# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_January 11 2002_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

factual determinations. Such factual determinations are beyond the scope of this Commission’s duties.
Where charges such as these are brought, the factual issues must be resolved through the process defined
in Bylaw 2.27 and Chapter VIII of the Bylaws. This Commission cannot make the factual determinations
asked in these questions, and therefore is not in a position to answer them.
233. Question re Inability of Praesidium to Reach a Decision (02-2246)
The Praesidium of the Synod, in a memo dated January 11, 2002, described its inability after four separate
ballots to determine the eligibility of the President to act in response to a complaint against a District
President and asked the following question:
QUESTION: “Does a deadlocked Praesidium on the question of the eligibility of the Synodical
President to act in a case of formal charges against a District President mean that
the Synodical President is or is not disqualified from acting in this case?”
Response: Such a deadlock has neither effect. The bylaw in question, 2.27 a 1, which applies in the
instant case because of a challenge to the synodical President’s authority to take action pursuant to Bylaw
2.27 g, requires that the Praesidium reach a definitive conclusion. The bylaw does not allow for a
deadlock. The matter at issue in all such cases, the ability of the President to act impartially in
investigating a disputed case, is far too important to allow it to be decided by default, deadlock, the
vicissitudes of parliamentary procedure, or the manner in which a motion is worded. In the case of such a
deadlock, given the importance of the issue, the Praesidium must find a way to reach a definitive
conclusion.
The Commission further observes that the Synod depends upon the Praesidium to resolve such weighty
issues. It notes that the members of the Praesidium are all learned men, elected to important and solemn
office in the Synod because the delegates to the Synod’s convention who elected them felt that they had
the ability to deal with difficult and weighty matters. The Commission therefore encourages the members
of the Praesidium to continue to deliberate upon this important matter in order to arrive at a churchmanlike and God-pleasing decision.
234. Questions re Appointment of Interim Directors (01-2237)
The President of the Synod, in an October 26, 2001 memorandum, asked two related questions pertaining
to the appointment of interim executive directors or interim chief executive officers by entities of the
Synod. The Commission discussed a second draft response and agreed to consider at a later date yet
another draft prepared by its chairman.
235. Questions re Duties of District Presidents related to Bylaw 2.27 and Dispute Resolution (012239)
In a October 5, 2001 letter, a pastor of the Synod reminded the Commission of its responsibility to
“interpret the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions upon written request of a member” (Bylaws
3.905 d) and requested an interpretation of the duties of a District President relative to dispute resolution
and a ruling regarding the actions of the President of the Michigan District.
QUESTIONS: [Please provide] an interpretation of the duties of a District President related to his
responsibilities in Bylaw 2.27, and also related to the purposes and objectives and
procedures of the synodical dispute resolution process. [Please also provide a ruling]
based on the misapplication, refusal to act, or disobedience of the requirements of
Michigan District President C. William Hoesman related to Bylaw 2.27.

165