LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — May 16, 1986, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

On the other hand, the Board for Parish Services could become specific about seeking the action of the
president of the Synod under Article XI B, 1, 2, 3 and under Bylaw 2.803. Under Bylaw 2.803, the Board
for Parish Services must further be clear whether its move for termination properly falls under a and b or
under e. If it falls under e, there should be further specificity whether neglect of office (cf. whereas 1) or
false doctrine (cf. whereas 3) is their basis for seeking termination. The Board for Parish Services has not
been clear either on the precise nature of the conflict which they have asked the president of the Synod to
resolve or the basis on which they asked Dr. Constien to resign.
If the Board for Parish Services is consciously functioning under Bylaw 2.803, d of that bylaw must be
punctiliously observed, i.e., the president of the Synod, a screening committee consisting of the president
of the Synod and two members of the Board for Parish Services, and finally the plenary Board for Parish
Services must each have been involved in the quest for approval of termination. Lacking that, the bylaws
have not been fully implemented and the influences for which the bylaws make provision cannot have
been fully exerted. Bylaw 8.05, a, seems to have been followed in a flawed way in its first sentence.
However, the resolution of the Board for Parish Services does not provide any evidence that sentence 2 of
the cited bylaw, in its requirement that any charges shall be submitted in writing, has been observed.
I n partial summary of the above, it would seem that the president of the Synod and the Board of
Directors of the Synod are in equally ambivalent positions with respect to actions which might properly
be considered until the Board for Parish Services specifies whether they are simply involved in an
administrative and programmatic conflict with their executive secretary, as a result of which they seek
reprimand and demand for compliance directed to that executive under Bylaw 2.67, i, m, or whether they
are making a charge either of neglect of office or of false doctrine so that the primarily operative bylaw is
2.803, d and e. Bylaw 2.803, a and b seem clearly to be designed to restrain a board from acting on a
frivolous interpretation of the concept of executive staff serving at the pleasure of the appointing
authorities. The Board for Parish Services needs to articulate its concerns in order clearly to invoke one or
the other of a potentially involved bylaws as described in the foregoing or consider the possibility that
Bylaw 2.803, a and b is functioning as intended.
Walter L . Rosin, Secretary

Minutes of the Commission on Constitutional Matters -

September 26-27, 1986

1. Opening Devotion : After Chairman Schnelz had called the meeting to order, Dr. Roland Hopmann
led the Commission in prayer, asking for God's guidance and help as the Commission dealt with matters
before it.
2. Procedures in Dealing with False Doctrine Charges (Ag. 1778, A) : Dr. Alvin Schmidt, a member of
the Ft. Wayne Seminary faculty, had asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters to respond to a
number of questions relating to proceedings in dealing with false doctrine charges which had been lodged
against him by a pastor of the Synod. His specific questions 'were:
1. Is it constitutional according to the synodical Handbook to start "the process anew?" (Dr.
Preus's words in his letter of May 1, 1986.) The question is asked in the light of the fact that
the charges were the same - word for word - as those stated in a letter from the Rev. Jack
Cascione of September 4, 1984, following which proceedings were started but not concluded.
2. May the process be "begun anew" after Dr. Preus and the Board of Regents proceeded
contrary to the Handbook the first time, as was admitted to Dr. Schmidt's attorney by Dr.