# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_November 18 19 2016_S9
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

“implement clear bylaw procedures regarding [also] this aspect of ecclesiastical supervision” (Res. 1214).
23. Discussion of Correspondence (16-2793)
A member of the Synod sent a lengthy letter to the commission (and to others in the Synod) regarding his
concerns with CCM Op. 16-2791. The letter made a number of assertions and accused the commission of
not following proper procedures and of failing to do adequate research in reaching its conclusions. It also
posed questions regarding conflict(s) of interest. The commission will address this letter under three
headings: proper procedures, adequacy of research, and the application of Bylaw Sections 1.5.1.3, 1.5.2,
and 1.5.7.
Proper Procedures: Specific mention was made of Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (b), which requires the commission to
notify an officer or agency of the Synod if a request for an opinion involves “an activity of that officer or
agency.” The request that led to Op. 16-2791 came from the chairman of a floor committee following
May 2016 floor committee meetings. The request was prompted as a result of discussion at the May floor
committee meeting, when a question was raised as to the constitutionality of a practice that had been
operative in the Synod from 1956 until 2004, the reinstatement of a portion of which was being
contemplated in a proposed resolution. The specific question addressed to the CCM was regarding the
constitutionality of these historical practices between 1956 and 2004, which were no longer in place.
Because the question posed to the commission pertained to the constitutionality of a past practice of the
Synod, and not to a present activity of an officer or agency, the commission determined that Bylaw
3.9.2.2 (b) did not apply.
Adequacy of Research: The letter also made assertions regarding the adequacy of research used by the
commission in Op. 16-2791. Specific reference was made to the introductory floor committee remarks
preceding the introduction of 2004 Res. 8-01A, which significantly changed the suspension and expulsion
process of the Synod. In those remarks it was stated: “Specifically regarding paragraph g, the study group
raised the question whether the President of the Synod is granted authority in the Constitution to suspend
or expel a District President or anyone else from the roster of Synod” (2004 Proceedings, p.161). The
introduction goes on to state that references to the Praesidium should be eliminated since the vicepresidents of the Synod are not given the role of ecclesiastical supervision. (By way of explanation,
neither the President of the Synod nor the district presidents have ever had the power to expel from the
Synod. They only had authority to suspend, which started a process that could lead to expulsion. Over the
course of its history the Synod has used a variety of processes to finally determine expulsion.)
The reference in the introduction was to 2001 Bylaw 2.27 (g), which reads:
Because the President of the Synod has ecclesiastical supervision of all District
Presidents, the President of the Synod shall proceed in the same fashion as a District
President if he receives a complaint relative to a District President. In cases under this
subparagraph the synodical President shall not participate as a member of the Praesidium
(section a, 1 and b). If disqualified for the reasons set forth in section b, the next qualified
officer of the Synod shall function in the place of the President.
The study group was composed of four district presidents, and while the study group raised the question
as to the constitutionality of the President of the Synod having authority to suspend a district president,
the proposals as they were presented in Resolution 8-01A and adopted by the convention actually did the
opposite and affirmed the authority of the President of the Synod to suspend a district president. While
2001 Bylaw 2.27(g) was eliminated, the same function was incorporated under 2004 Bylaw Section 2.15,
which specifically enables the President of the Synod to suspend a district president or officer of the
Synod, and gives him the sole responsibility to do so. In addition, the new section of the 2004 bylaws
spelled out the process in detail.

CCM Minutes – November 18–19, 2016 – Page 15