LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 18–19, 2016, Page 8

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Res.12-03 may now continue in candidate status during a period of ten years from the passage of this
resolution, which can then be extended over a period of five years thereafter upon recommendation of
their respective District President and approval of three fourths (75%) of the Council of Presidents. This
is a change from the four-year period of candidate status previously allowed (2013 Bylaw 2.11.2.2 [a]).
Annual reporting by individuals on candidate status to their respective District President remains a
requirement. The District President remains responsible for evaluating annually such an individual’s
eligibility to continue on candidate status [see, Synod Bylaw 2.11.2.2 (b)] and for reviewing with the
member, in a pastoral manner, the member’s status (2016 Res 12-02A). It is important to note that the
criteria set forth toward evaluating and reviewing an individual’s eligibility to continue in candidate status
are not exclusive or singularly determinative as the bylaw clearly notes that those listed are “among
criteria” the District President should consider in annually evaluating an individual’s continued eligibility.
(That is, a deficiency relative to a given criterion may be offset by a candidate’s fulfillment of other
criteria in favor of candidate status, whether those listed in the bylaw or otherwise considered by the
District President.)
Consequently, all individuals now assigned candidate status remain responsible for meeting the
requirements of Synod Bylaws 2.11.2.2 (b)–(c) and are subject to their respective District President’s
annual evaluation that they exhibit sufficient criteria (either by those listed in Bylaw 2.11.2.2 [c] or
otherwise) to merit such individual remaining in candidate status during the period allowed by Synod.
22. If the President of the Synod Fails to Act (16-2797)
The Secretary of Synod requested an opinion on two questions regarding the scope of 2016 Convention
Resolution 12-14:
Question 1: Does 2016 Resolution 12-14 authorize or require the present Bylaw 7.1.2 process to address
the Synod President’s failure to act or declination to suspend in a 2.15 or 2.17 process?
Opinion: As the title of Resolution 12-14 was amended from the floor to add “or President of the Synod”
after “District President” and before “fail to act or declines to suspend,” the Bylaw 7.1.2 process initiated
by Res. 12-14 should be applied to the case in which the President of the Synod fails to act or declines to
suspend, a case that might occur in a 2.15 or 2.17 process (if the latter involves accusations against a
district president or officer of the Synod).
Question 2: What requirements does the Constitution of the Synod, interpreted in the light of CCM Op.
16-2791, specify for the development of such an appeal for action (from a failure to act or declination to
suspend by the President of the Synod)?
Opinion: The essence of CCM Op. 16-2791 is that an appeal for action to the President of the Synod must
be available, should a district president “fail to act or decline to suspend.” That such a route of appeal for
action must be available and must be to the President of the Synod follows from the President’s duties as
described in Const. Art. XI B 1–3. It is one of the means at the President’s disposal as he carries out his
duty to “promote and maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the districts of the Synod” (Const. Art.
XI B 3). The President of the Synod is the highest authority charged with promoting and maintaining
“unity of doctrine and practice in all the districts of the Synod.” The constitutional argument of CCM Op.
16-2791 for appeal for action to the President of the Synod thus does not imply a constitutional
requirement for a mechanism appealing from the inaction of, or declination to suspend by, the President
of the Synod. Much less does it dictate to whom such an appeal for action might be addressed. The body
of Res. 12-14, likewise, does not mention this case, although the resolution’s amended title does.
The absence of a constitutional necessity for such appeal for action, should the President of the Synod fail
to act or decline to suspend, does not constitute a constitutional prohibition of such an appeal for action.
Since Res. 12-14’s title expects implementation of such a mechanism, the Bylaw 7.1.2 process should

CCM Minutes – November 18–19, 2016 – Page 14