# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 8 2003_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Bylaw 8.21 e requires that so long as a matter in dispute is undecided or while an appeal
is contemplated or pending, publicity shall not be given to the issues in the matter by any
of the parties involved. Rule of Procedure 26 f specifies that this includes “the reconcilers
or panel members, or the Synod.” It is clear that until a matter is finally decided or
resolved, there is to be no publicity by anyone who has knowledge. This has been
reflected in CCM Opinion 01-2243 and numerous subsequent opinions (01-2251; 022259; 02-2260; 02-2261; 02-2266; 02-2284; and 02-2304).
What then of Bylaw 8.09 c 4? It appears to authorize publicity before the entire process
has been exhausted. It should be noted, however, that paragraph 4 speaks of the “final
decision,” referring to cases in which there is no request for reconsideration. Until the 30
days for such request provided by paragraph d have elapsed, the “decision of the Dispute
Resolution Panel” is not yet “final.” Nor is it final if a request for reconsideration is
made. This is also clear from paragraph c 4 a, which states that the decision of the panel
is binding “subject to request for review,” and paragraph c 4 c, which speaks of the
decision being carried out, which is only reasonable after it is truly final. Paragraph c 4 d,
therefore, must also be similarly understood. It speaks of publicity by the District or
synodical President after a “final decision” has been reached.
Having reviewed the informal response of the Secretary, the Commission adopts that response as its own.

134. Rocky Mountain District Bylaws/Handbook (03-2332)
In a February 5, 2003 e-mailed letter, the Chairman of the Committee on District Bylaws of the Rocky
Mountain District requested that the Commission review proposed changes to the District Bylaws prior to
submission to the District convention.
After review of the proposed changes, the Commission calls attention to the following:
•

Bylaws, Article III, Sec. 3.01, B.5 (p. 11): The first line of the proposed bylaw may benefit from
clarification when it reads, “If no District President nominees remain….” It would be likely that
“nominees” would remain, but there may be no candidates with the required five nominations to
be included as “candidates” in the report to the convention. Replacing “nominees” with
“candidates” would be helpful. In addition, the proposed wording is unclear (at the time of floor
nominations for District President when the delegate(s) from each congregation nominate one
candidate) as to whether each delegate may nominate one candidate or whether only one
candidate per congregation is permitted.

•

Bylaws, Article III, Sec. 3.02, B.6 (p. 14): The election of Vice-Presidents 3-5 has already taken
place in paragraph B.4 and B.5. To now in B.6 speak of a ballot to “elect the Second VicePresident” and another ballot to “elect the Third and Fourth Vice-Presidents” can be misleading.
Speaking of “determining” or “deciding” by ballot which of the elected Vice-Presidents will
serve in each position would help to avoid confusion.

•

Bylaws, Article V, Sec. 5.02, B.6 (p. 26): The proposed change does away with the Synod’s
process for electing pastoral delegates to conventions of the Synod (Bylaw 3.05). It is unclear
whether provisions exist elsewhere in the District Bylaws for the election of pastoral delegates.

•

Handbook Article V, Sec. 11.05 (p. 17): Simply making reference to Bylaw 2.03 in paragraph B
would be the more usual manner of referencing bylaws of the Synod, rather than the proposed
reference to “Article II, Section A.”

98