LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 1–2, 2016, Page 17

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

with an investigation and appropriate discipline even without a written and signed complaint” (2.17
SOPM IV 2.1).
Question 6: Is there a statute of limitations concerning when an accusation can be brought forward and
when the district president is to disclose such accusations to the accused, and if so, then
when such requirements are not met, must the suspension be lifted and the proceedings
canceled?
Opinion: The Constitution and Bylaws stipulate no such statute of limitations, although they do include
the expectation that a district president proceed with due speed and diligence “when he becomes aware of
information or allegations that could lead to the expulsion of a member” (Bylaw 2.14.4). A district
president’s slowness to act, however, is not by itself a basis for acquittal.
Question 7: What is the definition of the term “inappropriate relationship,” and can such a vague
allegation be equated with sexual misconduct under Bylaw 2.17, and if not, must the
suspension be lifted and the proceedings canceled?
Opinion: This is not a term used in the Constitution or Bylaws. Whatever “inappropriate relationship” is
alleged, if it constitutes “offensive conduct” (Constitution Art. XIII), it is grounds for expulsion from the
Synod. If not, it doesn’t. If it constitutes “sexual misconduct” it is to be handled procedurally under
Bylaw section 2.17; if not, Bylaw section 2.14 (see answer to question 2).
Question 8: Does the accused have the right to know the list of witnesses that will be called against him,
and if so, then without such a list disclosed at the appropriate time, must the suspension be
lifted and the proceedings canceled?
Opinion: The Hearing Panel shall “establish the procedure to be followed in the hearing and the relevancy
of evidence so that each party to the matter shall be given an opportunity fully to present its respective
position.” “The panel shall determine the number of witnesses necessary for a full and complete
understanding of the facts involved in the matter. It shall question persons involved and witnesses directly
and may also permit the parties to the matter to do so” (Bylaws 2.14.7.8 [c], [j]; 2.17.7.8).
“Witnesses who are able to substantiate the facts relevant to the matter may be called before and address
the panel at the request of the accused, the ecclesiastical supervisor, or the panel. The panel may require
the ecclesiastical supervisor and the accused to deliver to the panel and to each other a list of witnesses
they plan to call and copies of documents they plan to introduce. Expert witnesses should be designated as
such in the witness list provided. When expert witnesses are listed, it is the responsibility of the panel to
determine whether such testimony will be helpful or necessary for reaching a decision.…A panel may
reopen a case for good cause and conduct additional hearings at any time before a final decision is
rendered” (2.17 SOPM 4.5)
If a member’s inability to refute evidence offered (because he was surprised by a witness whose
testimony he had no opportunity to counter) were to result in a “mistake,” “such that reasonable minds
could not agree with the Hearing Panel’s decision,” or in a “gross miscarriage of justice” (Bylaws
2.14.7.8 [d] [1] and [3]; 2.17.8 [d] [1] and [3]), this would be basis for an Appeal Panel to grant an appeal.
The absence of such a list at a certain time is not by itself a basis for acquittal. It is not in itself, but may
result in, a basis for an appeal. However, “[t]he Appeal Panel may deny a request for reconsideration if it
determines that the decision of the Hearing Panel is correct, even though there may have been points of
error that did not affect the outcome of the case” (2.14 and 2.17 SOPMs 4.9).
Question 9: Can allegations made based on information that cannot be substantiated form the basis for
suspension, or must the suspension be lifted and the proceedings canceled?

CCM Minutes – April 1–2, 2016 – Page 131