# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_August 30 1990_S1
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

In conclusion, the phrase in Bylaw 8.69, "any provision to the contrary in the Bylaws
notwithstanding" was not intended to confer upon the Commission on Appeals the authority reserved
to others under these bylaws.
In the extraordinary circumstance described above as discussed in our previous opinion to you and the
supplement, March 19, 1990 and April 3, 1990, paragraphs 6 and 10, the President may invoke
executive power and/or convene a special session of Synod under and in accordance with the
conditions of Articles VIII,B and IX,B,9 of the synodical Constitution and Bylaw 3.103. These
powers cannot, of course, be exercised unilaterally. The President must consult with responsible
individuals and groups including "the Vice-Presidents, the Board of Directors, the Council of
Presidents, or the Council of Administrators" before exercising executive power because the affairs of
the Synod require it. He may convene a special meeting of the Synod only with the consent of twothirds of the district presidents. It will also be noted that three-fourths of the district presidents
themselves may convene a special session of the convention, a provision which operates as a
constraint upon the improvident exercise of executive power.

Minutes of the Commission on Constitutional Matters - August 30, 1990
37. Opening Devotion and Agenda At the request of the chairman, Roland Hopmann led the members
of the Commission in prayer as they began the meeting. The Commission agreed to follow the agenda as
presented, noting that it would meet the following morning in order to deal with issues which would be
discussed in the meeting between the Commission on Appeals and the Commission on Constitutional
Matters the following day.
38. Interpretation of Bylaw 8-51,b (Ag. 1894) : The Reverend David Mahsman, director of News and
Information for the Synod, had addressed several questions to the Commission for response. The three
questions were as follows:
1) Does Bylaw 8.51 b preclude the Commission on Adjudication or its chairman from revealing for
publication in an official periodical of the Synod that a hearing has been set in a given case and
the date of that hearing?
2) Does Bylaw 8-51,b preclude the Commission on Adjudication or its chairman from providing for
publication in an official periodical of the Synod status reports on cases pending before it?
3) If the answer to either (1) or (2) above is "no," what limits, if any, does Bylaw 8.51,b place on the
information that the Commission on Adjudication or its chairman may provide for reporting in an
official periodical of the Synod?
In response, the Commission decided to forward the following the opinion to Rev. Mahsman:
The Commission would first observe that Bylaw 8-51,b must be interpreted in the light of 8-51,m.
While Bylaw 8.51,b interpreted in the light of Bylaw 8.51,m does not specifically prohibit sharing the
information to which reference is made, it is wise to observe that
a) If publicity is given to the fact that a hearing has been set for a given case, more publicity
may be given to the matter than is necessary. The public in which the controversy is made
known is expanded beyond that which is necessary.