# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_October 21 22 2002_S14
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

f and chapter VIII, is he not then also unable to call up for review any decision made by the
next qualified officer acting in accordance with these Bylaws.”
Opinion: Bylaw 2.27 g provides that when complaints are brought against a District President, the
President of the Synod must proceed in the same fashion as a District President in investigating whether
the allegations can be substantiated. If the President is disqualified, the next qualified officer of the Synod
functions in his place throughout the remainder of the process as it continues into Chapter VIII of the
Bylaws and the President remains disqualified.
In opinion 02-2279, the Commission ruled that the President of the Synod nonetheless continues to have
“ecclesiastical supervisory responsibility under the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod…even though
he may have been disqualified on the basis of Bylaw 2.27 a 1.” Accordingly, the Commission ruled in
opinion 02-2282 that “under extraordinary circumstances, such as when an issue is of synod-wide concern
and [is] having an immediate and ongoing negative impact on the Synod, the President may choose to
exercise his discretion in fulfilling his duties under Article XI. The President’s right and/or responsibility
to call up for review an action of an investigation officer carrying out the responsibilities of Bylaw 2.27 c
flows from his constitutional responsibilities and powers.”
Therefore, while a synodical president may be disqualified from participation in Bylaw 2.27 and Chapter
VIII of the Bylaws for reasons given in Bylaw 2.27 a 1, he may, due to his constitutional responsibilities
and powers, call up for review a decision made by the next qualified officer who is carrying out the
responsibilities of Bylaw 2.27 and Chapter VIII.
Question 2:

“If, in a specific case, a disqualified synodical president calls for a review of a decision
made in accord with Bylaw 2.27 or Chapter VIII, are there not two functioning synodical
presidents? Should not the synodical President be prohibited from exercising his normal
constitutional authority in a case in which he has been disqualified, since another officer is
effectively functioning as the synodical President in that case?”

Opinion: Again, the President of the Synod continues to have ecclesiastical responsibility under the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, even though he may have been disqualified from carrying out the
specific functions of the President of the Synod described in Bylaw 2.27 and Chapter VIII. The next
qualified officer has not assumed the office of the President but has been given responsibility for only
those specific functions due to the President’s disqualification. Therefore, there are not two functioning
synodical presidents.
Question 3:

“Is not Bylaw 2.27 g complementary rather than contradictory to the Constitution Article
XI B? If so, should not the next qualified officer be functioning as the synodical President
for (and throughout) a specific complaint and resolution process, thus upholding both the
Bylaws and Constitution and avoiding a conflict of interest on the part of a disqualified
synodical President?”

Opinion: Bylaw 2.27 may be said to be complementary to Article XIII of the Constitution, providing the
procedure whereby expulsion from the Synod may be executed. The President of the Synod, even when
disqualified from carrying out the functions of his office provided by Bylaw 2.27, retains the overall
responsibility and power of his office under Art. XI B.
Question 4:

“Does Bylaw 3.51 k prohibit applying “to call up for review” in Bylaw 3.101 B 5 to cases
of ecclesiastical supervision?”

62