LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — May 12, 2017, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

16-2791 is, thus, the correct reading: the President of the Synod, if the district officers failed to act, by
virtue of the power given him in Const. Art. XI B 1–3, was empowered to institute proceedings against
members (pastors, professors, teachers, district presidents, etc.), take administrative action (that is, in terms
of present procedure, suspend such members) and, if necessary, present charges to the District Board of
Appeals. The President of the Synod had this authority explicitly from 1956–1989, when it was
unconstitutionally transferred to the Praesidium (1989–2004) and then, in 2004, to referral panels (2004–
2016). Prior to 1956, by virtue of the fact that Bylaw 5.23 was adopted as a clarification and not as a grant
of new, extra-constitutional power, the President of the Synod had this authority constitutionally, though it
was not elaborated in the bylaws of the Synod.
It bears repeated note, as Op. 16-2791 already pointed out, that only since 1965 has Const. Art. XIII 2 read,
“Expulsion shall be executed only after following such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the
Synod.” This replaced the 1924–1965 provision of Const. Art. XIII 2, “Such expulsion is executed as a rule
by the Districts of the Synod [meaning the district conventions]; yet those so expelled have the right of
appeal to the Synod [meaning the Synod convention].” 3 In the post-1965 “modern” era of the expulsion
processes of the Synod, the convention has been free to set forth in the Synod Bylaws procedures for
expulsion that are not ultimately carried out by the district and Synod conventions; at the same time, that
procedure has been required to be fully specified in the Bylaws (present Const. Art. XIII 2). Through that
entire period there has been some bylaw mechanism for an accuser to appeal beyond the inaction of a
district president on an accusation laid, though the designated recipient of that appeal has varied. Through

5.13 Commencing an Action of Expulsion
If a member of the Synod, accused of an act or of conduct which could result in expulsion from the
Synod under Article XIII of the Constitution, does not consent to such expulsion, the District President, in
consultation with the District Vice-Presidents, may suspend the member, provided, however, that the member
shall have been given written notice of the proposed suspension 15 days in advance of the effective date
thereof, during which the said member may ask the District President to reconsider on the ground that
adequate informal settlement efforts (Section 5.03 b) have not been made. Within 7 days after the effective
date of such suspension, the District President shall submit the case to the District Commission of
Adjudication for adjudication in accordance with the provisions hereinafter set forth. In the event that the
District President is disqualified or unable to act, the First Vice-President or the next qualified District officer
shall be authorized to suspend and to submit the case to the Commission of Adjudication as herein provided.
If the District officers fail to act, the President of the Synod, by virtue of the power given him in the
Constitution (Article XI, B, 1–3, inclusive), may on his own initiative institute proceedings, take
administrative action, and, if necessary, present charges to the appropriate District Commission of
Adjudication, provided, however, that such must be in the same manner as hereinabove set forth for the
District officers.
3
From 1956–1965, it was not understood as contrary to Const. Art. XIII 2 for the President of the Synod to present
charges to a district board of appeals. Suspension (at that time) did not precede but followed the decision of the district
board of appeals. This suspension could then be appealed to the district and Synod conventions. Though initiated by
the President of the Synod, the process ultimately resulted in expulsion “by the district[s] of the Synod.” Suspension
was to be initiated by presidents; expulsion was finally the realm of conventions and then the adjudication system.
Interestingly, however, expulsion cases regarding pastors, professors, and teachers “which [arose] in connection with
activities directly under the control of the Synod” could be initiated by the President of the Synod and members
suspended and ultimately expelled at the Synod level, Const. Art. XIII 2 notwithstanding. (See, e.g., 1945 Bylaw VIII
II b a, Handbook, p. 35; 1949–1963 Bylaws 5.81–5.93.) That this procedure, similar to the present Bylaw section 2.15,
but broader, coexisted with the earlier Const. Art. XIII 2 suggests the relatively greater weight of Const. Art. XI B 1–
3. Where the President of the Synod had the supervision, he had the authority, ultimately, to initiate suspension and
expulsion—and not only through a district president. Perhaps this reflects the reasoning that the Synod and district
presidents hold (under Const. Art. XII 6) fundamentally the same office, with the same powers, within their respective
spheres: the President of the Synod, over the whole Synod, and the president of a district, within, and as appropriate
to, his district.

CCM Minutes – May 12, 2017 – Page 42