# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_October 26 2000_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

the official nominating process and states his opinion that the election that did take place at the District
convention should be set aside. He asks for an Opinion from the Commission.
Opinion: Bylaw 3.905, d, of the Synod limits the scope of the Commission’s responsibility for
interpretation to the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions. None of the aforementioned provides
any requirements for the nominating process of a District, nor do they provide direction or recourse if a
District should decide to proceed in a manner different from what is prescribed by its Bylaws. This
question is therefore beyond the scope of responsibility of this Commission. The Commission would
observe, however, that this challenge would have been better brought to the District convention, when the
convention itself would have had the opportunity to address any legitimate concerns.

174. Questions Regarding Procedure for Handling Complaints (00-2209)
A chairman of a Board of Regents of a synodical school in a letter dated August 18, 2000 asks the opinion
of the Commission regarding the handling of a complaint brought to the president of the school regarding
the performance of a member of the faculty.
QUESTION 1:

“Must there be a complainant who explicitly and intentionally uses the word
‘complaint’ to the Board of Regents before the board may ‘investigate, hear, and
act on any complaint arising out of Bylaw 6.43 c 1-6’ (6.45 a)? Or is the board at
liberty to direct that any individual whose concern with a faculty member comes
to the board’s attention must meet with the faculty member, if the board is to
consider the complaint or any related concern (such as the manner in which
someone with supervisory responsibility for the faculty member deals with that
faculty member)?”

Opinion: Bylaw 6.45, a, does not stipulate that the word “complaint” must be used in order for there to
be a complainant or in order to grant the authority or initiate the process for receiving a complaint
described in Bylaw 6.45. Such a complaint may concern “any matter, including those specified under
Bylaw 6.43 c 1-6” (Bylaw 6.47, a). More than at liberty, the Board of Regents is required by bylaw to
“direct the complainant first to meet face to face with the respondent in an attempt to resolve the issue.”
In the case of a faculty member, “the president of the institution shall assist in this attempt” unless he
himself is the respondent. If the president is the respondent, the chairman of the board is required to act in
his stead.
QUESTION 2:

“Do the bylaws of Synod permit an individual with supervisory responsibility for
the public teaching of a faculty member to be charged with ‘neglect of or refusal
to perform duties of office’ (6.43 c 4) before the due process procedures of Bylaw
6.47 have established that the public teaching of that faculty member, does, in
fact, represent ‘advocacy of false doctrine (Constitution, Art. II) or failure to
honor and uphold the doctrinal position of the Synod as defined further in Bylaw
1.09 c’ (6.43 c 6)?”

Opinion: The Bylaws of the Synod permit a member of an institution’s “faculty or administration” to be
the subject of a complaint “concerning any matter, including those specified under Bylaw 6.43, c, 1-6,”
including “neglect of or refusal to perform duties of office.” If “the president himself is the respondent,
the chairman of the board shall act in his stead” to assist in an attempt to resolve the issue (Bylaw 6.47, a).
If supervision of a faculty member is the stated cause for the complaint, the president’s “neglect of or
refusal to perform (his) duties of office” in that particular regard will be the issue to be resolved, to
include his efforts to supervise the public teaching of his institution’s faculty members as described by
Bylaw 6.12, f, and Bylaw 6.23, c.
185