LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — October 30–31, 2020, Page 1

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

MINUTES
COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
St. Louis, Missouri
October 30–31, 2020
53. Call to Order and Opening Devotions
Commission Chairman Dr. George Gude called the meeting to order with all members present, calling upon
Attorney Deadrick to offer opening devotions, which he did, on Friday, on the basis of LSB 555, “Salvation
unto Us Has Come,” and, on Saturday, on the basis of LSB 677, “For All the Saints.”
54. Prior Evidence in Bylaw Section 2.17 Hearing Panel (20-2955)
A Bylaw section 2.17 Hearing Panel by an e-mail of October 20, 2020, and under Bylaw 2.14.7.8 (k)
requested the commission’s opinion on the following questions:
Question 1:

If a district president took no action on a previous accusation and therefore the case was
terminated, is evidence from such previous accusation admissible to a current case?

Opinion:
When a district president receives information that requires him to consider initiating the
proceedings outlined in Bylaw section 2.17, the district president eventually has two options, to initiate
formal proceedings or to not initiate formal proceedings, “which shall terminate the matter” (Bylaw 2.17.5),
subject to other provisions that are not relevant to this question.
When a district president receives information that initiates Bylaw section 2.17, the district president is to
“thoroughly investigate whether the allegations of the accuser can be substantiated” (Bylaw 2.17.4 [a]).
“Thoroughly investigate,” having no Bylaw definition, is then to be interpreted by its ordinary or plain
meaning. To the commission, this means to leave no stone unturned, to look at all relevant information, and
then to weigh the information as to credibility and importance. This thorough investigation may involve
prior accusations that, due to the judgment of the ecclesiastical supervisor responsible at the time and to
many reasons too numerous to be listed here, had previously resulted in no formal proceedings.
The provision that such a conclusion shall “terminate the matter” and that the district president responsible
shall “in writing so inform the accuser, any district president involved, and the involved member” (Bylaw
2.17.5, including subparagraph [e]; cf. Bylaws 2.14.5; 2.15.5; 2.16.5.1; 2.16.8 [d]) serves as a formal
statement to the accuser that the accusation as presented has been assessed and a determination has been
reached by the ecclesiastical supervisor responsible that, in his judgment and upon the facts and evidence
available at the time, formal proceedings will not be initiated on the basis of the specific accusation
presented.
Such a conclusion does not expunge facts or evidence related to prior accusations and/or investigations, or
prevent a district president, on the basis of additional facts or evidence, from initiating subsequent formal
proceedings based in part on new evidence and in part on evidence existing prior to the current matter,
including, without limitation, evidence connected with a previous accusation that did not result in formal
proceedings.
The materiality or relevance of facts and evidence to a subsequent case is not diminished by the decision
of a district president at some prior point not to proceed to formal proceedings. It may be reassessed in a
subsequent decision whether to suspend a member and may be presented to a panel subsequently convened
on the basis of new accusations, facts, or evidence. As is the rule for all material presented to a panel,
provided by the Bylaw section 2.17 Standard Operating Procedures Manual, General Regulation K,
“Witnesses and Evidence,” p. 15:
(b) Panels shall be the judge of the relevance and materiality of evidence offered. Relevance of
testimony will be determined by whether such evidence will support (or not) an issue in contention.

CCM Minutes – October 30–31, 2020 – Page 39