# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 1 2 2016_S20
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Opinion: “Sexual action” is not the language of the Bylaws or of the SOPM. “Sexual misconduct” is the
language used. The district president may not use Bylaw section 2.17 unless he believes expulsion is
required on account of “sexual misconduct” or “criminal behavior.” “Sexual misconduct” is clearly one
form of “offensive conduct” (Constitution Art. XIII), but beyond that no definition is offered in the
Constitution, Bylaws, or resolutions of the Synod. “Offensive conduct” is the standard for expulsion.
“Sexual misconduct” is a standard for the appropriate application of Bylaw section 2.17. These are
matters for the hearing panel to determine from the facts of the matter (see answers to questions 2 and 7).
Question 17: Can a district president suspend a pastor under Bylaw 2.17 without informing him that
there are accusations against him, when there were (cf. Bylaw 2.17.4 [b]), ignoring that
pastor when asked if there were any accusations against him, and thus also since that pastor
wasn’t informed of accusations against him, failing to provide him with a copy of the
SOPM for 2.17 at the time he was informed of accusations against him (cf. SOPM for
Bylaw section 2.17, IV 2.2), or must the suspension be lifted and the proceedings canceled?
Opinion: Bylaw 2.17.6 requires that a district president shall provide “written notification of suspended
status” and “a written statement of the matter which sets forth the facts.” He shall “inform the accused of
the accusation at the earliest appropriate time.” This involves a personal meeting of the district president
with the accused, of which an official record is kept, and to which the accused may respond in writing
before its inclusion in the official record. At this time the 2.17 SOPM is to be provided (Bylaw 2.17.4 [b];
2.17 SOPM IV 2.2 [b]). The district president’s compliance or non-compliance with this aspect of the
procedure, and its impact on due process (see answer to question 18), would be a matter for the hearing
panel to determine.
Question 18: Can the process of suspension continue when the district president (1) did not include in the
written notification of suspended status reference to Bylaws 2.13.4-2.13.4.3 and the
provisions for such status (cf. SOPM for Bylaw 2.17, IV 3.1) leading to confusion within
the congregation, (2) did not provide in the written notification of suspended status a
written statement of the matter which sets forth the facts (cf. Bylaw 2.17.6; SOPM for
Bylaw 2.17, IV 3.2), (3) did not provide the written statement of the matter or the written
memorandum describing the manner in which there was compliance with the provisions of
Bylaws 2.17.3−2.17.7 to the Secretary of Synod at the time that the request for hearing was
made (cf. Bylaw 2.17.7.1; SOPM for Bylaw 2.17, IV 4.1), (4) did not provide the written
statement of the matter or the written memorandum, even after it was formally requested by
the Secretary of the Synod, having cited Bylaw 2.17.7.1 in a letter to that district president
and the pastor under suspension concerning the formation of a hearing panel written 36
days after the pastor was placed on suspension (cf. SOPM for Bylaw 2.17, IV 4.1), (5) did
not provide the written statement of the matter or the written memorandum when
referenced to do so by the Secretary of Synod, citing Bylaw 2.17.7.1 in a letter written to
the hearing panel members 62 days after the pastor was placed on suspension (cf. SOPM
for Bylaw 2.17, IV 4.1), and finally, (6) 82 days after the pastor was placed on suspension,
indicate that the original letter of suspension will serve as the statement of the matter,
despite the fact that said letter, which is supposed to serve as the basis of the proceedings
and the subject of the defense, does not contain specific accusations or the “factual
assertions regarding the issues of the case,” therefore depriving the pastor of the ability to
form a proper defense (cf. SOPM for Bylaw 2.17, IV 3.2)?
Opinion: Significant deviations from the Bylaw 2.17 process might be sufficient ground for the panel not
to uphold the suspension, or, if it does, for an appeal panel and review panel to consider overturning it.
Whether allegations are true or significant is for the panel to decide and, if possible, to rectify in such a
CCM Minutes – April 1–2, 2016 – Page 134