# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_July 8 1999_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The Commission’s answer is “no.” The Secretary of the Synod forms a Dispute Resolution Panel only if the
accused member of the Synod contests a proposed expulsion (Bylaw 2.27, d). The “written complaint of
any person” (Bylaw 2.27, a) is never presented to the Secretary of either District or Synod. Rather, it is the
basis for the investigation of the matter by the District President who then decides if the facts form a basis
for expulsion of the member from the Synod in accord with Article XIII of the Constitution. It is to be noted
that Bylaw 2.27 does authorize a District President to appoint a small committee to assist in reconciliation
efforts. An expulsion from the Synod occurs only if the District President (or the Praesidium under Bylaw
2.27, b) decides to pursue the matter. Any person can make a written complaint but only a District President
(or the Praesidium) can formally seek expulsion.
If a District President operating according to Bylaw 2.27 can direct one or more of the
parties with whom he is working to file a complaint with the Secretary of the District,
who then, by blind draw, selects and appoints a District reconciler to work with the
parties in dispute, does that action on the District President’s part mean that he has met
the time constraints for his action as they are identified in Bylaw 2.27 b?
As stated above in the response to the previous question, a District President cannot direct one or more of
the parties to file a complaint with the Secretary of the District if it is an action to terminate congregational
or individual membership under the procedures of Bylaw 2.27. The only Secretary involved in a Bylaw 2.27
procedure is the Secretary of the Synod and then only under the circumstances set forth above. As stated
previously, Bylaw 2.27 ties into Chapter VIII of the Bylaws at Bylaw 8.07, h. Bylaw 8.07, a-g, are not
utilized in a Bylaw 2.27 action.
Instead, Bylaw 2.27 authorizes a District President to appoint a small committee to assist in reconciliation
efforts. The District President is free to appoint one or more of the District reconcilers to this small
committee but they are then acting as members of the small committee and not as reconcilers under Bylaw
8.07. Bylaw 2.27, e, further directs the District President to continue efforts to resolve those matters which
led to the commencement of the formal action against such member.
Bylaw 2.27, b, indicates that the complainant may present the written complaint to the Praesidium if the
District President declines to suspend the member or fails to act within 90 days after receipt of the written
complaint. The Commission previously issued an opinion regarding what constitutes “failure to act”
(Commission File 98-2097). A copy of that opinion is forwarded herewith.
47. Question regarding Late-Triennium Appointments by Synod’s Board of Directors (99-2152)
A pastor of the Synod, noting that Bylaw 3.67, c, requires that “no appointments to synodical boards or
commissions shall be made and no new programs shall be initiated by the outgoing President or the boards
of directors or elected or appointed boards of commissions during the interim” between a convention and
September 1, asked the question:
Do the synodical bylaws (esp. 3.67, c) explicitly or implicitly prohibit the synodical Board
of Directors from making new appointments-that is, appointing board members who will
begin their service during the following Triennium-at its May or June meeting in a
synodical convention year?
The Commission responds as follows:
The first sentence of Bylaw 3.67, c, states, “No appointments to synodical boards or commissions shall be
made and no new programs shall be initiated by the outgoing President or the boards of directors or elected