# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_March 9 10 1990_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Directors through his office had charged him with failure to carry out his responsibility to protect the call
of Dr. Robert Preus. The letter had been presented to the Board of Directors at its meeting in late
September, 1989 and the Board, in the absence of President Garber, and after discussion, had
communicated with Dr. Preus indicating the Board's belief that until the authority of the Board of Regents
to honorably retire Dr. Preus was determined, the charges made by him against the Indiana District
President could not be considered. In view of this, President Garber now asked the following questions:
1. Does the Handbook permit a matter, or interrelated matters, to be considered simultaneously
by both the Synod and District Commission on Adjudication?
2. When is the appropriate time to present this matter to the District Commission on
Adjudication?
3. What is the District President's responsibility to give direction when, at the request of the one
bring the charges, he turns the matter over to the First Vice-President and/or the Board of
Directors?
In response to the questions of President Garber, the Commission decided to respond as follows:
This is in response to your letter of March 9, 1990 in which you pose three specific questions to the
Commission on Constitutional Matters relative to a representation that Dr. Preus has by letter charged
you with failure to carry out your responsibilities to protect his call.
The Commission in reviewing the matter decided that the three questions to which you asked a
response are inappropriate at this time. The Commission was concerned over what jurisdiction a
district commission would have in the particular matter given the specifics of their jurisdiction as
contained in 8.31 of the Bylaws, specifically a, b, c, d, and e. None would appear to be applicable
based upon the statement given in the first paragraph of your letter. The Commission would also note
that nothing was mentioned relative to reconciliation which is a prerequisite to a jurisdiction
regardless.
The Commission recognizes that, according to the Rules of Procedure, there is a 90-day limitation
(subject to the above) and holds that the only reasonable interpretation is that the 90-day period does
not begin until the Reconciliation Committee has begun its attempts at reconciliation involving all
parties. It is assumed that the committee or person involved in informal settlement efforts will keep
the Commission on Adjudication informed of its progress or lack of it so that the issues may be
resolved or adjudication of them is not unreasonably delayed. The Commission on Adjudication may
not, however, make the determination that informal efforts have failed without inquiring of the
Reconciliation Committee.
3: The Commission responds to your fourth question next in an effort to further deal with the process.
(Questions three and five deal with individuals or groups involved.)
The Commission concludes that the matter referred to is not before the Commission on Adjudication
until the stipulation of Bylaw 8-05,a has been met, including the written statement of charges
submitted to the officer responsible for appointing the Reconciliation Committee. Until that has been
done the Commission on Adjudication must stand aside or refrain from hearing it. Bylaw 8.07 read
with Bylaw 8.05 makes this obligatory. In developing the Rules of Procedure, the Commission on
Appeals has carried out this requirement. The Rules of Procedure state, "Anytime while any case is in
the informal settlement stage under Bylaws 8.05 and 8.07, any party may file his case by submitting