# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 15 17 2002_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

15. Requests for Reconsideration of Opinion 01-2243 (02-2251)
In letters dated January 29, January 30, and February 12, 2002, a District President and two pastors
formally requested that the Commission reconsider its January 11, 2002 ruling regarding publicity in
dispute cases, raising several issues and offering their own rationale and counsel. The Commission has
taken into consideration the points made and issues raised by the questioners and upon reconsideration,
rules that its opinion 01-2243 stands, for the following reasons:
(1) Opinion 01-2243 is consistent with other opinions of the Commission since the Synod replaced
the pre-1992 adjudication process with the post-1992 dispute resolution process. In its July 8,
1999 response to a series of questions regarding the relationship of Bylaw 2.27 to Chapter VIII of
the Bylaws (99-2151), the Commission explained how the two fit together. After Bylaw 2.27
“triggers the procedure,” the process may move to Chapter VIII and Bylaw 8.07, h. “In this case
the ‘complainant’ is the member who is contesting the expulsion, and the ‘report of the
reconciler’ is the District President’s ‘statement of the matter in dispute.’” The Commission
concluded: “Therefore, in response to the question, Bylaw 2.27 and Chapter VIII of the Bylaws
do not operate independently of and without regard for each other.” Instead, “Bylaw 2.27 ties into
Chapter VIII of the Bylaws at Bylaw 8.07, h. Bylaw 8.07, a-g, are not utilized in a Bylaw 2.27
action.” Therefore, the remaining paragraphs governing the Chapter VIII process apply also to
disputes originating with Bylaw 2.27, including Bylaw 8.21 and paragraph e.
(2) Opinion 01-2243 recognizes a relationship between the two pertinent sections of the Bylaws that
has long existed in the Handbook of the Synod. Over the years as the Handbook was revised,
including revisions to processes for addressing disputes of all kinds, the requirement regarding
publicity has not been significantly changed. Portions of the former processes were carried over
into new processes, in particular the requirement governing publicity:
j. While a case is still undecided or while appeals are contemplated or pending, there
shall be no publicity of the case by any party to the proceeding (Bylaw 5.31 j; 1973
Handbook, p. 124).
m. While a case is still undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or pending,
publicity shall not be given to the issues in the case by any party to the case. A
violation by a party may place the party’s stand in jeopardy. At the request of either
party the status of the process and periodic progress reports on the process may be
properly disclosed by the chairman of the commission to parties on a need-to-know
basis (Bylaw 8.51 m; 1989 Handbook, p 134).
e. While a matter in dispute is still undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or
pending, publicity shall not be given to the issues in the matter by any of the parties
involved (Bylaw 8.21 e; 2001 Handbook, p. 126).
1989 Bylaws 8.31 and 8.35 stipulate the kinds of “situations” to which the adjudication process,
including the above bylaw, apply. Included are disputes such as are covered by the current (2001)
Chapter VIII Dispute Resolution Process. Also included are “cases involving expulsion under
Article XIII of the Constitution,” covered by current (2001) Bylaw 2.27, “Commencing an Action
to Terminate Congregational or Individual Membership.” Both kinds of cases were included
under the same process. Requirements regarding publicity applied to both kinds of cases. This is
demonstrated by Commission on Constitutional Matters' rulings prior to 1992.

8