# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 15 17 2002_S10
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

and does this action inappropriately involve the Board of Directors in supervision of the
Synod’s dispute resolution process?
Opinion: The Commission responds that the provisions of 2001 convention Resolution 7-19, which call
upon the Council of Presidents to review Bylaw 2.27 g, will not be interfered with by the referred-to
action of the Board of Directors.
The Commission notes that the Secretary of the Synod has been given the responsibility to administer the
Synod’s dispute resolution process (Bylaw 3.143 o). The Secretary has informed the Commission that an
action intended for the 2001 convention of the Synod, "To Study Dispute Resolution Process” (2001 Res.
7-33), was not acted upon by the Synod due to lack of time. Recognizing the importance of that intended
action, the Secretary, as administrator of the dispute process, has decided to conduct such a study and
therefore approached the Board of Directors for approval of expenditure of funds for this purpose, also
offering to report back to the Board regarding the use of such funds. This was the extent of the
involvement of the Board of Directors in the matter. It did not involve itself in matters that are the
responsibility of other officers and entities of the Synod.
In response to an additional question included by the pastor in his letter, namely, “What is the time length
for ‘interim’ appointments?”, the Commission refers the petitioner to its decision regarding such
appointments, Opinion 01-2237.
23. Questions re Board of Directors and Board for Communications Services Relationship (022259)
In letters dated February 20 and 28, 2002, the chairman of the Board for Communication Services and a
pastor of the Synod question the right of the Board of Directors of the Synod to adopt its February 1, 2002
resolution, “To Bring Publicity to an Immediate Halt.” The Commission continues to study this question
and will respond at a later time.
24. Question re Propriety of Action of President of the Synod (02-2260)
In a February 20, 2002 e-mail message to the chairman of the Commission, a pastor asks whether the
President of the Synod usurped the authority of the Commission by sending out a memo to all
congregations of the Synod regarding an event that is currently being addressed by the dispute resolution
process.
The Commission does not know the content of the memo referred to and therefore cannot respond to the
specific question. The Commission reiterates the final paragraph of its opinion 02-2251 that has already
addressed the matter in question:
Properly understood, the opinion of the Commission does not infringe upon the duties of the
President that are set forth in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. There is no
prohibition against the President communicating with the members of the Synod as to the
underlying doctrinal topics that are involved in a disputed matter. The President cannot give
publicity to the particular matter in dispute. Some confusion appears to exist as to the
Commission’s use of the term “matter in dispute” to which the prohibition of publicity
applies. This phrase includes the details of the charges or allegations made, the
correspondence and other communication which follow, the status of proceedings or
deliberations, his actions pertaining thereto, and his opinion as to who is right or wrong. The
duty of the President of the Synod under Article XI B of the Constitution is to supervise the
doctrine and administration of officers, employees, Districts, and District Presidents, to see

15