# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S215 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) RESOLUTIONS 12 Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution To Restore Right of Accuser to Appeal When a District President Fails to Act or Declines to Suspend RESOLUTION 12-01A Report R65D (CW, p. 301); Overtures 12-01, 12-11–13, 12-15– 21, 12-23–27, 12-39–40 (CW, pp. 415, 419–424, 430–431) Rationale Membership in the Synod is and always has been a privilege that is either granted or terminated by the Synod. In the earliest period of its history, the Synod retained the authority to make decisions regarding membership for itself, to be made by its conventions. Over time, the Synod adopted bylaw processes for making such decisions. In the matter of expulsions from the Synod, such processes were to be fair and impartial. Initially, the President of the Synod as ecclesiastical supervisor was entrusted with the authority to suspend members prior to their expulsion. Not long after, district presidents as the President’s agents were given the authority to suspend, with final decisions regarding expulsion to be made by a convention of the Synod or district. In time, Synod bylaw changes provided opportunity for appeals of suspensions to commissions and boards of the Synod or districts prior to expulsion. The 1992 convention of the Synod, which created the Synod’s dispute resolution process, retained district presidents’ authority to suspend but delegated the authority for final decisions regarding expulsion from membership to dispute resolution panels. When the 2004 convention created new processes solely for suspension and expulsion, panels of three district presidents were given responsibility for expulsion decisions. The 2010 convention replaced one of the three presidents on such panels with a lay reconciler. accuser could now request that the matter be presented to a Referral Panel of three circuit visitors if the district president failed to act, this panel then making the decision regarding the suspension, thereby reducing the opportunity for a full and objective hearing and placing an ecclesiastical supervisory decision in the hands of circuit visitors which constitutionally is entrusted to the President of Synod and district presidents. The 2004 Bylaws 2.14.5ff also gave a district president the option to form a Referral Panel to make a suspension decision (or not) in his stead. The history of the suspension/expulsion process supports a return to past practice which existed from 1956 to 1989, leaving the responsibility for suspension in the hands of those charged with ecclesiastical supervision. When a district president fails or declines to act, this will allow an appeal by the accuser to the President of the Synod, who will decide when an accusation warrants suspension and, if requested by the accused, a hearing before a panel. Finally, in response to a question posed by the chairman of Floor Committee #12, the CCM concludes its Opinion (16-2791) with these words: Constitution Art. XIV provides that “[t]he Synod in convention may adopt bylaws that are consistent with and do not contradict the Constitution of the Synod, which controls and supersedes such bylaws and all other rules and regulations of the Synod.” In the case of the former (1956–1989) provision, the case for constitutionality was explicitly made, not only demon- As the removal from membership process evolved over nearly 170 years, of particular note was the decision by the 1956 convention to empower the President of the Synod to act when a district president failed to act on an accusation brought against a member of the Synod. This presidential authorization to act was then given to the Praesidium of the Synod in 1989 (Bylaw 2.27ff) and retained as part of the overhaul of the suspension/expulsion processes in 1992. The 2004 convention’s major overhaul of the process removed the right of an accuser to appeal to the Praesidium of the Synod when the district president failed to act within 60 days. In its place, the “12. Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution” Committee 12 Chairman John Wille U P O N T H I S R O C K • Resolutions | 215