LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 15-17, 2002, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

(3) Opinion 01-2243 is consistent with opinions rendered by the Commission before the Synod
replaced the pre-1992 adjudication process with the post-1992 dispute resolution process.
Regarding a 1975 case in which charges of false doctrine were made against a church worker, the
Commission was asked on two occasions to rule regarding the release of information. In a
February 21, 1975 ruling delineating the procedure to be followed when a board of control has
sustained a charge of false doctrine, the Commission ruled: “6. Since the Board of Control is
obligated under Bylaw 6.79 to forward the accusation to the District President, no publicity
should be given the case beyond the simple announcement by the Board of Control of the action
taken and of its basis (Bylaw 5.31, j).”
This was followed by an April 11-12, 1975 ruling (Ag. 809, 809 A and D) in response to a series
of additional questions from the board of control regarding the same case. Noting that it had
forwarded to the District President of the accused the “charge” (Bylaw 6.79) or “accusation”
(Bylaw 5.11) along with accompanying documentation, the board of control asked to what extent
it remained a “party of the proceeding” (Bylaw 5.31, j). The Commission responded that “the
Board of Control has been involved in the proceedings and therefore comes under the phrase ‘any
party’ in the bylaw.” When asked whether the limitations on publicity permit the board an
opportunity to defend itself or to deal with its accusers in keeping with the provisions of the
Eighth Commandment, the Commission ruled that “as of this moment it would not be proper to
initiate discussion of those charges...which could lead to expulsion from the Synod." When said
board noted that news releases and statements have already placed into the public domain a
considerable body of information and asked whether “the public repetition of such information at
the present time, perhaps arranged in one report for the sake of convenience, be regarded as
objectionable publicity,” the Commission ruled that “the circulation of such statements by the
Board of Control at this time would be inappropriate under Bylaw 5.13 j.” When said board
reminded the Commission that it had ruled that the board would be permitted to announce the
basis of its action and asked whether the board’s statement of its “basis” could include “such
matters as a chronological and explanatory account of the procedures followed, the charges, the
opinion of the CTCR, and the findings of the Faculty Hearings Committee,” the Commission
responded that “the Board of Control may list simply the findings of the Board on the basis of
which the Board of Control has removed [the accused] from office.”
Correspondingly, a like response was given to inquiries regarding publicity in a non-suspension
case. In a 1989 dispute case involving a church worker and an agency of the Synod over a
decision made by the agency, the Synod’s Director of News and Information was refused a copy
of an appeal document submitted by one of the parties to the dispute to the entity involved in
resolving the case. He indicated that it was his desire and intention to report factually and
objectively in the light of reports on the matter which had tended to circulate in the Synod’s
“grapevine.” At the same time, the chairman of the entity involved in resolving the case argued
that the release of such information would not only be contrary to the bylaw regarding publicity
(Bylaw 8.51 m), but it would also fail to honor Objective III, 9 of the Constitution of the Synod to
“provide protection for congregations, pastors, teachers, and other church workers in the
performance of their official duties.” The Commission responded that “a reporting of the naked
fact that an appeal had been filed was legitimate. However, any reference to substance, etc., in its
opinion, was not appropriate.” Therefore, the appeal document was not released as requested.
In summary, the stipulation regarding publicity was carried over from the old process when it was
changed in 1992. In the old process, requirements regarding publicity were applied to expulsion cases as
well as to other dispute cases. The Commission’s Opinion 01-2243 is consistent with prior rulings and
practice and therefore stands.

9