LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 26-27, 1986, Page 1

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Preus and the chairman of the Board of Regents in March, 1986? If it may be "begun anew,"
how many times may this be done?
3. Was the hearings committee meeting that was scheduled and held on July 1, 1986,
constitutional in light of the fact that the time limit of eight weeks had again expired? The
Board of Regents had decided at its March, 1986, meeting to have a committee formed to
hear the charges.
4. Is it constitutional to issue a pending suspension without an ad hoc hearings committee first
looking into the situation whether suspension is warranted? (Dr. Schmidt indicated that the
proposed suspension was not carried out and that the Commission might thus not find it
necessary to render a ruling on this question.)
5. Is it constitutional to have an ad hoc hearings committee hear the charges against the faculty
member when there is a standing faculty committee known as the faculty hearings
committee?
The Commission, after reviewing the procedure in light of the bylaws decided to respond as follows:
1. We consider first whether the hearing conducted by the ad hoc committee on July 1, 1986
was in conformity with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. We have concluded that
the answer is in the negative. Bylaw 6.47(e) provides for the appointment of an ad hoc
hearing committee, and states:
"The committee shall hold its first hearing no later than eight weeks after the
Board of Regents has served notice that the committee is to be constituted."
In his letter to you of March 27, 1986, Dr. Preus stated:
"The Board of Regents met briefly on March 21 to discuss the charges made by
the Rev. Jack Cascione against you. They have decided to proceed according to
6.47 of the Handbook and have selected two persons to be members of the ad hoc
hearings committee. The faculty will select three others for this ad hoc
committee."
There can be no question but that this letter is "notice that the committee is to be
constituted." The conclusion that the hearing process had been initiated is reinforced by
the Board of Regents resolution of May 17, 1986, which refers to "the pending charges"
and criticizes your failure to cooperate in the inquiry. This resolution, Mr. Ebeling's letter
of the Board of Regents of May 20, 1986 and Dr. Preus's further letter of May 22, 1986,
are, quite plainly, all pursuant to and in furtherance of the same investigation referred to
in Dr. Preus's letter of March 27, 1986.
As noted above, Bylaw 6.47(e) requires that the committee hold its first hearing "no later
than" eight weeks after the initial notice, with the goal that a decision be rendered within
three months of the notice. Thus, the ad hoc committee hearing was required to be held
on or before May 22, 1986, and the July 1, 1986, hearing was not, therefore, in
conformity with the clear and unequivocal requirements of the bylaw. It follows that any
actions taken at or in consequence of the July I meeting are invalid.