# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_December 21 2017_S1
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

MINUTES
COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
Telephonic Meeting
December 21, 2017
111. Call to Order
Dr. Gude called a previously-scheduled telephonic meeting of the commission to order, with all members
present, and offered an opening prayer.
112. Hearing Panel Discretion in Granting Additional Hearing (17-2868)
A Hearing Panel of the Synod, reviewing the suspension of an individual member of the Synod under Bylaw
section 2.14, asked three questions of the commission:
Question 1:

Would a party who misses a hearing because he or she is unexpectedly hospitalized for
treatment warrant any special consideration under Bylaw section 2.14 Standard Operating
Procedures Manual (SOPM) Flow Chart Detail, step 4.5, regulation [j] (p. 42, dealing with
Bylaws 2.14.7–2.14.8), as follows?
When a panel proceeds with its hearing in the absence of a party, a decision shall
not be made solely on the basis of the default of a party. The panel still shall allow
the party to submit such evidence as the panel may find beneficial for reaching its
decision. The panel may also, but need not, allow the absent party an opportunity
to appear at a subsequent hearing attended by all parties.

Opinion: Neither Bylaw section 2.14 nor its attendant SOPM specifically addresses the issue presented by
this unique situation. However, an essential component and assumption of the entire expulsion process of
the Synod is that both the accused member and the suspending district president are entitled to have an
opportunity for a fair and impartial hearing. Thus, Bylaw 2.14.7.8 [c] requires that each party to the matter
shall be given an opportunity to fully present his or her respective position.
The SOPM, under “General Principle T” (p. 8) makes clear that the provisions of Bylaw section 2.14 are
intended to protect the rights of both the accuser and the accused. The SOPM also deals with the issue of
how a panel is to proceed if one of the parties does not appear before the panel for the hearing, the date and
time of which were established by the hearing facilitator in consultation with the accused, the suspending
ecclesiastical supervisor, and the members of the panel. It is important to note that the SOPM does not
attempt to describe or differentiate reasons for a party’s non-appearance. Situations could range from one
individual who is trying to thwart the process by not attending to another who had a medical emergency or
a serious accident on the way to the meeting. It would be virtually impossible for the SOPM to list, rank,
and provide direction for every possible circumstance.
Several conclusions can be drawn from passage cited above (Flow Chart Detail, Step 4.5, Regulation [j])
from the Bylaw section 2.14 SOPM:
1. The panel is not allowed to let its decision be influenced by the failure of a party to appear.
2. The panel is required to allow the absent party an opportunity to submit such documentary evidence
as that party wishes the panel to consider.
3. At the discretion of the panel, it may schedule a subsequent hearing to be attended by all parties.
The Bylaws do not require a party who was absent from the scheduled hearing because of an unexpected
hospitalization to receive any special consideration. However, the Bylaws do require that each party,
including one who was absent because of a medical emergency, must have an opportunity to fully present
his or her position in the matter. The SOPM requires the panel to receive this information, at least in

CCM Minutes – December 21, 2017 – Page 86