# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_August 24 1998_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

presented to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations by the CCM for the reaction of the CTCR.
The Commission on Constitutional Matters decided to postpone dealing with these questions, believing that
a response to them would require a face-to-face meeting. An attempt will be made to arrange for such a
meeting during the month of September.
194. Hearing on Restricted Status (Ag. 2124): A pastor who had been placed on restricted status had
requested a hearing by a committee of the Council of Presidents for removal from that status. In dealing
with the issues, the committee had come to recognize that there had not been a face-to-face meeting
between the restricted pastor and the President of the district. It now raised the issue of whether such a
meeting was required before a hearing before the committee of the Council of Presidents would be held.
Responding to the question, the Commission stated the following:
You have asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters, each in your own way, whether a face-toface meeting is required between a restricted member and the District President who placed him on that
status prior to holding a meeting regarding the removal of restricted status as provided for in Bylaw
2.29. The importance of following Bylaw 2.23, e, has also been stressed as it calls upon the District
President to minister to the restricted member and to continue efforts to resolve the matters which led to
the imposition of restricted status.
While the Commission recognizes the importance of Bylaw 2.23, e, and is in complete agreement
regarding the thrust of that bylaw, it is also aware of the clear directives of Bylaw 2.29. A review of that
bylaw provides no statement or indication that a meeting between the District President and the
restricted member is a precondition for a hearing. Furthermore, the bylaws do not describe of what the
efforts to resolve the matter shall consist.
While the committee called for in Bylaw 2.29 during the course of the hearing may well call for
evidence of good faith efforts to resolve the matter and may consider such in the course of arriving at its
decision, it cannot refuse to conduct the hearing.
195. Constituting the Board for Higher Education (Ag. 2125): At the 1998 convention of the Synod, a
resolution had been adopted expanding the Board for Higher Education to include four members elected
jointly by the Boards of Regents of the seminaries of the Synod.
The question had been raised as to whether the existing Boards of Regents were to select these members or
whether it would be the responsibility of newly-elected Boards of Regents members who took office after
September 1 to elect these members. The question which was involved was an interpretation of Bylaw 3.67,
which refers to new appointments and new programs not being initiated in an interim between election and
the taking of office by newly-elected boards. The point had also been made that the issue involved here did
not involve a new program, but was based upon a resolution adopted by the Synod.
After some discussion, the Commission resolved to respond to the issue which had been raised as follows:
The Commission on Constitutional Matters has carefully reviewed the issue regarding the seminary
Boards of Regents who are responsible for electing the additional four members to the Board for Higher
Education authorized by the 1998 synodical convention. After having done so, it has concluded that
Bylaw 3.67 contains no exceptions.
On the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that while the existing Boards of Regents would
not be initiating any new programs, the change in membership having been determined by the synodical
convention, it would be making new appointments. The bylaw clearly states that such are not to be
made. Consequently, the Commission concludes that it is the newly-elected Board of Regents, not the