LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 10–12, 2012, Page 15

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Bylaw 8.21 i does set forth a procedure to secure a CCM opinion during the dispute resolution process and it
concludes with the sentence: "Any opinion received from the Commission on Constitutional Matters must be
followed by the Dispute Resolution Panel or Review Panel.”

While Ag. 2109 applies to a Dispute Resolution Panel, it also applies to a special panel to determine
eligibility of a challenged panel member to serve on a 2.14 Final Hearing Panel. Thus, if an error
regarding disqualification has occurred and timely objection has been made, the error must be corrected.
157. Service of District Presidents in Dispute Resolution and Expulsion Processes (12-2652)
In a July 11, 2012 email, the Secretary of the Synod submitted a question to the commission, offering the
following by way of preface:
During the district convention year of the Synod’s triennial cycle, it is possible that a dispute
resolution or expulsion process will be underway at the time that a new district president is elected. It
will be helpful to me as administrator of these processes to receive the commission’s response to the
following question.
Question:

If a new district president is elected while the current/outgoing district president is involved
in a Bylaw section 1.10 dispute resolution process or a Bylaw section 2.14–2.17 expulsion
process, does the outgoing president see the matter through to its completion even after
leaving office, or does the incoming president assume responsibility for completing the
process immediately upon taking office?

Opinion: A review of the processes referenced discloses that the responsibilities placed upon a district
president therein are upon the office and not upon the man. Consequently, when the process has not been
concluded before an individual leaves the office of district president (for whatever reason), the
responsibility for concluding the process still needs to be fulfilled by a district president.
Synod Bylaw 2.14.1(b) indicates that “[t]he action to commence expulsion of a congregation or individual
member from membership in the Synod is the sole responsibility of the district president who has the
responsibility for ecclesiastical supervision of such member.” When an individual who has been elected
district president ceases for whatever reason to be a district president, he no longer has “responsibility for
ecclesiastical supervision of such member.” To “commence an expulsion” procedure does not mean that
the individual who, as district president, started the process is irrevocably tied to it until its conclusion.
Rather, it is only a “district president” who has been authorized to act under the provision of this process.
Similarly, under the provisions for dispute resolution (Synod Bylaw section 1.10, et seq.), in every
reference in which a district president is called to act, such action is not dependent upon the specific
individual holding the office but is tied to the office itself as the basis for authority to act. It is true that
there are occasions within both processes where an individual has a right to select a district president to
act within the process 2; however, it is the fact that the person selected is a district president that makes
them eligible to serve in the process.

2

See, for example, Synod Bylaw 1.10.14(a), wherein the complainant and the respondent both have a right to a select a district
president to serve on an appeal panel; and see Synod Bylaw 2.14.7.2, where both the accused and the district president who
placed the accused on suspended status may choose a district president to serve on the hearing panel. See also a similar
procedure in Synod Bylaw 2.13.3.2(a), wherein a hearing panel is selected to consider removal of restricted status for an
individual member of Synod.

304