# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 8 2003_S1
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

MINUTES
COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
April 8, 2003
Conference Call

131. Call to Order
Chairman Walter Tesch called the meeting to order and asked Albert Marcis to open with prayer. All
members of the Commission participated in the conference call.
132. Responsibility for Publicizing Panel Decisions (03-2346)
The Secretary of the Synod, in carrying out his responsibilities for administering the dispute resolution
process, submitted the following question in a March 28, 2003 memorandum:
Question:

In a dispute resolution case to decide the suspension of a District President, a case in which
the President of the Synod is disqualified and in which a final decision is reached by the
appropriate panel, who is responsible for publicizing the decision of the panel as provided by
Bylaw 8.09 c 4 d or Bylaw 8.09 e 4? Is this the responsibility of the President of the Synod
despite his disqualification, or is this the responsibility of the Vice-President who is asked to
assume the role and responsibilities of the President in the case?

Opinion: The duties of the President under Bylaws 8.09 c 4 d and 8.09 e 4 are administrative in nature
and not related to his being an involved party. Accordingly, disqualification of the President has no effect
on the mandates of Bylaws 8.09 c 4 d and 8.09 e 4.
133. Publicity of Dispute Resolution Panel Decision (03-2347)
In an April 2, 2003 e-mail letter, the President of the Synod submitted the following question to the
Commission:
Question:

Given the provisions of Bylaw 8.09 c 4 d, may the synodical President publicize as he deems
appropriate under the circumstances the final decision of a Dispute Resolution Panel, prior to
such decision being appealed by a party to the dispute, without violating the provisions of
Bylaw 8.21 e?

Opinion: As administrator of the dispute resolution process under Chapter VIII of the Bylaws, the
Secretary of the Synod responded to the same question informally that has now been submitted to the
Commission. That response was as follows:
Bylaw 8.09 provides the entire procedure for the panel portion of the dispute resolution
process. After a panel has been requested, the process is followed to its conclusion, which
conclusion may properly take place at several points in the process: (1) after the dispute
resolution panel has issued its decision and no appeal is forthcoming; (2) after a request
for reconsideration of a dispute resolution panel has been made but not granted by an
appeal panel; or, if a request for reconsideration is granted, (3) after the review panel has
issued its decision and no further opportunity for appeal is available.