LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 18–19, 2016, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

2004. Only after the opinion was developed was it clear that it had implications for the use of referral
panels in the present bylaws.
The whole issue of candidate and non-candidate status will require some patient consideration by the
district presidents, and the CCM invites the 2019 Convention to clear up some of the confusion.
Chairman Gude pointed out that Bylaw 2.11.2 [b] lists criteria, among others, as the bylaw indicates, that
the district president may use to determine the appropriateness of candidate status.
In the use of Referral Panels, Chairman Gude noted that they cannot supersede the district president’s
authority to decide whether or not to suspend. However, the district president may continue to use
investigative panels to assist him in making that determination.
Chairman Gude also reviewed how Res. 12-14, “Regarding the Right of an Accuser to Appeal When a
District President or President of the Synod Fails to Act or Declines to Suspend,” is to be fulfilled in new
bylaws and corresponding procedure manuals. The process must, in his impression, include a consultation
between the Synod president and district president and, only if the Synod President determines that the
action of the district president in the matter was deficient would this proceed. COP Chairman Hennings
asked if the district president could be allowed, in that case, to go back and re-investigate and Chairman
Gude indicated that this would be possible. If the Synod President determines that the district president
has acted appropriately, the appeal would end there.
On the issue of reconciler and hearing facilitator appointment (Bylaws 1.10.10–1.10.12.3), Chairman
Gude mentioned a number of issues with time frame and with training. Some district presidents
mentioned problems receiving nominations from the circuit visitors; others indicated that the incumbents
seem to be favored over new names. The timing is also bad for obtaining approval from district boards of
directors, and there is the issue of obtaining and training “replacement” reconcilers to replace those
selected to be hearing facilitators. It seems the 2019 Convention will have to revisit this area and make
further improvements.
18. Return to Regular Commission Business
The CCM resumed its meeting at 1PM Friday, with all members present except for Tom Deadrick.
Secretary Sias began recording the minutes. Neely Owen offered devotions for the group at the start of
Saturday’s session.
19. Request of MI District for Consultation Regarding Its Policy Manual (15-2770A)
After discussion of the concerns the commission raised in its review of the Michigan District Policy
Manual (Op. 15-2770A), and of the points perceived as unclear by the respective Board of Directors, the
commission asked the Secretary informally to assist the Michigan District Board of Directors as necessary
in applying the opinion to the revision of its policy manual. It was noted that the Secretary may also
provide informal assistance to the Mid-South District Board of Directors in responding to similar
concerns with its policy manual. The commission reiterates that,“The Bylaws of the Synod shall be
primarily the bylaws of the district (LCMS Bylaw 4.1.1.2), and that policies apparently contrary to LCMS
Bylaws, which clearly govern, require prompt clarification and correction.
20. 2016 Res. 12-14 and the Constitutionality of Referral Panels (16-2794)
The Secretary of the Synod posed three questions regarding the use of Referral Panels and 2016 Res. 1214. Two of the questions are based on CCM Op. 16-2791 and pertain to the constitutionally of the use of
Referral Panels as described in Bylaws 2.14.5–2.14.5.1 (and, by possible implication, the use of Referral
Panels in Bylaw Sections 2.15, 2.16, and 2.17, as well). The third question pertains to whether or not
2016 Res. 12-14 authorizes or requires the Bylaw 7.1.2 process it initiated to address the matter of
Referral Panels in Bylaws 2.14.5 & 2.14.5.1.
The Secretary of the Synod provided background for his question:
CCM Minutes – November 18–19, 2016 – Page 8