# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_May 12 2017_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

3. Suspension Power of the President of the Synod Under Present Bylaws
It should be noted that in the present bylaws of the Synod, certain individual members of the Synod are
already under the direct supervision of, and may be suspended by, the President of the Synod. These include
the other officers of the Synod and the district presidents (Const. Art. XI B 1 a and d; Bylaws 2.15.1, 6).7
Here a power of suspension (extending over certain individual members) has been elaborated in the bylaws
as belonging to the President of the Synod—a power that has not been and is not challenged. What is now
Bylaw section 2.15, including the suspension of district presidents and officers by the President of the
Synod, was incorporated into the bylaws by 2004 Res. 8-01A. The prefatory remarks by the floor committee
offer the following:
The renumbered Bylaw 2.27 replaces what had been 2.27 g and provides the recommended
procedures for the removal of a District President and seeks to clarify the role of the
President of Synod in the process believed to be inherent in Constitution Articles XI B 2
and 7 and XIII 2.
This bylaw provides the framework for what is called for in Constitution Article XI B 7
which states, “The President shall perform all additional duties assigned to him by the
bylaws . . .” and Article XIII 2 which states, “Expulsion shall be executed only after
following such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of Synod.” (2004 Proceedings,
p. 163)
Thus the 2003 Task Force on Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution and the 2004 Convention
answered the question included in the floor committee’s prefatory material, as to 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” (idem, p. 161), clearly in the affirmative (at least in the case of a District President
or officer of the Synod, and given the proper bylaw procedure). The constitution’s explicit assignment of
the authority of suspension to the district president, within the sphere of his district, in Const. Art. XII 8
was not understood to preclude enactment of bylaws in which the President of the Synod exercised, at least
in certain circumstances, the power of suspension. Such bylaws were explained to be permissible under
Const. Art. XI B 2 and 7 and XIII 2. 8,9 True, the convention actions of 2004 did not enact bylaw procedures
for the President of the Synod to suspend members within the districts when district presidents would not.
But they did rely on—even on the basis of a cogent constitutional argument, distinct from but compatible
with that of Op. 16-2791—the power of the President of the Synod to suspend and initiate formal
proceedings against a member of the Synod. Again, the substance of Op. 16-2791, Res. 12-14, and the
attendant bylaw proposal is not overthrown but supported by analogy to present bylaws and the
constitutional justification offered for their adoption.

7
Const. Art. XI B 1 b provides that “all such as are employed by the Synod” are also under the President’s direct
supervision, although these have not historically been considered subject to Bylaw section 2.15. They were apparently
subject to similar provisions, however, from 1945–1965 (see footnote 3).
8
The predecessor measure, 1998 and 2001 Bylaw 2.27 g, was adopted by 1998 Res. 7-06A (1998 Proceedings, p.
149) on similar grounds—that a means should be clarified by which the President of the Synod could ultimately carry
out his responsibility for supervision of district presidents under Const. XI B 1.
9
The commission notes that the request for reconsideration denies to the President of the Synod the power of
suspension, while failing to note that the present bylaws grant this power of suspension, in similar circumstances
(where a district president has failed to act), to a referral panel—which is nowhere in the Constitution granted a power
of suspension. Importantly, though the chief issue identified by the commission in Op. 16-2791 and 2794 is not that
an illegitimate power was granted to the referral panels by the bylaws, but that this power was not granted by the
bylaws to the President of the Synod, as expected by Const. Art. XI B 1–3.

CCM Minutes – May 12, 2017 – Page 45