# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 10 11 2002_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The Commission on Constitutional Matters previously responded to the question of whether the President
could exercise “censorship” over official periodicals of the Synod in opinion Ag. 2073, issued June 25,
1997. That opinion found authority for actions which might be considered censorship on the part of the
President, but recognized extreme limitations on that authority. The Commission found that, to the extent
that such authority exists, it flows from his general authority under Article XI B 1, which indicates “the
President has the supervision regarding the doctrine and administration...” and Bylaw 3.101 C 11, which
authorizes the exercise of executive power where there is no specific directive of the Synod and action is
required. As applied to the issue of censorship, the opinion observed that “prohibiting or directing items
for publication in the official periodicals of the Synod should be done by the President of the Synod only
in exceptional circumstances.” The opinion also recognized that the exercise of such extraordinary
measures under the bylaw, now renumbered as 3.101 C 11, would require the President to first consult
with the Vice-Presidents, the Board of Directors, or the Council of Presidents, whichever in his judgment
would be most appropriate and, further, that any such decision could be appealed by any member of the
Synod to the Commission on Constitutional Matters and/or to the Synod in convention, whichever would
be appropriate.
It should also be noted that the prior opinion also discussed and relied in part on former Bylaw 3.101 h
which indicated that the President remains “ultimately responsible for the day to day supervision of the
synodical staff.” While that provision was dropped from the Bylaws, the prior opinion was not premised
on that provision but rather on the grant of power to the President to act in unforeseen circumstances, with
the limitations specifically attached thereto. Since that prior opinion, the power of the Board of Directors
has also been expanded. The provisions of Bylaw 3.183 were expanded by the 1998 convention to
include the right to call up for “modification, or revocation” rather than the prior right to merely call up
for “suggestion.”
Were the BCS actually presented with the factual situation posed in the question submitted, one would
expect the BCS to exercise its responsibilities after meeting with the Board of Directors and the President
urgently in an attempt to resolve the dispute.
Question 4:

“If the President writes about a matter in dispute and asks the Board for Communication
Services to publicize that writing through its various channels of communication, does the
Board of Directors order prohibit the BCS from doing so? In light of the limitations placed
on the Board of Directors by the Constitution and Bylaws noted above, has the Board of
Directors issued an order that is unconstitutional?”

Opinion: The Commission has previously ruled that, according to Bylaw 8.21 e, any party to whom the
matter in dispute is presented and who is required to thoroughly investigate whether the allegations can be
substantiated, whether the President of the Synod or a District President or the Praesidium of the Synod,
is not to give publicity to a matter in dispute (see CCM opinion 01-2243). The Commission has also ruled
that in dispute cases resulting from Bylaw 2.27 g the President of the Synod is and remains a party until
the dispute is finally resolved (see CCM opinion 02-2261). In such case, “use of the press or other means
by a party involved in the matter to bring to the attention of the public information regarding the matter or
to advocate a position is ‘publicity’ and is prohibited by the bylaw if it occurs while a matter in dispute is
still undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or pending” (see opinion 01-2243). The President may
therefore discuss underlying doctrinal topics that are involved in a disputed matter, but he is not allowed
to discuss “matters in dispute,” specifically, “details of the charges or allegations made, the
correspondence or other communication which follow, the status of proceedings or deliberations, the
President’s actions pertaining thereto, and his opinion as to who is right or wrong” (see opinion 02-2251).
Therefore, in response to the questions, the President may not write about a matter in dispute or ask the
Board for Communication Services to publicize that writing through its various channels of

26