LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 20-21, 2003, Page 16

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

another member of the Board already resides. The Commission will consider a draft of a proposed
response at a later time.
126. Rights of Complainant after Review Committee Decision (03-2324)
A pastor of the Synod in a January 3, 2003 letter submitted two questions regarding his right as a
complainant to proceed after a decision of the Review Committee of Bylaw 6.47 has been received.
Question 1:

If a doctrinal complaint against a non-commissioned professor at a synodical school has
been received by a Board of Regents and has been heard by a “Review Committee” as
established by Bylaw 6.47, which committee has given its written decision to the Board of
Regents and the Board of Regents in response to that written decision has exonerated the
non-commissioned professor with the words, “The Board finds that the complaint was not
sustained by the Review Committee’s investigation and hereby dismisses the complaint, in
keeping with LCMS Bylaw 6.47 f 5,” can the one who brought the complaint to the Board
of Regents now invoke Bylaw 8.05 regarding the decision of the Board of Regents, since he
is now in “dispute” with that Board, or is their decision “final”? (Bylaw 6.47 f 5)

Opinion: Pursuant to the terms of Bylaw 6.47 f 5, the decision of the Board of Regents in a Bylaw 6.47
action is final as to such non-commissioned professor.
Question 2:

Can a complainant bring this doctrinal (ecclesiastical) matter to the President of the Synod
under Bylaw 3.101 b 4 and ask him to “call up for review” this “final” (Bylaw 6.47 f 5)
decision of the Board of Regents?

Opinion: Ecclesiastical concerns may always be directed to the President of the Synod. The President
must decide whether it is appropriate to exercise his responsibilities given the powers afforded him under
the Constitution and Bylaws. The action of the Board of Regents, however, is expressly made final by the
bylaw itself.
127. The President of the Synod and the Provisions of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws (02-2325)

The President of the Synod in a December 31, 2002 e-mailed letter, noting that from time to time
“individual members of the Synod express profound disagreement with the President of the Synod
regarding decisions made or actions taken in the regular course of the fulfillment of duties and
responsibilities of his office,” submitted the following question to the Commission:
Question:

Since the CCM has recognized the responsibility for ecclesiastical supervision given to the
President of Synod, and since the President of Synod is responsible to the Synod in
convention, and since the CCM has already recognized the potential for the President of
Synod to be “harassed and hampered in the carrying out of his duties” by provisions of the
Bylaws, and since the CCM has noted that “the provisions of the Constitution and
Bylaws…are far from clear on the issue presented” [Opinion 01-2240], is the President of
Synod subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws when the complaints filed
against him arise from his actions as President of the Synod.”

Opinion: The President of the Synod is not subject to implementation of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws
when complaints are filed against him that pertain to the exercise of his rights, powers, and duties of
ecclesiastical or doctrinal supervision (Art. XI B and Bylaw 3.101). See also the Commission’s responses
to question 3 of Opinion 02-2309.

94