LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — October 21-22, 2002, Page 19

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Opinion: The question is based on a false premise. As stated in the opinion to Question 5 above, the
President does not have authority over the Review Panel. Bylaw 8.09 provides that a decision of a
Dispute Resolution Panel is binding upon the parties to that dispute subject to request for review. The
same bylaw provides that the decision of a Review Panel is "binding upon the parties to that dispute and
not be subject to further appeal" (emphasis added). Unless the bylaw is amended by a convention of the
Synod, a convention of the Synod cannot take any action relative to a final decision rendered in a matter
in dispute.
Question 7:

In the event of such intervention by the President, if in his opinion he believes that either
the Constitution, the Bylaws, a resolution of the Synod, or the doctrinal position of the
Synod, or that the decision will have ".. .an immediate and ongoing negative impact on the
Synod...," does the President have to ask for an opinion from either the CCM or the CTCR?

Opinion: There is no requirement in the Constitution or Bylaws of the Synod that requires the President to
seek input from the CCM or CTCR.
Question 8:

In the event that a District President is involved in the dispute resolution process because he
has suspended a member of the Synod (individual or congregation) and the Dispute
Resolution Panel and the Dispute Review Panel have sustained the District President, may
the President of the Synod call their decision up for review and request them to reverse
their decision because he is personally convinced, without having personally conducted the
investigation required of the District President, that they have not acted in accord with the
Constitution, Bylaws, doctrinal position of the Synod, resolutions of a convention of the
Synod, or that their decision will have ". . . an immediate and ongoing negative impact on
the Synod"?

Opinion: The answer to this question is: No. See the opinion to Questions 5 and 6 above.
Question 9:

The opinion of the CCM states "In fulfilling his duties, the President would normally be
expected to rely on the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws to correct errors
occurring.…" Does this mean that he is not required to do so? Does this opinion also apply
to the President with respect to the other Bylaws of the Synod, that he is "normally
expected" to abide by them, but is not required to do so?

Opinion: The opinion to Question 1 above addresses this question. Each opinion of this Commission is in
response to a specific question and is applicable to that question alone. The partial sentence from opinion
02-2282 quoted in this question applies to the interaction of Article XI B of the Constitution and Bylaw
2.27 c and nothing more.
Question 10: When a District President is involved in the dispute resolution process, may he, the Board
of Directors of his District, his congregation, or any other group of persons conduct a
public relations campaign to gain support for him in the Synod and in the public media?
May they also solicit contributions from all the congregations of the Synod for a "Defense
Fund"?
Opinion: Again this Commission is called upon to issue an opinion regarding a fact situation that arises
because there has been a violation of Bylaw 8.21 e and its prohibition of publicity, and a violation of the
opinions of this Commission on the topic of "publicity" which are binding on the members of the Synod
unless and until such opinions are overruled by a convention of the Synod (Bylaw 3.905 d). The
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod are silent on the fact situations of this question. However, Rule 26 f
of the dispute resolution Rules of Procedure is a restatement of Bylaw 8.21 e but then adds that the
67