LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — December 14, 1989, Page 8

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

the defendants. Further, the Commission would not be upholding the rights of Dr. Preus in this matter by
giving his appeal for publication with no supporting documentation, arguments, etc., as it would be
supported in a hearing before the Commission on Adjudication. It was further pointed out that 8.51,m
calls upon the parties involved to give no publicity to the appeal while it is undecided or while an appeal
is contemplated or pending. It would not be logical to deny the right of publicity to the parties while
giving the Commission on Adjudication the ability to give out materials for publicity in a regard to an
appeal.
In addition, since 8.5l,m states that at the request of either party the status of the process and periodic
progress reports on the process may be disclosed by the chairman of the commission to the parties on a
need-to-know basis. It appears that the bylaw is very precise as to whom the chairman of the Commission
on Adjudication can give progress reports, namely, the parties involved in an appeal and not a "third"
party. Also, it was noted that the request was not for a progress report but for an actual part of the
pleadings while 8.51 would seem only to allow the giving of "progress reports."
After carefully reviewing the requests of Rev. Mahsman, the response of Rev. Caspersen, and the bylaws
and Rules of Procedure in question, the Commission on Constitutional Matters concluded that a reporting
of the naked fact that an appeal had been filed was legitimate. However, any reference to substance, etc.,
in its opinion, was not appropriate. Since this is the case, the Commission on Adjudication is not required
to release the appeal document as requested.
18. Requirements for Candidate Status (Ag. 1880) : The Commission had received a request for an
interpretation of the bylaws relating to criteria for determining whether candidate status should be granted
or continued. The specific question was whether Bylaw 2.19,b meant that all the conditions stated must be
met or are they to be considered as at least some of the criteria from which one or more must be met? In
response, the Commission noted that the bylaws stated that among criteria for determining whether
candidate status should be granted are ... [emphasis added]. On the basis of this, the Commission
concludes that the criteria listed are recommended for consideration by the district president as he makes
a recommendation for continued candidate status and for consideration by the Council of Presidents as it
makes its decision regarding such status. Neither all the criteria specifically named nor only those are
binding on the council. Ultimately, the issue is consigned to the Council of Presidents which must make
the decision.
The Commission also noted that with the adoption of a change in Bylaw 2.15,h by the 1989 convention of
the Synod, it might be possible for the person identified in the inquiring letter to become an active
member if the work which he was doing would be considered a "specialized ministry endorsed by the
Synod, including endorsement by one of its districts."
19. Majority-Congregation (Ag. 1881) : The Commission had received a request from St. Paul Lutheran
Church of Stanwood, Iowa, which stated that on October 16, its voter's assembly met and voted on a
constitutional amendment. At the meeting, 19 voters were present when the vote was taken. Two more
voters had been present but had left prior to the vote being taken (these voters were not included in those
present at the time of the vote.) Twelve votes were cast in favor and four votes against the amendment
while three voters abstained. In the interpretation of the congregation's constitution, Article X, and
Robert's Rules of Order, did the amendment pass or fail?
In reviewing this request, the Commission first reiterated its position that the national Commission on
Constitutional Matters should not become involved in the interpretation of congregational constitutions
which is really the responsibility of the District Committee on Constitutions. It wished to make clear that
its statement of opinion in response to the request should not be construed as a ruling of the Commission
on Constitutional Matters.