# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_August 17 1984_S1
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Adjudication to the Commission on Appeals. The Commission on Appeals ruled that the District
President had the right and duty to suspend the pastor, but directed the District Commission on
Adjudication to determine an amount of compensation due the pastor during the period of his suspension.
The District President requested the Commission on Appeals to reconsider its decision and also
forwarded several constitutional questions to the Commission on Constitutional Matters. The
Commission on Appeals denied the request for reconsideration, upholding its original decision. In
reviewing the original decision of the District Commission on Adjudication, it was noted that that
Commission had determined that no compensation was due the suspended member. Responding to the
action and to questions received from the District President, the Commission on Constitutional Matters
replied as follows:
Following Bylaw 5.41 (Handbook 1979), the Commission on Appeals has the authority to direct
or require compensation only in the event that its order sets aside a suspension.
The Commission on Constitutional Matters, therefore, rules that the Commission on Appeals
acted without authority in ordering the Commission on Adjudication to determine compensation
for Ralph Bringewatt during the period of his suspension, inasmuch as the Commission on
Appeals did not set aside Ralph Bringewatt's suspension. In the event that Pastor Bringewatt is
reinstated, this decision, however, is not intended to foreclose the possibility of further
consideration by the District Commission on Adjudication, which may still determine whether or
not it wishes to grant compensation.
A question has arisen regarding the respective relationships between and responsibilities of all
parties to a controversy regarding the removal of Pastor Bringewatt from the roster of the Synod,
particularly as to the roles to be played in the appellate process. In the present case, the District
President is not the plaintiff but serves merely as a respondent. We feel that the use of the terms
defendant and plaintiff are unnecessary since this is, in effect, an appellate process being heard on
a de novo basis.
President Spitz felt that he could not become further involved in the matter. However, since the
case was being heard de novo, he was not restricted from and had the duty to respond to the
request of the District Commission on Adjudication for purposes of clarification of his decision.
Further, it is the responsibility of the District Commission on Adjudication to conduct prehearings and to require those pleadings which it feels necessary from all persons or groups
involved.
We further find that resignation from the pastorate of the congregation does not terminate the
case inasmuch as there may be other causes for resignation which do: not affect roster status.
60. Rules of Procedure Interpretation (Ag. 1703, A): The Commission had been requested to provide an
interpretation of Rules of Procedure, Section F, 12, and Handbook Bylaw 8.51 regarding the availability
of transcripts of testimony before a Commission on Adjudication and the Commission on Appeals. The
Secretary had, in effect, declined the request, based upon Bylaw 2.533, d, which explicitly states that
requests are received only from members of the Synod. Since the pastor had been removed from the
synodical roster, his request was not legitimate. Subsequently, however, an eligible member made the
identical request. In responding to the request, the Commission pointed out that a determination must be
made as to whether there was a de novo hearing or an appeal based on the record. It has no information
with regard to this. Furthermore, it must be determined whether there was, in fact, testimony taken. The
Commission therefore responded as follows: