# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_February 6 7 2026_S9
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

In accordance with Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (b), input was requested from the President of the Synod and the district
presidents of the accuser and the accused. In accordance with the principles of the Standard Operating
Procedures Manual (SOPM) for said bylaw section, and out of an abundance of caution for the possibility
of resuming formal process, background material provided was restated for the commission in a case-nonspecific manner.
Question 1:

Does the concurrence of the President of the Synod under Bylaw 2.14.4.2 (a) eliminate the
accuser’s right to appeal for action if the President did not receive or did not review the
full written charges and the record of the district president’s investigation, as required by
Bylaw 2.14.4.2?

Opinion:
Bylaw 2.14.4.2 sets forth a procedure by which a district president can, in a matter of
doctrine and practice and where there is a formal written accusation, obtain the advance concurrence of the
President of the Synod in his decision not to suspend an accused member, so as to preclude a subsequent
appeal (to the President of the Synod) for action by the accuser (Bylaws 2.14.4.2 [a], 2.14.5 [a]). Where the
responsible district president has determined not to suspend, the district president has determined either
that cause does not exist or that admonition has proven not futile, rendering suspension inappropriate
[Const. Art. XIII 1]. The mechanism of Bylaw 2.14.4.2 allows him—when he has reached such a
preliminary determination—to request the President’s concurrence, potentially rendering it final and not
subject to appeal as to the present allegations and facts and finally concluding the process initiated by the
submission of the formal written accusation. The mechanism was developed “to help district and Synod
presidents to speak ‘with one voice’ in potentially contested declinations to suspend” (April 7, 2017,
Memorandum of the Secretary to the Board of Directors, describing bylaw changes presented for approval
as a result of the 2016 Res. 12-14 Council of Presidents consultation process).
The constitutional right and duty to “promote and maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the districts
of the Synod” upon which the appeal for action is founded is the President’s (Const. Art. XI B 3; Op. 162791; 2016 Res. 12-14) and not the accuser’s. Where the President has concurred in a district president’s
decision not to suspend, he has finally exercised, with regard to the matter at hand, his right and duty to
intervene in the matter to “promote and maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the districts of the
Synod.” The concurrence mechanism of Bylaw 2.14.4.2 does not in essence prevent a matter from coming
before the President of the Synod for review; it simply advances the President’s review of, and potential
concurrence in dismissal of, a matter that might otherwise subsequently come before him as an appeal for
action.
Prerequisite to obtaining such concurrence, the district president is to “convey[] to [the President of the
Synod] the accuser’s formal written accusation, the record of [the district president’s] investigation, and
[the district president’s] preliminary determination” (Bylaw 2.14.4.2). It is the clear expectation of the
bylaw that these items be conveyed fully, and to this the district president is duty bound (see also clear
standards for what is to be included in the “record of the investigation,” Standard Operating Procedures
Manual [SOPM] for Bylaw Section 2.14, December 2023, Flow Chart Detail, Step 2.3, pp. 31–32). It must
be said, at least in passing, that a district president’s withholding of required information from the President
to obtain a concurrence and frustrate a potentially valid appeal for action would be a “violat[ion] of the
requirements or procedures” as described in Bylaw 2.14.10.2, with potential for the consequences there
also described.
It must also be said that the President must be aware he is granting a concurrence for him to have been said
to have done so. Bylaw 2.14.4.2 requires certain materials to be presented to the President within the
framework of a formal request for concurrence in a matter involving doctrine and practice and a formal,
written accusation. Clearly, if the President is not aware he is granting such concurrence (for example, if a
district president in a conversation describes a situation without providing a formal, written accusation, and
the President casually indicates approval of the district president’s approach or conclusions), no such
concurrence is granted. As the question is presented, however, there is no question of whether the President
CCM Minutes – February 6–7, 2026 – Page 143