Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2010 · 64th Convention, Houston › Page 271

LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 271

front matter 1 front matter 2 front matter 3 front matter 4 front matter 5 front matter 6 front matter 7 front matter 8 front matter 9 front matter 10 front matter 11 front matter 12 front matter 13 front matter 14 front matter 15 front matter 16 front matter 17 front matter 18 front matter 19 front matter 20 Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199 Page 200 Page 201 Page 202 Page 203 Page 204 Page 205 Page 206 Page 207 Page 208 Page 209 Page 210 Page 211 Page 212 Page 213 Page 214 Page 215 Page 216 Page 217 Page 218 Page 219 Page 220 Page 221 Page 222 Page 223 Page 224 Page 225 Page 226 Page 227 Page 228 Page 229 Page 230 Page 231 Page 232 Page 233 Page 234 Page 235 Page 236 Page 237 Page 238 Page 239 Page 240 Page 241 Page 242 Page 243 Page 244 Page 245 Page 246 Page 247 Page 248 Page 249 Page 250 Page 251 Page 252 Page 253 Page 254 Page 255 Page 256 Page 257 Page 258 Page 259 Page 260 Page 261 Page 262 Page 263 Page 264 Page 265 Page 266 Page 267 Page 268 Page 269 Page 270 Page 271 Page 272 Page 273 Page 274 Page 275 Page 276 Page 277 Page 278 Page 279 Page 280 Page 281 Page 282 Page 283 Page 284 Page 285 Page 286 Page 287 Page 288 Page 289 Page 290 Page 291 Page 292 Page 293 Page 294 Page 295 Page 296 Page 297 Page 298 Page 299 Page 300 Page 301 Page 302 Page 303 Page 304 Page 305 Page 306 Page 307 Page 308 Page 309 Page 310 Page 311 Page 312 Page 313 Page 314 Page 315 Page 316 Page 317 Page 318 Page 319 Page 320 Page 321 Page 322 Page 323 Page 324 Page 325 Page 326 Page 327 Page 328 Page 329 Page 330 Page 331 Page 332 Page 333 Page 334

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

⤓ Download page image (full resolution)

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
and Bylaws which ensure that such an action actually
is completed in a manner described in Matthew 18:15.
Opinion: See the answer to question 3.
Adopted Nov. 20–21, 2008
Final Hearing Panel Procedure (08-2534)
The secretary of a Final Hearing Panel, in accordance with Bylaw
2.14.7.7 (k) [“If any part of the dispute involves. … questions of
constitution or bylaw interpretation, each party shall have a right to
an interpretation from the Commission on Constitutional Matters
(CCM)”], submitted two questions in an October 8, 2008 letter to
the commission.
Question 1: Is a Final Hearing Panel required to conduct a de novo
hearing in which the matter is heard anew as if it had not
been previously heard and as if no decision had previously been made by the initial Hearing Panel?
Opinion: The answer to this question is “no.” While the bylaws
assume that the Final Hearing Panel will conduct a hearing (e.g.,
Bylaw 2.14.8.2), Bylaw 2.14.8.1 (b) provides: “The procedures
for the final hearing shall be the same as prescribed in Bylaws
2.14.7.5–2.14.7.7.” There is no provision for any de novo hearing
in these bylaws. Rather, Bylaw 2.14.7.7 (i) provides: “The panel
shall determine the number of witnesses necessary for a full and
complete understanding of the facts involved in the matter.” Also,
Bylaw 2.14.8.1 (c) states: “The chairman of the Hearing Panel shall
provide the Final Hearing Panel with a written statement of the
matter and the Hearing Panel’s report, minutes, records, and proceedings.” This is the material to be reviewed by the Final Hearing
Panel unless it feels the need to hear from additional witnesses. The
Final Hearing Panel therefore is to determine for itself what further
information, if any, it needs to acquire in order to have a complete
understanding of the facts at issue. It is up to the panel to determine
if it needs to hear from any additional witnesses in order to fulfill
its bylaw responsibilities.
Question 2: May the parties call hostile/adverse witnesses during a
hearing before a Final Hearing Panel?
Opinion: The answer to this question is founded upon the understanding of the bylaws reviewed in the answer to the previous question. It is up to the judgment of the panel whether it needs to hear
from any witnesses. While the bylaws provide that “each party involved shall be given an opportunity fully to present its respective
position” (Bylaw 2.14.7.7 [c]), the parties may not automatically
call any witness, hostile/adverse or otherwise, during a hearing before a Final Hearing Panel unless the panel has indicated that it
wants to hear from said witness.
Adopted Nov. 20–21, 2008
Time Requirements for Dispute Resolution Process (08-2535)
In an e-mailed letter dated October 30, 2008, a congregation of the
Synod involved in dispute resolution submitted the following question
regarding the right of the Secretary of the Synod as administrator of
the dispute resolution process to allow a Dispute Resolution Panel to
exceed the 60-day time limit for providing its decision.
Question: In view of the fact that the Dispute Resolution Panel
failed to make a decision for 60 days as required by the
LCMS bylaw, what LCMS bylaw allows the LCMS
Secretary or any LCMS official to suspend Bylaw
1.10.7.4 (b) and give an extension for that decision
without any agreement from the respondent? As stated
another way, do the LCMS Bylaws allow any official
or even the CCM without bylaw authority to accept a
Dispute Resolution Panel decision after the panel has

