision of faculty and administration under Bylaws
3.8.2.7.5-3.8.2.7.9 and 3.8.3.8.5—3.8.3.8.9, and also exempts “(a)
Disputes concerning property rights (e.g., real estate agreements,
mortgages, fraud, or embezzlement); and (b) Disputes arising under
contractual arrangements of all kinds (e.g., contracts for goods, ser-
vices or employment benefits).” So long as the issue in considera-
tion does not fall within one of the exceptions provided in the
bylaw, the dispute resolution process of the Synod is the exclusive
remedy for resolving such issues.

Question 2A: Is a member of the Board of Directors, whether or
not such member is a member of the Synod, in wish-
ing to express dissent with a synodical resolution (for
example, 7-02A from the 2004 convention), required
to follow the provisions of the Constitution and By-
laws of Synod?

Opinion: The dissent provisions of Bylaw section 1.8 are applicable
only to members of the Synod. If a member of the Board of Direc-
tors is a member of the Synod, those provisions are applicable. If a
member of the Board of Directors is not a member of the Synod,
that member’s conduct is not governed by the dissent provisions of
Bylaw section 1.8. A further description of duties and responsibil-
ities as well as restrictions on the behavior of members of the
Board of Directors who are not members of the Synod is discussed
in Bylaw 3.3.5.

Question 2B: If not, is a member of the Synod, while serving as a
member of the Board of Directors, in wishing to ex-
press dissent with a synodical resolution, required to
follow the provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws
of Synod?

Opinion: A member of the Synod is at all times bound by the pro-
visions of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, including dur-
ing service on a board or commission or as an officer of the Synod.

Question 2C: If they are so required to follow the provisions of the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, is such ex-
pression of dissent to a resolution of the Synod re-
stricted to the provisions of the Constitution and By-
laws of the Synod?

Opinion: Yes. If a member of the Board of Directors is a member
of the Synod, the dissent provisions of Bylaw section 1.8 apply to
any such expression of dissent.

Question 2D: What remedies exist in the Constitution and Bylaws
of the Synod in the event that the manner of dissent
to a synodical resolution exceeds that which is pro-
vided in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod?

Opinion: Bylaw section 1.10, detailing the dispute resolution
process of the Synod, would generally apply to an assertion that a
member is in violation of the dissent provisions of the Constitution
and/or Bylaws of the Synod. If such conduct were sufficiently egre-
gious or repetitive so as to implicate the expulsion provisions of
Article XIII of the Constitution, Bylaw section 2.14 would also be
applicable. See also Opinion 05-2444 for a discussion of dissent.

Adopted Feb. 2, 2007

Formal Written Complaints, Public Rebuke,
and Face-to-Face Meetings (06-2484)

In a September 27, 2006 letter to the Commission, a pastor of
the Synod asked a series of questions regarding the meaning of
Bylaw 2.14.3, specifically the meaning of “any formal written com-
plaint or accusation,” public rebuke of public sin, and the Matthew
18:15 face-to-face provision.

Question 1: Do the words “complaint” and “accusation” mean es-
sentially the same thing? Do they or can they refer to
different things?

Opinion: In the context of the bylaw, while the words “complaint”

or “accusation” are clearly synonymous, essentially it is formal “al-

legations” or “information” (Cf. 2.14.3 and 2.14.4) that can lead to

2007 Convention Workbook