LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 323

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
president is called to act, such action is not dependent upon the specific individual holding the office but is tied to the office itself as
the basis for authority to act. It is true that there are occasions within
both processes where an individual has a right to select a district
president to act within the process;13 however, it is the fact that the
person selected is a district president that makes him eligible to serve
in the process.
Although these dispute resolution and expulsion processes do not
speak specifically to the circumstance wherein a district president so
chosen to serve may cease to be a district president prior to the final
resolution of the matter, the right to have a district president chosen
by the individual in the process remains inviolate. Where a district
president so chosen ceases to be in that office, the individual who
selected him still has the right to have a district president of his/her
selection serving in this regard and has the right to make a replacement selection, who would serve to the conclusion of the process.

District Failure to Elect Member of Committee
for Convention Nominations (12-2653)
On July 19, 2012, the Secretary of the Synod submitted a question
to the Commission on Constitutional Matters with this background:
Bylaws 3.12.3.1–3.12.3.3 provide for the election of a Committee for
Convention Nominations prior to conventions of the Synod. Districts
are required to elect members of the nominations committee (and
alternates) according to the schedule provided by these bylaws, using
the “regular election procedures at the district convention.”
Question: If a district fails to elect a member of the Synod’s Committee
for Convention Nominations while its convention is in
session, what (if any) is the process to be used to fill that
position following the district convention?
Opinion: When a district convention fails to elect a member of the
Synod’s Committee for Convention Nominations, that position
must be filled by the Board of Directors of the District in order to
fulfill the District’s obligation to the Synod.
(Adopted Aug. 10–12, 2012)

Fairness and Due Process Questions Received
from Final Hearing Panel (12-2659)
Pursuant to Bylaw 2.14.7.8 (k), a Final Hearing Panel submitted
a series of questions to the Commission on Constitutional Matters
(CCM). Immediately after receipt of these questions, the accused
member submitted a lengthy history and background raising three
“points” or arguments the member wanted to be considered. It is
unclear whether the member intended the communication to be a request for an opinion under Bylaw 3.9.2.2. At least one of the “points”
is accompanied by a heading, “Procedural Questions to the CCM.”
To the extent that the issues presented by the member are relevant to
the pending proceeding, the panel itself must process the questions
pursuant to Bylaw 2.14.7.8 (k). In this opinion, the member’s submission will be treated as background material rather than as a question
under Bylaw 3.9.2.2.
Question 1: In a matter arising under Bylaw section 2.14, is a final
hearing panel concerned only with the issues raised by
the request for a final hearing, or is the panel to review
any issues of fairness, due process, or possible procedural infractions that have occurred throughout the
entire process? If the latter, does that include matters
relating to the procedures of a special hearing panel and
the actions or inactions of the administrator relating to
the special hearing panel?
Opinion: In performing its function on behalf of the Synod, while
the issues raised by the request for a final hearing are its primary

323

and ultimate focus, a Final Hearing Panel must always be concerned about issues of fairness, due process, or possible procedural
infractions. The integrity of the Synod itself is dependent upon its
commitment, willingness, and ability to follow the rules and covenants the membership itself has established, both as the basis of
joining in our walking together as well as the grounds and process
for involuntary removal.
In an overview of membership issues, Bylaw 2.1.1 states:
Included in the objectives of the Synod as stated in its Constitution
are, under Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, to “provide evangelical supervision, counsel, and care for pastors, teachers, and other
professional church workers in the performance of their official duties”
and to “provide protection for congregations, pastors, teachers, and
other church workers in the performance of their official duties and the
maintenance of their rights” (Article III 8, 9). In view of this, it is clear
that membership in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, whether
individual or congregational, is viewed as a valuable asset to be carefully monitored and managed. In order for this to occur, it is necessary
for standards to be developed and maintained for the benefit of all members so that its value is not diminished or destroyed. Consequently, it is
important for the Synod to establish the standards and qualifications it
believes necessary for acquiring and maintaining the status of membership as well as procedures for protecting those who attain it (emphasis
added).

Although directed to a dispute resolution process issue rather than
an expulsion, the following comments of the CCM in Opinion 082514A apply here as well:
Question 7: 	May the Dispute Resolution Panel in its proceedings
consider issues raised by the parties pertaining to the
total process of dispute resolution?
Opinion: The goal of the entire dispute resolution process is reconciliation. Any action which might assist in that process should be considered
by the panel. It is the responsibility of each participant in the process
to maintain and assure the integrity of the process. As the panel works
toward a final decision, it should consider and resolve any issue raised
pertaining to the process of dispute resolution.

The process of expulsion from the Synod is a very serious matter,
and the goal of the process is always reconciliation. The Synod has
spent considerable time and resources establishing and refining the
process of expulsion, which process always begins with concerted
efforts at reconciliation, and only where that has failed moves on to
formal consideration of removal under Constitution Article XIII. Fairness and due process are fundamental keys, not just to protect each
member but to maintain the purposes and mutual covenants which
are the foundation of the Synod.
With respect to the final question, the answer is “yes.” The responsibility of the Final Hearing Panel includes all matters leading to the
possibility of expulsion, including matters relating to all steps leading
toward expulsion, including the procedures of a special hearing panel
when used, as well as the actions or inactions of the Secretary of the
Synod as administrator relating to such special hearing panel. The
real question, as discussed below, is how the panel should proceed
based on its analysis and findings as to those matters.
Question 2: Section 4.5 (k) of the Guidelines for Section 2.14,
second sentence, states: “If it involves questions of
constitution or bylaw interpretation, each party shall
have a right to an interpretation from the Commission
on Constitutional Matters (CCM).” Paragraph 4.5 (k)
(1) states: “The request for an opinion must be made
through the panel, which shall determine the wording
of the question(s).” May a hearing panel decide to not
submit questions to the CCM that are requested by a
2013 Convention Workbook