Collection › LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2011 › Page 65
LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 3-4, 2011, Page 65
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Source: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (files.lcms.org)
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
Appendix B
Decision of Final Hearing Panel
Names of Persons Involved:
Suspended Member:
___________________________
Synod President:
___________________________
Hearing Information:
•
[Provide date, place, and time of hearing(s); persons present; names of witnesses, if any; general
outline of hearing(s).]
Issues to Be Decided:
The main issue to be decided by the panel:
•
Should the suspension of
[name]
be upheld, or should the suspension not be
upheld and the full membership of the accused in the Synod be restored?
In order to answer the main issue, the following sub-issues were decided:
•
Was proper procedure followed by the President of the Synod in suspending the member of the
Synod (Constitution, Art. XIII 2; Bylaws 2.15.3–2.15.9.3)?
•
Was clear and convincing evidence provided to support the accusations that led to suspension?
•
Was the burden of proof for expulsion under Bylaw section 2.15 and Article XIII 1 of the
Constitution of the Synod met by the President of the Synod?
Summary of Decisions on the Issues:
•
The panel determined that proper procedure [was/was not] followed by the President of the
Synod in suspending the member of the Synod.
•
The panel determined that clear and convincing evidence [was/was not] provided to support the
accusations that led to suspension.
•
The panel determined that the burden of proof for expulsion under Bylaw section 2.15 and Article
XIII of the Constitution [was/was not] met.
•
Therefore, the panel has determined that the decision to suspend [should/should not] be upheld.
34