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
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