LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 373

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS ‘373

laws is encouraged when disputes, disagreements or offenses arise
among the members when it does not involve expulsion from mem-
bership.

Question 2: May [the officer], as an elected officer of the
Synod, be free to criticize an opinion of the CCM in which he with-
holds basic information, thus criticizing on the basis of his misin-
formation, rather than using the bylaw channels, which Synod re-
quires of members to use to challenge or appeal a CCM decision?

Opinion: While criticism or dissent may not be prohibited, offi-
cers of the Synod, just as individual members, commit themselves
as members of the Synod to act in accordance with the synodical
Constitution and Bylaws under which they have agreed to live and
work together and which the congregations alone have the author-
ity to adopt or amend through conventions (Bylaw 1.05 d).

An officer of the Synod must recognize that “Elected officers
serve the Synod in accordance with duties assigned to them or oth-
erwise authorized by the Constitution and appropriate Bylaws...”
(Bylaw 1.07b), that “Every member of the Synod shall diligently
and earnestly promote the purposes of the Synod by word and
deed” (Bylaw 2.35) and that “The Constitution, Bylaws, and all
other rules and regulations of the Synod apply to all congregational
and individual members of the Synod” (Bylaw 2.39a).

In their accountability to the Synod, “All officers, boards, and

commissions shall be accountable to the Synod for all their actions,
and any decision of such officers, boards, and commissions may
be appealed to the national convention of the Synod” (Bylaw 3.73).
And as such, an officer of the Synod must especially respect the
requirement that “An opinion rendered by the commission shall be
binding on the question decided unless and until it is overruled by a
synodical convention” (Bylaw 3.905 d).

As an officer of the Synod, the officer must assume only such
rights as have been expressly conferred upon him/her by the Synod,
and in everything pertaining to their rights and the performance of
their duties they are responsible to the Synod. It is the Synod that at
all times has the right to call its officers to account (Article XI A).

Adopted Aug. 15-16, 2003

The Final Decision of a Dispute Resolution Panel
(03-2364)
In an e-mail communication addressed to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters dated July 29, 2003, an ordained minister

of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has asked the following
questions:

Question 1: Do the Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod allow for the Synod in convention to overrule a decision of
a DRP?

Opinion: Bylaw 3.73 states: “All officers, boards, and commis-
sions shall be accountable to the Synod for al] their actions, and
any decision of such officers, boards, and commissions may be ap-
pealed to the national convention of the Synod.” Members of a Dis-
pute Resolution Panel are not officers of the Synod and a Dispute
Resolution Panel is not a board or commission.

It must also be noted: “The final decision of a Dispute Resolu-
tion Panel shal] be binding upon the parties to that dispute subject
to request for review;”(Bylaw 8.09 c 4 a). When and if the review
has been requested, ‘The final decision of the Review Panel shall 1.
be binding upon the parties to that dispute and not be subject to fur-
ther appeal” (Bylaw 8.09 e 1). Accordingly, the Bylaws of the
Synod do not allow the Synod to overrule a Dispute Resolution
Panel or a Review Panel decision.

Question 2: If the Bylaws do not allow the Synod to overrule
this decision, then should the overtures be returned to the congre-
gations making them, informing them that the decision cannot be
overturned?

Opinion: Depending upon the overture, its nature and contents
and the circumstances of the case, either Bylaw 3.19 c or Bylaw
3.19 d are applicable. These are as follows:

[3.19] c. Overtures with reference to a case in which a member
has been suspended or expelled and which is at present in the

process of or subject to appeal, as well as overtures which, upon
advice of legal counsel, may subject the Synod or the corporate of-
ficers of the Synod to civil action for libel or slander, or which con-
tain libel or slander, shall not be accepted for convention consider-
ation.

[3.19] d. The synodical President shall determine if any over-
ture contains information which is materially in error, or contains
any apparent misrepresentation of truth or of character. He shall
not approve inclusion of any such overture in the convention man-
ual and shall refer any such overture to the District President who
has ecclesiastical supervision over the entity submitting the over-
ture for action. If any published overture or resolution is found to
be materially in error or contains any misrepresentation of truth or
of character, it shall be withdrawn from convention consideration
and referred by the President of the Synod to the appropriate Dis-
trict President for action.

The President of the Synod must handle any such overture ac-
cording to the above bylaw provisions.

Question 3: If so, then should the President’s office or the Sec-
retary of Synod return them?

Opinion: This question is answered under question 2 above.
Adopted Aug. 15-16, 2003

Authority of the Board of Directors
Over Restricted Funds (President’s Office) (03-2365)

In an e-mail letter received July 31, 2003, a pastor of the Synod
pursues a question regarding President’s Office expenses paid by
restricted giving.

Question: Does the Board of Directors of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod have fiscal review and authority con-
cerning restricted funds given to the President’s Office? May the
Board of Directors intervene if such spending is at odds with the
purpose and objectives of the Synod? Can the Board provide over-
sight on restricted funding? Can the Board stop such spending with
proper cause?

Opinion: The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod give the
Board of Directors broad authority in the areas of fiscal responsi-
bility, as outlined in Article XI F of the Constitution and Bylaw
3.183. Those powers and responsibilities are subject to a number
of restrictions. For example, “restricted funds” as referenced in the
question is understood to include gifts in trust, accepted by the
Synod with particular restrictions. If accepted, the trust provisions
must be honored and the restrictions complied with.

With respect to restricted funds given to the President’s Office,
the same principle applies. Bylaw 3.183 c does include a general
recognition of responsibility of the Board of Directors in the busi-
ness and legal affairs of the Synod and, as discussed in Opinion 02-
2259, the general duty to see that the Constitution and Bylaws of
the Synod are observed, as directed in 2001 convention Resolution
7-03C. As further discussed in the response to Question 2 of Opin-
ion 02-2259, however, the President is the chief ecclesiastical offi-
cer of the Synod, and the Board of Directors may not restrict the
ecclesiastical functions of the President and the means chosen by
him to carry out those functions within the resources available to
him. It is expected that the Board of Directors, as well as all mem-
bers of the Synod, will provide such constructive input as they may
have to assist the President in the performance of his office.

Adopted Sept. 30, 2003

Role of District Board of Directors
in the Configuration of Visitation Circuits (03-2368)

A pastor of the Northern Illinois District, in a letter dated Au-
gust 20, 2003, asked a series of questions regarding the responsi-
bilities of a District board of directors in the determination of the
configuration of visitation and electoral Circuits.

Question 1: Is it permissible for a District board of directors to
approve the dividing of two visitation circuits into four permanent
visitation circuits when the original circuits were specifically es-
tablished by the District in convention?

2004 Convention Workbook