# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_January 20 21 2003_S8
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The President and the Board of Directors therefore share oversight responsibilities for
many program boards. Both are required to see to it that the Constitution and Bylaws of
the Synod are observed, including, but not limited to, the requirements and
responsibilities specifically enumerated in that board’s section of the Bylaws. In a case of
non-compliance with the Constitution and Bylaws, the President is to admonish those
involved and, if such admonition is not heeded, to report such cases to the Synod. To the
extent of his oversight and influence, he is to correct such failure to comply as quickly as
possible. In such case of non-compliance, the Board of Directors is also to act to correct
any failure as quickly as possible, potential actions to include calling up for review,
criticism, modification, or revocation the errant action or policy of the board. Therefore,
if the President and the Board of Directors are faithful to their duties and responsibilities,
the question that is posed should not happen. Should there be disagreement, they must
earnestly consult with one another regarding proper supervision of the board in question.
(CCM Opinion 02-2259)
117. Accountability of Officers to Conventions of the Synod (02-2311)
A pastor of the Synod in an October 11, 2002 letter questions a recent ruling of the Commission (022263) in which the Commission stated: “Further complaints under Bylaw 2.27 g cannot be brought before
a convention of the Synod since the bylaws created under the authorization of Article XIII 2 make no
provision for the dispute to be resolved by a convention of the Synod.” He noted that Bylaw 3.73 states:
“All officers, boards, and commissions shall be accountable to the Synod for all their actions, and any
decision of such officers, boards, and commissions may be appealed to the national convention of the
Synod.”
Question:

If an officer of the Synod charged a member of the Synod under Bylaw 2.27 and did not
follow approved synodical resolutions in making his case, could not a national convention
overturn this decision under Bylaw 3.73?

Opinion: The Synod, upon instruction of Article XIII 2, has established in its Bylaws the procedure to be
followed for expulsion of a member from the Synod. In that procedure, a Dispute Resolution Panel is
given the responsibility for deciding whether or not the Bylaw 2.27 investigating officer made a proper
decision. The Synod has also provided opportunity for appeal of the Dispute Resolution Panel’s decision
regarding the investigating officer’s decision to an Appeal Panel, with the possibility of a second hearing
by a Review Panel to finally decide the case. The Synod has not provided in its bylaws any opportunity
for further appeal of the final decision to a convention nor has it provided to itself opportunity to question
or overturn any part of its dispute resolution process.
The bylaw in question, Bylaw 3.73, provides for the general accountability of all officers, boards, and
commissions, whose decisions may be appealed to a national convention of the Synod. Mention is not
made in the bylaw of the panels employed by the dispute resolution process, whose final decisions,
including decisions regarding suspensions, are final and binding (Bylaws 8.09 c 4 a and 8.09 e 1) and
therefore not subject to actions by conventions of the Synod.
118. Conflict of Interest (02-2313)
In an October 22, 2002 letter, the President of the Synod submitted a series of questions regarding the
subject of conflict of interest and its application to the duties of the President under Bylaw 2.27 g.
Question 1:

Is there any definition of “conflict of interest” in the Constitution, Bylaws, or resolutions of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, other than as discussed in Bylaw 3.75 and the
CCM’s prior opinion Ag. 2020?
86