# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_January 11 2002_S8
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

period to ascertain the truth or falsity of the complaint allegations. The same criteria would apply
to the First Vice-President or next qualified District officer under Bylaw 2.27, 1. The words “fail
to act” clearly prevent a District President from stifling a complaint through the refusal to act, i.e.,
by literally doing nothing. A complaint which is ignored by a District President for 90 days
triggers the “fails to act” language. In that situation, an appeal to the Praesidium is the proper
procedure anticipated in the bylaw.
When, however, a District President receives a complaint, he may take a number of actions which
toll the “fails to act” language of the bylaw. He may suspend the member. He may decline to
suspend the member. In each case he has acted. The District President may elect to investigate
personally or intervene through the efforts of his representatives. He may meet with the
complainant or with the person against whom the complaint is lodged. He may appoint a small
committee to assist reconciliation efforts. He may take these steps or any other reasonable efforts
to get to the heart of the complaint and be deemed to have acted. Such efforts may extend beyond
90 days until a decision concerning suspension is reached. At that time a complainant may appeal
if the District President declines to suspend.
If a District President has taken no action or ignored a complaint for the 90 day period stipulated
in the bylaw, it is appropriate for the Praesidium to consider an appeal by the complainant under
the “fails to act” language of 2.27, b. When a District President takes action within 90 days, the
“fails to act” language is tolled while the investigation or reconciliation efforts are pending. An
appeal made on a current case in such circumstances should be properly denied by the Praesidium
pending its prompt disposition by the District President.
The Bylaws are silent regarding the length of time a District President has to conclude action on a
complaint. The clear intent of the bylaw requires expeditious action by a District President when
dealing with such a complaint. A District President may not frustrate the purpose of the bylaw by
undertaking some action within 90 days and subsequently refusing to act. The actions of a District
President upon receiving a complaint must ultimately lead to a decision to suspend or not to
suspend. When a District President begins to act within 90 days and subsequently fails to act, a
complainant may properly appeal to the Praesidium. The Praesidium shall determine on a factual
basis whether the District President commenced and continued to act.
If you continue to believe that the District President in this case failed to act on your complaint within the
90-day required period of time as understood in light of the aforementioned CCM ruling, you may present
your written complaint to the Praesidium of the Synod.
The President of the District is not responsible to arrange meetings between the complainant and the
respondent. That responsibility rests with the parties involved in the dispute (Bylaw 8.05) and, later in the
process, with the reconciler who is chosen (Bylaw 8.07 a, b, c, and d).
236. Adjournment
Following brief discussion of the matter of CCM appointments, the meeting was ended with the
Benediction spoken by Albert Marcis.

Raymond L. Hartwig, Secretary

167