271

failed to make a decision within 60 days, and if so, what
bylaw can be interpreted to allow that exception?
Opinion: Bylaw 1.10.7.4 (b) requires: “Within 60 days after the
final hearing, the panel shall issue a written decision that shall state
the facts determined by the panel and the reasons for its decision.”
There is no provision in the Bylaws for a suspension or extension
of the 60-day obligation to issue a decision, and no provision for
any official of the Synod to grant such suspension or extension.
Should the panel fail to render its decision within that time frame,
it would be appropriate to bring that issue to the attention of the
administrator of the proceeding.
Bylaw 1.10.4 (a) identifies the administrator to be:
(a) Administrator: The secretary of a district or of the Synod or an
appointee (Bylaw 1.10.6) who manages the dispute resolution process
but who does not take leadership, declare judgments, advise, or become
involved in the matter in dispute.

The administrator would be expected to make inquiry as to the
reason for the failure, and to encourage the panel to fulfill its responsibility. Should the administrator believe that the panel is neglecting
its duties, and the panel continues to fail to issue its decision, the
administrator should bring the matter to the attention of the President
of the Synod.
It should be noted that a failure of the panel to issue its decision within the time prescribed does not terminate the proceedings
or prohibit the reception of a decision not timely rendered. Unlike
the process set forth in Bylaw 2.14.2 (e), for example, which can
result in dismissal of a proceeding should the accuser fail to meet
the accused face-to-face within 30 days, the Synod has imposed no
such requirement for the delayed issuance of a decision as described
in the question submitted.
Adopted Nov. 20–21, 2008
Continuation of Candidate Status (08-2537)
The Secretary of the Synod, in a memorandum dated November
21, 2008, requested clarification of Bylaw 2.11.2.2 (a) regarding candidate status for church workers.
Question: Bylaw 2.11.2.2 (a) authorizes a district president to continue a candidate on the roster for a period not to exceed
four years. Does the bylaw allow the district president
to extend that status of such candidate member beyond
four years?
Opinion: No. Bylaw 2.11.2.2 describes who is eligible for placement on “candidate” status, i.e., a rostered member of the Synod
who is eligible to perform the duties of an active member of the
Synod in one of the offices of ministry specified in Bylaw 2.11.1
but who is not currently an active member or an emeritus member.
Paragraph (b) provides that such a candidate member is required
to file an annual report by January 31 of each year. Based on that
report and the district president’s evaluation of the criteria identified
under paragraph (c), the district president may, under paragraph (a),
continue the candidate status for a period not to exceed four years.
If no longer qualifying for candidate status, a member may, if
eligible, be continued on the roster as a non-candidate member pursuant to Bylaw 2.11.2.3.
Adopted Nov. 20–21, 2008
Binding Force Resolutions (08-2542)
Referencing CCM Opinion 08-2524, which referred to 2004 Res.
3-05A, “To Affirm Marriage as Union of One Man and One Woman,”
a pastor of the Synod in a letter dated December 30, 2008, asked the
commission whether other resolutions in the same category were
equally binding with similar attending disciplinary action.
2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 271

4/15/10 2:40 PM