LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — October 21-22, 2002, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

reinstatement only to those who have ecclesiastical supervision, namely district presidents
and the President of the Synod? In other words, does Bylaw 2.33, in accordance with Art.
XI B and Art. XII 7-9, stipulate that the way in which the Council of Presidents has
determined to reinstate individuals is by means of a vote of district presidents?”
Opinion: In its opinion 00-2198 the Commission has already essentially answered this question, as
follows:
The Commission notes that Bylaw 2.31 establishes that “the decision to accept or deny a
request for reinstatement shall be at the sole discretion of the Council of Presidents.” Bylaw
2.33 adds that “procedures for investigating and processing requests for reinstatement
…shall be the responsibility of the Council of Presidents.” Such reference to the Council as a
whole is consistent with all other bylaws relating Council roster responsibilities. In no case is
a vote or other action of District Presidents distinguished from the vote and action of the
Praesidium, including, for example, the vote to extend candidate status (Bylaw 2.19, a).
The Commission therefore rules that when Bylaw 2.33 stipulates that “a decision to reinstate
shall require an affirmative vote of at least 75 percent of the District Presidents present and
voting,” the bylaw intends to include the President and Vice-Presidents of the Synod in the
voting. The Commission concludes that the drafters of the bylaw, in the interest of carefully
delineating the percentage vote needed, referred in particular to District Presidents but had
no intention of excluding the Praesidium from the vote. To decide otherwise would labor
against other statements in these same bylaws which clearly place decisions regarding
reinstatement into the hands of the Council of Presidents.
Question 4:

“When Bylaw 2.31 says that the Council of Presidents has the sole discretion in reinstating
an individual member of the Synod, while Bylaw 2.33 says the reinstatement is done
through a 75% or more majority of the District Presidents present and voting, may the
Council of Presidents excuse the Synod Praesidium or a portion of the Praesidium (e.g.,
Synod vice-presidents) from participating in a particular vote to reinstate?”

Opinion: See answer to question 3 above. The Council of Presidents is required to abide by the Bylaws
of the Synod, including the opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters, which “shall be
binding on the question decided unless and until it is overruled by a synodical convention” (Bylaw 3.905
d). Therefore, Bylaw 2.31 may not be understood to allow the Council of Presidents to excuse the
Praesidium or a portion of it from participating in a particular vote to reinstate.
The Commission recognizes the inconsistency of terminology used in Bylaw 2.31 and therefore will refer
this matter to the Commission on Structure for its attention.
75. Constitutional Power of President When Recused (02-2285; 02-2285A; 02-2285B; 02-2285C; 022301)
In letters dated July 15, July 24, July 25, August 8, and August 27, 2002, a number of pastors of the
Synod raised a follow-up question to the Commission’s previous opinion 02-2282 regarding the right of a
president of the Synod who has been recused from a particular dispute case to invoke his general
constitutional power to call into question a decision in the case, as follows:
Question:

May a synodical President who has been recused from presiding over a disciplinary case
submitted to the Praesidium under Bylaw 2.27 invoke his general constitutional power “to
advise, admonish, and reprove” (Article XI B 3) and his specific power given under Bylaw
55