LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 319

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
as the condition of the congregation is concerned. The Synod, being an advisory body, recognizes the right of the congregation to be
the judge of the applicability of the resolution to its local condition.
However, in exercising such judgment, a congregation must not act
arbitrarily but in accordance with the principles of Christian love
and charity.
In view of this, the district, which is a part of the Synod, can rightly
expect its congregations to conform to the Bylaws of the district unless
a requirement does not “appear applicable as far as the condition of the
congregation is concerned.” The congregation which does not pay its
assessment can rightly be expected to demonstrate that its local condition makes the assessment requirement inapplicable for them. It would
seem that congregations not paying the assessment for convention expenses should be dealt with evangelically with the understanding that
ultimately its continued membership in the Synod through the district
might be involved.

At its November 1994 meeting, the commission responded to
a similar question from a pastor whose congregation was refusing
to pay because of “extreme financial hardship.” The commission
responded by quoting from its 1992 opinion, as quoted above. The
same response also answers the current question, also in the negative:
delegate attendance at a district convention cannot be contingent upon
payment of a registration fee.
Question 3: If the answers to the preceding questions are in the negative, what recourse does a congregation or its voting
delegates have if they have been improperly denied the
opportunity to attend and vote at the convention?
Opinion: The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod provide no
recourse following the convention, should a congregation be denied voting delegate representation. The time for contesting seating
would have been at the time of the convention and according to
rules established for that purpose.
Question 4: Also, if a congregation has been denied the right to
send delegates to the district convention, what recourse
does that congregation have regarding the election for
President of the Synod? Are they to be denied the right
to vote for president because they have been unjustly
barred from attendance at a district convention?
Opinion: As is the case with all congregations of the Synod whose
voting delegates are prevented from attending their district conventions for any reason, the Bylaws of the Synod provide no recourse
that would allow participation in the presidential election. Bylaw
3.12.2.3 clearly reserves that right to the voting delegates who were
in attendance at the prior year’s district convention.
Question 5: But if the convention was not convoked (that is, called
together) according to the Constitution, would the convention be a legal convention, capable of transacting
business?
Opinion: As the previous questions indicate the questioner’s
concern is for district conventions, the commission responds to this
question about “the convention” in regard to district conventions.
Article XII 14 of the Constitution states: “For the legal holding
of the sessions of the districts, a constitutional convocation of such
sessions and the presence of at least one-third of the voting members
represented by at least one of their respective representatives (pastor
or lay delegate) are required.”
A properly called district convention requires satisfying two stipulations: it must be properly convoked (“a constitutional convocation
of such sessions”) and there must be sufficient delegate representation
(“at least one-third of the voting members represented by at least one
of their respective representatives”).
(Adopted Aug. 10–12, 2012)

319

Questions re Ecclesiastical Supervisor’s Responsibilities
during Expulsion Proceedings (12-2650)
A member of the Synod, with a June 9, 2012 email, submitted
a series of “issues” regarding a district president’s responsibilities
during Bylaws section 2.17 expulsion proceedings. Noting that the
answers to the questions submitted also generally pertain to Bylaws
section 2.14 proceedings, the commission responded as follows:
Question 1: Under Bylaw 2.17, should a District President, who has
the sole responsibility to commence expulsion proceedings, take no further action when he has determined
during the consultation phase [Bylaw 2.17.3] that the
information or facts, even if accepted as true, could not
lead to expulsion?
Opinion: First, it should be noted that, during the consultation
phase described in Bylaw 2.17.3, the accuser may consult with any
appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor. That person may well not be
the ecclesiastical supervisor of the accused, who alone is able under
Bylaw 2.17.4 actually to initiate an expulsion process.
It is a consultation that occurs under Bylaw 2.17.3, and not a
determination regarding the merits of the case or whether a formal
proceeding should be initiated. It is only under Bylaw 2.17.4, if a
district president determines that there is no factual basis to initiate
expulsion proceedings under that bylaw, that the Bylaw 2.17 matter
is concluded as provided by Bylaw 2.17.5.3.
Whether made by the district president or the Referral Panel, if the
determination is not to initiate formal proceedings, the district president shall in writing so inform the accuser, any other district president
involved, and the involved member, which shall terminate the matter.
While the Bylaw 2.17 matter may have been terminated, a district
president as ecclesiastical supervisor continues to have the right and
the responsibility to take other actions as he may determine to be
warranted by information he has learned prior to the termination of
that process. A fact situation not rising to the level of expulsion may
well still require counsel, admonishment, correction, or advice. Under
some circumstances, it may be appropriate to consider the issues
under the Bylaw 2.14 process or to submit the matter to a Bylaw 1.10
proceeding instead, as recognized in Bylaw 2.17.3 (b).
Question 2: During the phases under Bylaw 2.17.3 or 2.17.4, is
it inconsistent with or otherwise violating the Eighth
Commandment, Bylaw 2.17.3(d), or Standard Operating
Procedure I.F., G., I.(6), N.; II.D., F., G., I., or Q for an
ecclesiastical supervisor to give status updates, engage
in on-going communications, or to otherwise communicate with anyone other than the accuser, the accused
or those with whom the ecclesiastical supervisor may
consult (Bylaw 2.17.3[a])?
Opinion: It is not within the authority of the CCM to issue opinions regarding biblical interpretation, including the Eighth Commandment. During any potential expulsion process, the involved
ecclesiastical supervisors must be free to gather all information
necessary to consider the issues. With respect to the balance of the
question, during the investigative phase of a Bylaw 2.17 matter,
Bylaw 2.17.3(a) authorizes the involved ecclesiastical supervisor
to “consult with any others as considered appropriate under the
circumstances.” A district president under Bylaw 2.17.4 may also
seek facts by speaking with anyone believed to have relevant information in order to reach the decision as to whether to commence a
formal action and to prosecute that action effectively if the decision
is made to do so. The district president would also have the ability
to discuss issues with an investigation committee under 2.17.4 (a)
or a referral panel under Bylaw 2.17.5.
2013 Convention Workbook