LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — May 11–13, 2012, Page 18

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

or agency “to submit in writing information regarding the matter(s) at issue,” the commission determined
to request such input from the Board of Directors of Concordia University System, the boards of regents
of the Synod’s institutions of higher learning, the Commission on Handbook, and the Office of the
President.
140. Review of LCEF Overture for 2013 Convention (12-2644)
With a letter dated May 3, 2012, the president of Lutheran Church Extension Fund submitted a proposed
convention action for review by the commission. The commission found the proposed action to amend
Bylaw 1.5.7.1 and to insert a new Bylaw 3.6.4.3.1 to be in order for submission to the 2013 convention of
the Synod.
141. Dispute Resolution Process Procedural Questions (12-2645)
With a May 9, 2012 email, a member of the Synod submitted a series of questions related to the dispute
resolution process under Bylaw 1.10. The actual questions submitted have been amended by the
commission to avoid argumentative assumptions and to approach the issues in a more neutral manner.
Question 1: May an individual involved in an investigation or proceeding under Bylaw sections 2.14–
2.17 initiate a dispute resolution process under Bylaw section 1.10 against witnesses because
they offer testimony relating to the allegations in the underlying action?
Opinion: No. Bylaw 2.14.1 recognizes that “[t]ermination of membership in the Synod is a serious matter
involving both the doctrine and life of those to whom it has been granted.” The need to obtain accurate
and complete information necessary to consider allegations which could lead to termination of
membership has resulted in the requirement (Bylaw 2.14.7.8 [d]) that “[a]ny member of the Synod,
officer of a congregation, or officer of any organization owned or controlled by the Synod shall, when
called upon by the panel to do so, testify or produce records related to the matter.” Members are thus
encouraged to cooperate in an investigation and are required to provide testimony in order to bring such
an action to conclusion quickly where not warranted, and to facilitate the prompt expulsion from
membership where warranted.
In order to maintain the integrity of the process, Bylaw 2.14.7.8 (i) gives the panel hearing such an action
the authority to determine which witnesses are necessary. Paragraph (g) of the bylaw requires that
“[w]hile the matter is still undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or pending, publicity shall not be
given to the issues in the matter by any of the persons involved during any part of the procedures outlined
in this bylaw.” The seriousness of maintaining that confidentiality is emphasized in Bylaw 2.14.9.2,
which further provides that “[a]ny member participating in this bylaw procedure that violates any of the
requirements or procedures in this bylaw or is persistent in false accusations is subject to the same
disciplinary measures as set forth in this bylaw. Violations of the prohibition against publicity while a
matter is still undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or pending (Bylaw 2.14.7.8 [g] above) by any
of the persons involved are specifically included as violations subject to the same disciplinary measures
set forth in this bylaw.”
Question 2: When an investigation or action is pending under Bylaw sections 2.14–2.17, is that a matter
to be delayed if there is a dispute resolution process under Bylaw 1.10 involving one or
more of the parties or witnesses to the expulsion action simultaneously pending?
Opinion: No. While the same parties may be involved in both the Bylaw section 1.10 dispute resolution
process and a Bylaw section 2.14–2.17 expulsion process over related facts and issues, the two processes
are independent of each other, and neither process should be unduly delayed. The Synod recognizes the
283