LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 6–7, 2026, Page 10

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

understood that he would be granting, and did grant, a concurrence upon materials presented to him that at
least facially met the requirements of Bylaw 2.14.4.2.
We now turn to the question at hand, which is of what options an accuser has if, after a concurrence has
been delivered, he believes the “accuser’s formal, written accusation, the record of [the district president’s]
investigation, and[/or] [the district president’s] determination” were not fully delivered to the President, or
fully reviewed by him.
We deal with the latter part first. The question in its second aspect asks whether a failure of the President
to review the record in full invalidates the concurrence. This, the dignity of the President’s office presumes
(see “Third” below) but the bylaws do not clearly require, or present a definite standard for review of such,
or provide a finder of fact to reach such a determination. This being the case, the commission has no
authority to set a standard or provide a finder of fact regarding this aspect, and it will therefore not be further
considered in this opinion.
Now to the first part, as to the full conveyance of the required material to the President. The President’s
concurrence is a finally dispositive act as regards the facts presented in the formal, written accusation. Of
it there is no means of review provided, and from it there is no further appeal. It has the full effect of a
presidential determination not to initiate formal proceedings upon an appeal for action, just delivered earlier
in the process.
Specifically, the Bylaws provide for no latter-day review of the adequacy of the material presented to the
President that could void his concurrence and restore his ability to receive an appeal for action in the matter
at hand. Bylaw section 2.14 in other places provides explicit opportunities for review of procedural
adherence, as well as specific remedies. For processes that reach a panel (constituted only when a member
has been suspended), the panel is empowered to consider compliance with the bylaw provisions; indeed,
one of the sub-issues each panel decides is: “Was proper procedure followed by the ecclesiastical supervisor
in suspending the member of the Synod (Constitution, Art. XIII 2; Bylaws 2.14.3–2.14.10.3)?” (id.,
Decision, p. 57). There is a procedure for objections to alleged noncompliance—when a matter is before a
panel—that can result in corrective action and even a new panel (id., General Regulation V, p. 18). But the
Bylaws of the Synod provide no authority—prior to an empanelment—to review the actions of
ecclesiastical supervisors (other than that they so empower the President, Const. Art. XI B 1–2; Bylaw
3.3.1.1.1 [b, d]; 3.3.1.2 [b–c]) and grant no authority—not even to the President—to compel performance
or to correct, outside established bylaw procedures and timelines, prior actions or failures to act. Here, the
appeal for action and its attendant prior concurrence are themselves instances of established bylaw
procedures allowing the President to intervene upon the performance of duties by the initial ecclesiastical
supervisor; bylaws provide no further authority to—or means whereby any might—intervene upon the
intervention, especially after the fact.
When the President’s concurrence is officially requested under the provision in question, the President must
determine, therefore, before he concurs, whether he is entirely satisfied with the adequacy of the record
before him to allow his determination that there is no cause that the worker should be suspended, or further
admonished under possibility of suspension, on the basis of the facts presented in the formal, written
accusation. In case of any doubt in the President’s mind as to the completeness of the record before him
that cannot be resolved by conference with the district president, he has the options either to not concur,
which may prompt the district president to revise his determination or initiate further investigation, for
which more time can be allotted, or to take no action, allowing the district president to proceed with his
own determination (id., Step 2.5, p. 32). These options both preserve the potential for appeal for action to
the President and for his subsequent independent investigation of the charges and his admonition and/or
suspension of the accused (id., Step 2.6, p. 33).
In summary, the commission finds:

CCM Minutes – February 6–7, 2026 – Page 144