LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 10-11, 1992, Page 9

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Would it not be proper that the Brech vs. Fickenscher case appeal should be dismissed because
the time frame for hearing by the Commission on Appeals has elapsed according to the synodical
Bylaw 8.15,g (p. 134, 1989 Handbook)?
The pastor noted that the appeal by Brech was received and responded to on or about August 16. No
hearing was held before October 1. The synodical bylaw states that "An intent to appeal decisions of
Commissions on Adjudication shall be filed within 30 days after the transcript has been delivered. The
hearing shall be completed within the following 45 days."
A letter which had been received was a copy of a letter sent to the Commission on Appeals requesting the
opinion from the Commission on Constitutional Matters. As of the date of the meeting, the Commission
on Constitutional Matters had not received the request which had been directed to the Commission on
Appeals. It was agreed that Chairman Schnelz would contact Chairman Dissen of the Commission on
Appeals requesting information and clarification regarding this matter.
81. Access to Commission on Adjudication (Ag. 1925) : Requests had been received both from Dr.
Daniel Bruch and President Lane Seitz of the Minnesota South District regarding charges which had been
brought by several pastors of that district against Dr. Bruch. Since Dr. Bruch is a member of the faculty,
the matter had been considered by the Board of Regents of Concordia College, St. Paul, Minnesota, and
had also been forwarded to the President of the Minnesota South District who declined to press charges
and to the President of the Synod, who also declined to do so and who declared the matter closed. The
two pastors had now taken their charges to the synodical Commission on Adjudication. The question
which was being asked was, "Is the action of Rev. Thompson and Rev. Anthony in appealing to Chapter
VIII of the synodical Handbook and taking their charges to the Commission on Adjudication proper, or is
the case against Dr. Bruch closed?"
In the discussion which took place, the Commission concluded that the issue had previously been dealt
with and that it had been finally resolved at the synodical convention of 1989 which had, in effect,
sustained the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters. The Commission therefore
determined to respond as follows:
You have stated that charges raised against you by several pastors have been brought before the
Board of Regents of Concordia College, St. Paul, Minnesota, the District President of the
Minnesota South District and the President of the Synod and have not been upheld. You further
state that these charges have now been brought to the Commission on Adjudication. It is
presumed that this is the synodical Commission on Adjudication. In effect you are now asking the
question of whether the action of the pastors in taking the matter to this commission is proper or
whether the case against you is terminated.
The Commission on Constitutional Matters has previously ruled on the issue involved. In an
action taken by the Commission on Constitutional Matters in November, 1987, an opinion was
issued which states in part:
Pursuant to Bylaw 8.51J, 1986, the Commission on Constitutional matters has been
requested by one of the parties with the full consent and knowledge of the Oklahoma
District Commission on Adjudication to render an advisory opinion relative to the
procedure to be followed in a situation in which a district president has declined to
suspend a member. Under Bylaw 2.27, the basic issue under these circumstances is,
"What jurisdiction, if any, does a district commission on adjudication have?"