# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_March 9 10 1990_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

body, namely, the Board of Regents and the one who is terminated, namely the seminary president.
The President of the Synod is neither of these and is therefore the only eligible officer among those
identified in Bylaw 8.05,a, who is eligible to deal with this intra-synodical matter.
If the question is asked, "May the synodical President delegate his responsibilities under Bylaw 8.05,a
to, for example, one or more synodical vice presidents, particularly in cases where he feels that there
may be a real or perceived conflict of interest or that such a delegation of responsibility would
enhance the achievement of reconciliation, or where the president is rightly or wrongly alleged by one
of the parties to have an involvement in the case under adjudication?", the Commission's response is,
"No, he may not." The Handbook makes it clear that "the President shall have the right to authorize
the Vice-Presidents to perform the duties of his office and shall hold them responsible for their
performance. Accountability, however, shall always remain with the President," Bylaw 3.101,m. The
Commission respectfully points out that the President may appoint a small committee to seek to effect
reconciliation. This committee may or may not consist of Vice-Presidents of the Synod.
In response therefore to the specific questions raised, the Commission on Constitutional Matters
concludes that the Preus/Board of Regents Reconciliation Committee is properly constituted, is
constitutional, and is legitimate.
2. The Commission on Constitutional Matters notes that on the basis of Scripture there is never a time
limit to efforts to achieve reconciliation or resolution of issues. The Reconciliation Committee may,
however, conclude that it has exhausted all the efforts which it can expend in its efforts to do so. That
would appear to be the only limit. While it might appear on the surface that the Rules of Procedure
under Section A grant the Commission on Adjudication the right to determine after 90 days whether
informal settlement efforts have failed, it cannot be demonstrated conclusively from the text that this
stipulation refers to cases other than those involving suspension and expulsion. While we are not
called upon to determine whether the Friday limitation included in the Rules of Procedure is in
conformity with the Bylaws, even accepting the 90 days contained in the Rules of Procedure (for
purposes of discussion), the Reconciliation Committee cannot be deprived of at least the full 90 days
after the Reconciliation Committee has begun its work.
It is the conclusion the Commission that any decision regarding informal settlement efforts should
take into account the point in time at which such efforts actually began. Refusal by any party to
participate in such efforts would bring into consideration the stipulations of Bylaw 8.07,b regarding
unreasonable refusal to heed the admonitions of the Synod to use its adjudication system, a system
which includes participation in informal settlement efforts.
The Commission first notes that it prefers the terms complainant and respondent. However, following
the request forwarded to the Commission it notes that the remaining questions indicate that a person
may have been identified by a "plaintiff" as a defendant without ever having been informed. The
disputants must be brought into the process. It is only logical that if one intends to bring charges
against a brother, he would not only notify the brother but specifically state to him the charge which
he intends to bring. If this has not been done, the conclusion could well be drawn that such a person is
not properly a defendant. If he is to be such, he must be properly notified.
The Commission ratified the response which had been developed and forwarded to the Reconciliation
Committee.

28. Simultaneous Adjudication (Ag. 1892) : The Commission had received a request from Reuben
Garber, President of the Indiana District stating that a letter directed to the Indiana District Board of