LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 15-17, 2002, Page 13

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Further complaints under Bylaw 2.27 g cannot be brought before a convention of the Synod since the
Bylaws created under the authorization of Article XIII 2 make no provision for the dispute to be resolved
by a convention of the Synod.
Question 2: If a Vice-President of the Synod charged with investigating this case declines to suspend the
District President, may the complainants present their request to the Praesidium of the Synod
for a decision, according to Bylaw 2.27 b?
Opinion: The answer to this question is “yes.” As provided in Bylaw 2.27 b, “the complainant may
present the written complaint to the Praesidium of the Synod, which consists of the President and the
Vice-Presidents of the Synod.”
Question 3: In the event that the case is submitted to the Praesidium according to Bylaw 2.27 b, may any
member(s) of the Praesidium who have been recused and the member of the Praesidium who
was initially charged with the investigation of the case participate in the process which
engages the Praesidium in dealing with the case?
Opinion: That member of the Praesidium who has conducted the investigation according to Bylaw 2.27 g
(in this case a Vice-President because he is “the next qualified officer”) “shall not participate as a member
of the Praesidium” in its responsibilities described in 2.27 a 1 and 2.27 b. Furthermore, any member of
the Praesidium who has been disqualified from investigating the case, whether by action of the
Praesidium or by personal decision “because he is a party to the matter in dispute, has a conflict of
interest, or is unable to act” (Bylaw 2.27 a 1), remains disqualified from further participation in the
Praesidium’s remaining responsibilities described in Bylaws 2.27 a 1 and 2.27 b.
28. Questions re Council of Presidents’ Policy re Sexual Misconduct (02-2264)
In an e-mailed letter dated April 10, 2002, a pastor, upon receiving a public letter sent by the President of
the Synod, raised questions regarding the sexual misconduct “Zero Tolerance” policy of the Council of
Presidents and that policy’s relationship to the dispute resolution process that is provided in the Bylaws of
the Synod.
Question 1: “I have grave concerns that this policy might circumvent the dispute resolution policy by
automatically reaching a decision without any real defense possible for the one accused. I am
especially concerned about this since an investigation, which was also mentioned, will
destroy any ministry even if the individual is found innocent. Is this policy in addition to the
dispute policy already in place in our by-laws, something not covered by our current by-laws,
or is this policy exempt, and thus outside, from the normal dispute resolution policy? The
information I have does not mention the possibility of an appeal.”
Opinion: Any policy developed by the Council of Presidents is its internal elaboration of the dispute
resolution process prescribed in Chapter VIII of the Bylaws. Such policy cannot circumvent or contradict
the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.
Question 2: “In the president’s letter he states that ‘the appropriate District President shall, in his
discretion, determine whether the kind of sexual contact is “sexual intercourse” within the
spirit and purpose of this policy.’ Does this mean that each District will have a different
definition of what sexual intercourse means and thus make the zero tolerance policy different
in each District? If so, is this difference in what is needed to expel a pastor proper in the LCMS?”

18