LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 10-11, 2002, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Directors but is always subject to the actions of the Board of Directors and President to hold it
accountable in the performance of those duties.
Question 7:

“Finally, if the Board of Directors’ order stands as regards Board for Communication
Services staff, including staff of the official periodicals, does the Board’s order stand as
regards all reporting on the case at issue? For example, does the Board’s order properly
prohibit reporting on matters of procedure as well as matters of substance in the case? In
other words, may the periodicals report how the case is progressing through the process
outlined in the Bylaws (e.g., Bylaw 2.27)? For example, even if the periodicals are
prohibited by Board of Directors order from explaining the respective positions of the
complainants and the person against whom charges are brought, may they report that the
case is now in the hands of the synodical President, or before the Praesidium, or before a
Dispute Resolution Panel, as the case may be? Are the periodicals prohibited from
reporting even an official statement of the Praesidium concerning a vote of the vice
presidents on the qualification of the President to rule in a given case?”

Opinion: Bylaw 8.21 e requires 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.” The Commission’s opinion 02-2251 clearly defines what is to be included as a matter in
dispute: “This phrase includes the details of the charges or allegations made, the correspondence and
other communication which follow, the status of proceedings or deliberations, the President’s actions
pertaining thereto, and his opinion as to who is right or wrong.” Accordingly, the information given by
example in question 7, since it pertains to “the status of proceedings or deliberations,” is therefore
included in “a matter in dispute” and should not receive publicity until the case is decided and the time for
appeal has expired.
38. Questions re Relationship of Board of Directors and President of the Synod (02-2266)
In a letter dated April 13, 2002, a pastor asked the following series of questions regarding the rights of the
President to use specific property of the Synod given the recent directive of the Board that forbade the use
of such property in disseminating further information or publicity regarding a matter in dispute:
1. Does the President of Synod have the authority to use property of Synod if the Board of
Directors (the legal custodian of that property according to Article XI, F, 3) has forbidden
that use?
2. Does Article XI, B, 1 place the President of Synod in a position to overrule decisions made
by the Board of Directors, if he claims it to be part of his supervision of their “doctrine and
administration”?
3. Are there restrictions on what the President of Synod can do under Article XI, B, 3 (“…has
and always shall have the power to advise, admonish, and reprove. He shall conscientiously
use all means at this command to promote and maintain the unity of doctrine and practice in
all the Districts of the Synod.”)? Does this mean that the Synod President has the authority to
determine which policies, directives, etc. established by various boards and commissions he
is to follow? Is there some measure of restraint on this “power to advise, admonish, and
reprove” or does the Synod President define its terms?
In response to these questions, the Commission instructed the Secretary to respond by letter to the
questioner, providing a copy of opinion 02-2259 and inviting, if questions still remain after he has studied
the opinion, that any remaining questions again be submitted to the Commission for a response.

28