# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 1 2 2016_S21
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

manner that due process is satisfied before a decision is rendered. “Termination of membership in the
Synod is a serious matter involving both the doctrine and life of those to whom it has been granted…for
this reason the Synod establishes procedures for such action” (Bylaw 2.14.1). These procedures are to be
followed in the interest of justice. Whether deviations from the procedures finally result in a substantive
denial of due process or a miscarriage of justice is for the panel(s) to decide.
Question 19: Can a panel be formed under Bylaw 2.17.7, or the hearing scheduled and conducted under
the same, when the pastor has not had opportunity to meet face-to-face with his district
president in order to respond to the accusations, and when the pastor has not been provided
with the statement of the matter, nor the accusations, nor the identity of his accuser, nor the
supposed supporting evidence, according to the timeline set forth in Bylaw 2.17, and
therefore does not have the appropriate time to provide a list of witnesses, nor gather
documented evidence, nor form a proper defense?
Opinion: The Bylaw section 2.17 SOPM (Bylaw 2.17.10.3) elaborates on Bylaw 2.17.4 [b] (“shall inform
the accused of the accusation at the earliest appropriate time”) that “[t]he accused shall be asked to meet
with his/her ecclesiastical supervisor to be informed regarding the written statements and allegations that
have been received and to have opportunity to respond. A written record of this meeting shall be prepared
and shared with the accused prior to its inclusion in the official record of the investigation in order to
provide to the accused opportunity for additional written comment” (2.17 SOPM IV 2.2). The “statement
of the matter” is also to be provided to the member “in commencing the formal proceedings,” that is, at
the time the district president provides notice of the member’s suspension.
“This written statement of the matter requires careful preparation, since it will serve as the basis for the
proceedings that follow. It will also serve as the subject of the defense of the accused. The statement
should be concise, contain factual assertions regarding the issues of the case, and demonstrate their
relevance to Article XIII of the Constitution and its stated causes for expulsion from membership in the
Synod” (2.17 SOPM IV 3.2). Alleged deviations from this procedure, if substantiated and if their effects
could not be sufficiently corrected during the hearing procedure so as to render due process, might call
into question the ability of the accused to provide a defense, and therefore, the legitimacy of the
process—a matter for the hearing panel and possibly appeal and final hearing panels to consider carefully.
164. Application of Bylaw 1.5.1.1 to Presidents of Synod Higher Education Institutions (16-2789)
In the course of reviewing the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod in response to a question regarding
the service of a faculty member of one Concordia University System institution on the board of regents of
another Concordia University System institution (see 16-2783 above), the Secretary of the Synod
submitted a related question regarding the application of Bylaw 1.5.1.1, specifically whether a president
of a college/university or seminary who is also a member of its faculty is to be considered faculty or an
executive or staff member of the school. The commission’s response was as follows:
Question:

Is the president of a college/university or seminary of the Synod to be considered a member
of the institution’s faculty or an executive or member of its staff under Bylaw 1.5.1.1?

Opinion: The 1949 LCMS Handbook first calls the president of a colleges or seminary of the Synod the
“executive of the institution” (Bylaw 6.31). The presidents of the colleges/universities and seminaries
have been called “executive officers” ever since.
The 1969 Handbook called such presidents the “chief executive officers” of the institutions, which
designation has also continued to the present as the Synod has refined the terminology it has used to
define and designate the status and duties assigned to various individuals. In 2004 the Synod added a
section to the Bylaws called the “Definition of Terms,” to which was added in 2007 “Chief Executive:

CCM Minutes – April 1–2, 2016 – Page 135