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

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Synod, [the President of the Synod] shall carry out his ecclesiastical duties through the district’s president’
(Bylaw 3.3.1.1.1[b], emphasis added).” This would indeed remain the ordinary case—as would the fact that
the President of the Synod remains supervisor of the district presidents and would be able, should the
situation warrant, to exercise the other means given him to discipline a district president who is not properly
carrying out the ecclesiastical supervisory duty incumbent upon his office.
Op. 15-2750’s further conclusions that the President of the Synod could not, under any circumstances, carry
out, in the stead of the district president, Bylaw section 2.14 to expel a member under district supervision
were a correct analysis of the bylaws at the time—which seemed, given that “expulsion shall be executed
only after following such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the Synod” (Const. Art. XIII 2)—
a reasonable basis on which to answer the question. Different conclusions have been drawn from the
constitutional material in Op. 16-2791, just as different conclusions would be drawn from the bylaws to be
adopted under Res. 12-14—in the specific case of matters dealing with doctrine and practice, where there
is a formal accuser who has appealed for action, and where the district president has failed or (in the view
of the chief ecclesiastical supervisor of the Synod, inappropriately) declined to suspend.
Question 2:

Does the Synod President have empowerment by the Synod Constitution to have
ecclesiastical supervision, suspension and / or expulsion authority of a member of the
Synod?

Opinion: This question has been sufficiently addressed by CCM Op. 16-2791 and the above.
Question 3:

Does the Synod President have empowerment by the Synod Bylaws or resolutions to have
ecclesiastical supervision and / or expulsion of a member of the Synod?

Opinion: CCM Op. 16-2791 and 2016 Res. 12-14 have clearly directed the Secretary of the Synod to draft,
and the Board of Directors to adopt bylaws, elaborating this constitutional authority of the President, at
least in the narrow circumstances indicated—namely, in a matter involving doctrine and practice, when
there is a formal accuser who has appealed for action because the district president has failed to act or
declined to suspend. The commission, in thoroughly reviewing Op. 16-2791 with regard to the stated
challenges, finds no reason to withdraw, rescind, or modify its opinion, and therefore no reason that the
Secretary of the Synod or the Board of Directors should proceed otherwise than to adopt the bylaws drafted
(by the Secretary, in extensive consultation with the Council of Presidents), and already reviewed, as to
content and consistency with Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions, especially 2016 Res. 12-14, and as to
language, by the Commissions on Constitutional Matters and Handbook.
The Secretary of the Synod was directed to share the minutes of this phone meeting immediately with the
Board of Directors and Council of Presidents of the Synod.
61. Review of Minutes of the Commission’s May 5, 2017 Meeting
The commission reviewed the minutes of its May 5, 2017, meeting, previously provided by the Secretary,
giving particular attention to its Op. 17-2820, which the Secretary had been asked to finalize. The minutes
will be circulated, as is the custom, for final approval by Wednesday, May 17.
62. Review of Memorandum and Articles of Association for New Legal Entity in Belize (17-2829)
The acting Chief Administrative Officer of the Board of Directors forwarded to the commission the
documents drawn up to authorize and approve the creation of a legal entity in Belize. The commission
reviewed the documents and found that they do not conflict with the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions
of the Synod, although it notes the following items:
•

The memorandum of association, which seems to be the more foundational document than the
articles, does not contain the relationship and asset disposition language required in Bylaw 1.5.3.6.
The commission is unfamiliar with Belize law, but suggests that this language should be
incorporated in as fundamental a document as possible, with the intention of it governing

CCM Minutes – May 12, 2017 – Page 51