LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — May 20−24, 2004, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

be allowed? Is there a hierarchy to the Bylaws that allow the CCM to decide which bylaws
are to be considered, "a matter of concern" and which bylaws are considered dictum by the
CCM?
Opinion: The Bylaws articulate the rights and duties of the Synod’s officers and agencies, for which they
are responsible to the Synod (Constitution Art. XI, Bylaw 1.07, et al.). It is therefore a “matter of
concern” whenever an officer or an agency of the Synod such as the Council of Presidents fails to meet
requirements of the Bylaws. Such failure may be addressed by the President of the Synod (Constitution
Art. XI B 2, Bylaw 3.101 B 3) or even the Synod (Constitution Art. XI A). A failure to meet the
requirements of the Bylaws is, therefore, in every case a matter of concern. However, any failure to meet
the requirements of one bylaw does not reduce the status or applicability of other bylaws.
Question 6:

In response to Rev. Lindeman's question 5, as reported in the CCM's minutes of the January
28th meeting states, "A decision of Council of Presidents regarding a particular case of
restricted status has bearing only on the restriction in question. The removal or dropping of
a restricted status has no bearing on future decisions to place that member of Synod on
restricted status or to commence formal Bylaw 2.27 proceedings that result in suspended
status."
Rev. Lindeman's question 5 had specific reference to provisions of Bylaw 2.29 e, wherein it
states, "The decision of the hearing panel shall be the decision of the COP and shall be final
with no right of appeal."
If upon request, a member of Synod placed on restricted status files a petition for removal
of Restricted Status with the Council of Presidents through the office of the President of
Synod, and the Council of Presidents rules in favor of the petition for removal does the, "no
right of appeal" apply to office or person placing the appellant on restricted status as well as
the person making the appeal? And if so, can the appellant again be placed on restricted
status or suspended status for the same alleged offence, relating to the same specific
incident, and under what circumstances and constitutional authority?

Opinion: Bylaw “2.29 Procedure to Consider Petition for Removal of Restricted Status” states in its title
and its initial paragraph the purpose of the procedure it outlines, that is, to respond to a request made
under Bylaw 2.23 d appealing the placement on or continuance of restricted status. A member of the
Synod placed on restricted status may make such a petition no more than once in a 12-month period. The
responsibility of the hearing panel that is selected is clear: to consider the petition that has been made for
removal of restricted status. Its decision is final, pertains only to the petition that has been made, and
cannot be appealed. If the hearing panel denies the petition, the decision of the panel is final and the
restriction remains in force. If the panel decides in favor of the petition, the decision of the panel is final
and the restriction is lifted.
As stated in the Commission’s earlier opinion, restricted status and suspended status are two different
actions. Restricted status is imposed when a District President has information which may cause him to
conclude that certain conditions exist in a church worker’s life that are of serious concern or may lead to
serious consequences, the imposition of which status results in ineligibility to perform certain functions of
ministry and to accept a call to any other position of service in the Synod (Bylaw 2.23 b). Suspended
status results when formal proceedings have been commenced against a member of the Synod, individual
or congregation, that may lead to expulsion from the Synod, during which status the activities of the
member in question are severely limited (Bylaw 2.25 c). While restricted status may lead to suspended
status in the case of individual members (Bylaw 2.25 a), suspended status is not dependent upon the
member in question first being placed upon restricted status, nor is it influenced by success or failure in

185