# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 29 2003_S16
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

questions the necessity for the dispute resolution process of the Synod to continue if and when an opinion
of the Commission on Constitutional Matters appears to decide the case.
Question 1:

If the recent CCM rulings (more properly, binding opinions) say that charges cannot be
brought if/when [a] person has checked with [his/her] supervisor and [the] supervisor had
given permission and "go ahead" based on his interpretation of a synodical document
and/or resolution, how can the effect of charges which have been ruled "not allowed
because they are invalid" (my summary) and the process triggered by the charges continue?

Opinion: It is the responsibility of the investigating officer and subsequent panels to decide whether
allegations brought against a member of the Synod are valid, taking into consideration all pertinent
evidence as well as opinions requested from the Commission on Theology and Church Relations and
binding opinions requested from the Commission on Constitutional Matters. In the case of CCM
opinions, it remains for the investigating officer and/or panel(s) to become informed of all prior CCM
opinions and to determine their applicability and consequences. Until such decisions are finally made and
all opportunities for appeal have been exhausted, the dispute resolution process continues.
Question 2:

On the basis of what logic or specific constitution/bylaw provision is the CCM decision
(binding opinion) not implemented and declared effective?

Opinion: All CCM opinions are binding on the question decided unless and until they are overruled by a
convention of the Synod (Bylaw 3.905 d). All CCM opinions are therefore also binding on panels in the
dispute resolution process, particularly when the question being decided originates from a panel (Bylaw
8.21 i). If a panel does not implement a CCM opinion, either party to the dispute or the President of the
Synod, if a question of doctrine or practice is involved, has the right to ask for a decision from an Appeal
Panel regarding a reconsideration of the earlier panel’s decision (Bylaw 8.09 d).
Question 3:

Is there a specific constitution/bylaw provision which demands that the process which is in
operation must be carried out, even when the binding ruling has been made that the charges
are invalid?

Opinion: In an earlier opinion (01-2253), the CCM responded to a question regarding withdrawal from a
dispute resolution process after a hearing had been requested:
Once the process has been initiated, the Synod and its members are bound to follow the
procedure that has been provided….Once the choice is made to continue the process by
requesting a hearing before a panel, the Synod is duty-bound to finish its process.
This opinion was provided on the basis of Bylaw 8.01, which reads: “No person, entity or agency to
whom or to which the provisions of this chapter are applicable because such person, entity or agency is a
member of the Synod may render the provisions of this chapter inapplicable by terminating that
membership.” While there is no specific constitution or bylaw provision that specifically requires that a
dispute resolution process that is underway must be carried out in its entirety, there also is no constitution
or bylaw provision, including Chapter VIII of the Bylaws (Synodical Dispute Resolution), that provides
for early termination of a dispute resolution process.
Question 4:

Is there any provision in [the] constitution/bylaw[s] which precludes the President of the
Synod (or the Secretary of the Synod, or the current acting President of the Atlantic
District, or some other person elected to office) from [making a] declaration to implement
CCM binding opinion immediately.

118