# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_October 21 22 2002_S17
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

by means of a pastoral letter, publicly accuses an officer of the Synod of violating the
Constitution or Bylaws, or doctrinal position, or resolutions of the Synod?
Opinion: Opinion 02-2282 does not exempt the President of the Synod from the requirements of Bylaw
8.01.
Question 3:

Since according to a previous Commission opinion, only a convention of the Synod may
consider resolving a dispute with the President of the Synod, does this mean that the person
so accused by the President has no recourse for remedy until the next convention of the
Synod when a committee appointed by the President will consider the dispute? If so, how
does this agree with the words of John 7:51? Does this deprive an officer of the Synod to
speak in his own defense to the same audience before which he was accused?

Opinion: In opinion 01-2240 the Commission affirmed its 1992 opinion (Ag. 1915) that addressed the
question of who has supervisory responsibility over the synodical President. The 1992 opinion stated: "It
would seem that the only recourse is an appeal to the convention of the Synod when personal admonition
fails to have the President of the Synod carry out the responsibilities of his office as defined by the
Handbook."
The issue posed by this question does not appear to deal with the President carrying out the
responsibilities of his office. Rather, it asks what if the President falsely, in a public manner, accuses an
officer of the Synod of violating the Constitution or Bylaws or doctrinal position or resolutions of the
Synod. A personal dispute involving an officer of the Synod is not a matter to be decided by a convention
of the Synod. A dispute between two members of the Synod is to be resolved under the provisions of
Chapter VIII of the Bylaws beginning with Bylaw 8.05.
The Commission does not respond to the question regarding John 7:51 because such question is beyond
the function of the Commission.
As to the question of whether an officer of the Synod is deprived of an opportunity to speak in his own
defense to the same audience before which he was accused by the President of the Synod, the
Commission directs attention to its opinions 01-2243 and 02-2251 which addressed themselves to the
issue of publicity while a matter is in dispute. The Commission interprets the Constitution and Bylaws of
the Synod. It has no authority to enforce its opinions.
Question 4:

The opinion of the Commission states that the appeal process, which is designed to
discover and correct the investigating officer's errors in fulfilling his responsibility under
Bylaw 2.27 c, make the President's need to call up the action of the investigating officer for
review, or the need to report by a pastoral letter such calling up for review "moot." The
word "moot" is defined as, "subjected or subject to argument or discussion" (Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary). Does the use of this word in the CCM opinion mean that the
President may, despite the fact that the appeals process has been followed, call up for
review the decision made, and claim that he is given this authority by Article XI of the
Constitution and Bylaw 3.101?

Opinion: The sentence taken from opinion 02-2282 is part of a paragraph where the Commission pointed
out that if all the parties involved in the matter in dispute were to scrupulously follow the provisions of
the Bylaws, the President would have no knowledge as to the decision of the investigating officer under
Bylaw 2.27 c until such time as the Dispute Resolution Panel issued its decision. This would occur
because every party involved in the dispute honored Bylaw 8.21 e and did not give publicity to the matter.
However, in opinion 02-2282 the Commission was required to furnish an opinion in a situation where the
65