LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 10–12, 2012, Page 9

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

A properly called district convention requires satisfying two stipulations: it must be properly convoked
(“a constitutional convocation of such sessions”) and there must be sufficient delegate representation (“at
least one-third of the voting members represented by at least one of their respective representatives”).
155. Questions re Ecclesiastical Supervisor’s Responsibilities during Expulsion Proceedings (122650)
A member of the Synod, with a June 9, 2012 email, submitted a series of “issues” regarding a district
president’s responsibilities during Bylaws section 2.17 expulsion proceedings. Noting that the answers to
the questions submitted also generally pertain to Bylaws section 2.14 proceedings, the commission
responded as follows:
Question 1: Under Bylaw 2.17, should a District President, who has the sole responsibility to
commence expulsion proceedings, take no further action when he has determined
during the consultation phase [Bylaw 2.17.3] that the information or facts, even if
accepted as true, could not lead to expulsion.
Opinion: First, it should be noted that, during the consultation phase described in Bylaw 2.17.3, the
accuser may consult with any appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor. That person may well not be the
ecclesiastical supervisor of the accused, who alone is able under Bylaw 2.17.4 actually to initiate an
expulsion process.
It is a consultation that occurs under Bylaw 2.17.3, and not a determination regarding the merits of the
case or whether a formal proceeding should be initiated. It is only under Bylaw 2.17.4, if a district
president determines that there is no factual basis to initiate expulsion proceedings under that bylaw, that
the Bylaw 2.17 matter is concluded as provided by Bylaw 2.17.5.3
Whether made by the district president or the Referral Panel, if the determination is not to initiate formal
proceedings, the district president shall in writing so inform the accuser, any other district president
involved, and the involved member, which shall terminate the matter.
While the Bylaw 2.17 matter may have been terminated, a district president as ecclesiastical supervisor
continues to have the right and the responsibility to take other actions as he may determine to be
warranted by information he has learned prior to the termination of that process. A fact situation not
rising to the level of expulsion may well still require counsel, admonishment, correction, or advice.
Under some circumstances, it may be appropriate to consider the issues under the Bylaw 2.14 process or
to submit the matter to a Bylaw 1.10 proceeding instead, as recognized in Bylaw 2.17.3 (b).
Question 2: During the phases under Bylaw 2.17.3 or 2.17.4, is it inconsistent with or otherwise violate
the Eighth Commandment, Bylaw 2.17.3(d), or Standard Operating Procedure I.F., G., I.(6),
N.; II.D., F., G., I., or Q for an ecclesiastical supervisor to give status updates, engage in ongoing communications, or to otherwise communicate with anyone other than the accuser, the
accused or those with whom the ecclesiastical supervisor may consult (Bylaw 2.17.3[a])?
Opinion: It is not within the authority of the CCM to issue opinions regarding biblical interpretation,
including the Eighth Commandment. During any potential expulsion process, the involved ecclesiastical
supervisors must be free to gather all information necessary to consider the issues. With respect to the
balance of the question, during the investigative phase of a Bylaw 2.17 matter, Bylaw 2.17.3(a) authorizes
the involved ecclesiastical supervisor to “consult with any others as considered appropriate under the
circumstances.” A district president under Bylaw 2.17.4 may also seek facts by speaking with anyone
298