LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 11, 2002, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

member from the Synod. Under these Bylaws the President can either decline to seek the expulsion of a
District President as a member of the Synod, or pursue such expulsion by following the procedure set
forth in Bylaw 2.27 c. If he does pursue such expulsion, the decision to expel is not his but, rather, the
decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel (or Appeal Panel, if there is an appeal), which will consider the
matter (Bylaw 8.09).
If the President of the Synod declines to seek the expulsion of a District President as a member of the
Synod, the complainant has the option to appeal such declination to the Praesidium of the Synod (Bylaw
2.27 b). Should the Praesidium decide to pursue the expulsion from the Synod of the District President, it
must follow the same procedure in Bylaw 2.27 c as the President would have had to do should he have
decided to pursue the expulsion. As in the case of the President, the decision to expel is not that of the
Praesidium but, rather, the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel or Appeal Panel.
Therefore, the synodical Vice-Presidents in their capacity as members of the Praesidium determine the
continuation of the roster status of a District President only in those very limited situations where the
Praesidium upholds the decision of the President of the Synod that the alleged actions of the District
President are insufficient to expel the District President as a member of the Synod.
QUESTION 3: Article XI B 2 addresses the accountability of District Presidents (as well as other
officers, all employees, and individual Districts of the Synod) to the President of
the Synod and specifically charges the President with the "duty to see to it that all
the aforementioned act in accordance with the Synod's Constitution.” Under what
constitutional authority would this accountability ever be assumed by the
Praesidium of the Synod, whether with or without the participation of the
President of the Synod?
Response: The Vice-Presidents of the Synod have no constitutional or bylaw "duty to see to it that all the
aforementioned act in accordance with the Synod's Constitution." Such duty rests solely with the
President of the Synod (Article XI B) except in those situations enumerated in Article XI C.
230. Questions re Publicity of Dispute Cases (01-2243)
A pastor of the Synod in a December 3, 2001 letter noted that Bylaw 8.21 e states that “while a matter in
dispute is still undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or pending, publicity shall not be given to the
issues in the matter by any of the parties involved.” He asked a series of questions, stating his intent “not
that some new canon laws might be used over against others but rather that all members of Synod may
deal with one another in a decent, fraternal and orderly way, especially when certain issues become hotly
contested.”
QUESTION 1: Is Bylaw 8.21 e to be interpreted that any party involved in a dispute or any
synodical official involved in handling the dispute may not use the public press or
other means to advocate a position in a dispute resolution case?
Response: Bylaw 8.21 e states: "While a matter in dispute is still undecided or while an appeal is
contemplated or pending, publicity shall not be given to the issues in the matter by any of the parties
involved." The term "any of the parties involved" includes the following if the matter is initially
commenced under Bylaw 2.27:
§

The party who brings the matter to the attention of the President of the Synod (Bylaw 2.27 g)
or a District President (Bylaw 2.27 a) or the Praesidium of the Synod (Bylaw 2.27 b)

161