# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_November 6 7 1987_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

request for an advisory opinion. The bylaws states that it "shall" do so. Because the Commission on
Appeals has ordered a continuance of the salary of Dr. Schmidt, the issue presented by him is moot.
70. Adjudication Procedure Questions, Rev. Edward Bruning (Ag. 1824) : A complaint had been
lodged against a pastor in the Oklahoma District. The President of the district had declined to suspend the
member having concluded that there were no grounds for doing so. The complainant, in turn, brought his
request to the District Commission on Adjudication which was uncertain regarding the question of
whether the complaint should be adjudicated. In an effort to secure guidance, the District Commission on
Adjudication had appealed to the Commission on Appeals regarding jurisdiction in this matter. By a
majority of 5-4, the Commission on Appeals ruled that the District Commission on Adjudication had
jurisdiction. The member against whom the complaint had been lodged in turn appealed to the
Commission on Constitutional Matters regarding the interpretation of bylaws relating to matters of this
kind. This had been done with the approval of the District Commission on Adjudication. Lengthy
arguments had been presented by the member, and the majority and minority of the Commission on
Appeals. After reviewing the entire matter, the Commission on Constitutional Matters decided to respond
as follows:
Pursuant to Bylaw 8.51 f, 1986, the Commission on Constitutional Matters has been requested by
one of the parties with the full consent and knowledge of the Oklahoma District Commission on
Adjudication to render an advisory opinion relative to the procedure to be followed in a situation
in which a district president has declined to suspend a member. Under Bylaw 2.27, the basic issue
under these circumstances is, "What jurisdiction, if any, does a district commission on
adjudication have?"
Since the Commission on Constitutional Matters has the ultimate responsibility for the interpretation of
Synod's Bylaws, it is regrettable that the parties did not ask the Commission on Appeals to obtain a ruling
from this Commission before that body made the very substantial expenditure of research and energy
represented by the lengthy, articulate and carefully reasoned majority and minority opinions. This
Commission is exercising its authority due to the nature of this particular question, under 3.533 d and will
interpret to the bylaw in a manner intended to be binding on the question.
In this case, the district president considered a complaint against a member of the Synod to terminate his
individual membership. After consideration of the complaint, the district president declined to suspend
the member in accordance with the provisions of 2.27 b. The complainant did not thereafter petition the
President of Synod pursuant to 2.27 f of the Bylaws. Instead, the complainant sought to appeal the district
president's decision to the District Commission on Adjudication. The District Commission on
Adjudication which was not certain it had jurisdiction and sought the opinion of the Commission on
Appeals as to its jurisdiction. The Commission on Appeals ruled in a five to four decision that the District
Commission on Adjudication had jurisdiction.
It is the conclusion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters that the Oklahoma District Commission
on Adjudication is without jurisdiction to consider further the termination of the member. Neither the
governing Bylaw section 2.27 nor any other provision of the Bylaws provide for the further prosecution
of a termination proceeding under the circumstances presented in this case. Once the district president has
declined to suspend, the only course available to the complainant was to follow the procedure established
in 2.27 f, which is an appeal to the President of the Synod.
In reaching this conclusion, we have carefully considered the well-reasoned majority and minority
opinions of the Commission on Appeals. We are persuaded by the reasoning of the dissent.