# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 15 2000_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Recognized Service Organizations to extend calls. After initial discussion, it was agreed that a draft
response be prepared by a member of the Commission for discussion at a future meeting.
151. Questions Re Lack of Time Frames in Bylaw 2.27, b (00-2196)
The President of the Synod in a letter dated April 10, 2000, noted the lack of time frames in Bylaw 2.27,
b, to govern the opportunity for a complainant to appeal a decision of a District President in response to
his or her complaint and to govern the length of time allowed for a District President to complete his
investigation of a complaint.
The Commission agrees that the time frame in which a complainant may appeal a decision of a District
President is at present open-ended and recommends that an appropriate bylaw change be proposed to a
national convention of the Synod.
In the case of the second concern, the Commission calls attention to its May, 1998 opinion which stated
the following regarding the interpretation of the “90 days” stipulation for a District President to take
action on a complaint:
The CCM interprets “fails to act” to mean that a District President takes no action within
90 days of receiving a complaint. Such inaction would mean no measures were initiated
with the 90 day period to ascertain the truth or falsity of the complaint allegations….A
complaint which is ignored by a District President for 90 days triggers the “fails to act”
language. In that situation, an appeal to the Praesidium is the proper procedure
anticipated in the bylaw.
When, however, a District President receives a complaint, he may take a number of
actions which toll the “fails to act” language of the bylaw….Such efforts may extend
beyond 90 days until a decision concerning suspension is reached. At that time a
complainant may appeal if the District President declines to suspend….
The Bylaws are silent regarding the length of time a District President has to conclude an
action on a complaint. The clear intent of the bylaw requires expeditious action by a
District President when dealing with such a complaint. A District President may not
frustrate the purpose of the bylaw by undertaking some action within 90 days and
subsequently refusing to act. The actions of a District President upon receiving a
complaint must ultimately lead to a decision to suspend or not to suspend. When a
District President begins to act within 90 days and subsequently fails to act, a
complainant may properly appeal to the Praesidium. The Praesidium shall determine on a
factual basis whether the District President commenced and continued to act.
In this case also, the Commission recommends that an appropriate bylaw change be proposed to a
national convention of the Synod to provide wording that will address the stated concern.
152. Questions Re the Requirements of Bylaw 6.47 for a Board of Regents of a Synodical School (002199, 00-2200)
Related questions were received in a May 1, 2000 letter from the President of the Synod and a May 5,
2000 letter from the Chairman of the Board of Regents of a synodical school regarding the applicability
of the requirements of Bylaw 6.47 to every situation in which a complaint is received against a faculty
member or school administrator. The Commission agreed that a draft response be prepared for discussion
at a future meeting.
153. Approval of Changes to Bylaws of the Texas District (00-2201)
170