LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — December 14, 1989, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

5) Regarding the issue of responsibility you have inquired, "May the synodical president
delegate his responsibilities under Bylaw 8.05,a to one or more synodical vice presidents,
particularly in cases where he feels that there may be a real or perceived conflict of interest or
that such a delegation of responsibility would enhance the achievement of reconciliation, or
where the president is rightly or wrongly alleged by one of the parties to have an involvement
in the case under adjudication?" The Commission's response is, "No, he may not." The
Handbook makes it clear that "the President shall have the right to authorize the VicePresidents to perform the duties of his office and shall hold them responsible for their
performance. Accountability, however, shall always remain with the President," Bylaw
3.101,m. The Commission respectfully points out that the President may appoint a small
committee to seek to effect reconciliation. This committee may or may not consist of VicePresidents of the Synod.
6) Your sixth question consists of three parts to which the Commission responds individually.
a) "What constitutes unreasonable refusal to heed the admonition stated in Bylaw
8.07,b? Would the following be examples of such a refusal: (1) A president seeks a
court restraining order against a Board of Regents action, wrongfully claiming that
the Synod's adjudication process would not fully right the wrong he believes has been
done to him? (2) A president files (with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission) charges of age discrimination against the Board of Regents?" The
Handbook is silent on what constitutes refusal to heed admonition as referred to in
Bylaw 8.07,b. Employment of the adverb "unreasonably" obviously requires
judgment on the part of someone. The Commission does not find the examples
helpful since it would be necessary to know what advice or admonition, if any, had
been given which the person seeking redress in the secular court has reasonably
refused.
b) "Who determines whether such unreasonable refusal has or has not taken place?" The
kind of admonition given, the persons by whom it was given, and the response to it
would seem to be determinative and would be an issue of fact to be determined by a
Commission on Adjudication or Appeals, who would consider the judgment made by
a responsible official designated in Bylaw 8.05,a.
c) "Is such a determination to be made before or after the provisions of Bylaw 8.05,a
have been carried out?" The Handbook is silent also on this question. The proper
response to the question would be dependent on the understanding of unreasonable
refusal and the determination of whether it has occurred. The assumption would be
that informal efforts at reconciliation would include the admonition to use the
synodical adjudication procedures if informal efforts fail. In other words, the decision
could well assume that if one has gone to the secular court, he has unreasonably
refused the synodical adjudication procedures which he was urged to use during the
informal efforts at reconciliation.
It must be noted that there are two sides to an issue and the side which has not taken a matter to
the secular court may, of course, use the synodical adjudication procedures. It might also be
pointed out that while the person who has unreasonably refused admonition has forfeited the right
to use the synodical adjudication procedures, the opportunity to do so might still be granted, not
as a right, but as an undeserved opportunity or privilege.