LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — May 24, 1993, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

addressed to legal counsel for the Synod who, in turn, forwarded the request to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters. An additional question raised by the legal counsel was whether the parties in the
adjudication may voluntarily submit their dispute to be reconciled and adjudicated under the new system
adopted at the 1992 synodical convention. The need for an opinion had been initiated by a request from the
complainant that the stay order be lifted, that it was his opinion that Commission on Adjudication had been
abolished by synodical action, and that the matter should now be transferred to the proper "tribunal."
After reviewing the entire matter, including the resolution adopted by the 1992 synodical convention, the
Commission decided to respond as follows:
The Commission has been asked to respond to the question regarding the appropriate procedure in the
matter of William H. Van Duzer v. the Florida-Georgia District of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod,
a matter which had been in process but was stayed from further proceedings as of May 4, 1993. A request
has been received for the lifting of the stay order.
The Commission on Constitutional Matters has reviewed the request and notes first that William Van
Duzer is in error in assuming abolition of the Commission on Adjudication. The resolution which
established a new approach to dispute resolution includes the following resolves:
Resolved, That all cases currently in the adjudication or appeals process be concluded under the
existing bylaws governing adjudication and appeals; and be it further
Resolved, That the provisions of these bylaws be implemented immediately by the various Districts
and the Secretary of the Synod; and be it further
Resolved, That this new procedure shall apply to all dispute resolutions initiated after the date of
adoption of this amendment without regard to the date of onset of the dispute.
It is the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters that the matter in question was in the
adjudication and appeals process prior to the adoption of the resolution establishing a new dispute
resolution process and is therefore to be concluded under the bylaws governing adjudication and appeals
in existence prior to July, 1992.
The Commission is also of the opinion that the resolution adopted allows for no exceptions and therefore
the procedure referred to above is to be followed.
Commission member Walter Tesch did not participate in the decision.
42. Dispute Resolution Panel Decision (Ag. 1963) : The Chairman of the Dispute Resolution Panel had
made an informal request to the Commission for an opinion regarding a situation in which a pastor had
challenged his suspension by a district president, a hearing had been held, and the pastor had resigned from
the clergy roster stating to the Dispute Resolution Panel that there was no need for any further action on
their part. The Dispute Resolution Panel was, however, concerned that since a hearing had been held, a
record of the hearing should be made. It further questioned whether Bylaw 8.01 which states, "no person or
entity to whom or to which the provisions of this chapter are applicable because such person or entity is a
member of the Synod may render the provisions of this chapter inapplicable by terminating that
membership," allowed the Dispute Resolution Panel to simply drop the matter without making a decision on
the basis of the hearing which had been held.
In response to the informal request, the Commission stated that it was its opinion that the matter of a
challenge to the action of a district president suspending a pastor was not concluded until the Panel had