# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_October 21 22 2016_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

(including clearer instructions on mailings and on cases involving multiple complainants and
respondents) and enhanced language on the binding nature of decisions. It was also noted that a
consulting ecclesiastical supervisor does not have the discretion to refuse to allow a dispute to proceed to
reconciliation or dispute resolution, but is only to determine which bylaw procedure is to be followed.
The Secretary of the Synod will convey the draft to the Council of Presidents for consultation (Bylaw
1.2.1 [q]).
In the course of its review, the commission noted the relation of Bylaw Sections 1.10, as well as 2.14–
2.17, to procedures at seminaries, colleges, and universities dealing with complaints against faculty (2016
Bylaws 3.10.5.7.9, 3.10.6.7.1, and 3.10.6.7.5.2). Noting that the bylaws require colleges and universities
to have policies for faculty complaints and that no such policy has been reviewed by the commission
(under Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3), the commission asked the Secretary of the Synod to request these policies for
commission review and retention.
8. Discussion with the Chairman of the Council of Presidents
Texas District President Ken Hennings, Chairman of the Council of Presidents, in town on other business,
was invited to and did visit with the commission regarding the joint meeting of the commission with the
council in Schaumburg, Illinois, on November 18. This joint meeting is pursuant to 2013 Res. 6-16A, “To
Encourage Conversation and Education re: Commission on Constitutional Matters Opinions.” Discussion
at the joint meeting is expected to revolve around the results of the 2016 Convention, including:
•
•
•
•
•

The Res. 12-14 consultation process, leading from CCM Op. 16-2971 to changes in certain
ecclesiastical supervision bylaws.
The effect of Res. 11-09’s removal of “assistant pastor” as an “advisory member only” category
on roster status.
The effect of Res. 12-03 on those formerly “properly” on non-candidate status (that is, those not
presently seeking a call).
Res. 9-02A and its revised standards for the relationship and asset disposition language of Synod
agency governing documents. Districts will need to be in compliance and have documents
reviewed by the CCM before the 2019 Synod convention.
Res 12-09’s changes to the appointment of reconcilers by district board of directors, and
generally, how the reconciler appointment and training system is working for the districts.

The commission expressed its appreciation for the opportunity for conversation with the council in
November and with its chairman, as well as for thoughtful comments received from council members
when requested in the course of the commission’s business.
9. Constitutionality of Referral Panels (16-2794)
The Secretary of the Synod, by a Sept. 22 e-mail, addressed the following questions to the commission to
assist him in determining the proper scope of the Res. 12-14 bylaw development process.
Background: In a case where a district president fails to act, CCM Op. 16-2791 finds
unconstitutional the Bylaws’ present direction of an accuser’s appeal for action to a Referral
Panel (e.g., Bylaw 2.14.5.3). In such a case (or when the district president declines to suspend,
and the accuser appeals for action) it is the President of Synod who has the right and
responsibility to address such an appeal for action. 2016 Res 12-14 requires the Secretary of the
Synod to initiate a Bylaw 7.1.2 process to bring the Bylaws into conformity with the Constitution
in this regard, “in order to implement clear bylaw procedures regarding this aspect of
ecclesiastical supervision.”
Referral Panels, however, are not constituted only when a district president fails to act and an
accuser appeals for action. They may be formed voluntarily by a district president, in accord with
CCM Minutes – October 21–22, 2016 – Page 3