LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 23, 1998, Page 10

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

A President of the Synod and a District President are both members of the Synod and likewise a dispute
between them on an ecclesiastical issue must be resolved under the provisions of Chapter VIII of the
Bylaws. Again, a convention of the Synod plays no part in resolution of such a dispute. However, there are
two actions for the President of the Synod to take. One is mandatory whereas the other is optional.
The mandatory action is based on Article XI(B) of the Constitution of the Synod. It states, as it relates to
District Presidents, that the President has the supervision regarding the doctrine and the administration of all
District Presidents and that it is his duty to see that all District Presidents act in accordance with the Synod's
Constitution. He is to admonish a District President who in any way departs from it, and, if such admonition
is not heeded, to report such cases to the Synod. After reporting the matter to the Synod, the Constitution
and Bylaws do not direct the President to take any further action related to the matter. He has fulfilled his
responsibility. If there is to be further action, it must be undertaken by the Synod. Section III will address
the action available to the Synod in such situations.
The optional procedure available to the President of the Synod is, if the facts warrant, to bring charges
against a District President under Bylaw 2.27. Such charges must be based on an allegation that a District
President has acted contrary to the provisions of Article XIII of the Constitution and thus could lead to the
expulsion of the District President from the Synod. Disputes being processed under Bylaw 2.27 are not
subject to resolution by a convention of the Synod. Bylaw 3.19(2)(c) states: "Overtures (to a convention)
with reference to a case in which a member has been suspended or expelled and which is at present in the
process of or subject to appeal . . . shall not be accepted for convention consideration." The Commission
notes that proposed Resolution 7-06 to the 1998 convention of the Synod clarifies the roll of a President of
the Synod should he wish to use the provisions of Bylaw 2.27.
What action is then available to the Synod relative to an erring District President? A 1975 opinion of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters addressed the issue of removal from office of a District President A)
as a result of being expelled from membership in the Synod or B) as a result of direct action of removal
from office without expulsion from membership in the Synod. The Commission then stated, and we now
confirm, that expulsion from the Synod can only take place under the provisions of Bylaw 2.27 and, as
previously stated, disputes being processed under Bylaw 2.27 are not subject to resolution by a convention
of the Synod.
The Synod, however, may take action to remove a District President from office without expulsion from the
Synod. Article XI(2) of the Constitution provides that: "The Synod at all times has the right to call its
officers to account and, if the circumstances require it, remove them from office in accordance with
Christian procedure." The 1975 opinion of the Commission stated that a District President is not simply an
officer of the district, but also an officer of the Synod and therefore comes under the provisions of the just
quoted provision of Article XI(2). It commented that the clause "if circumstances require it" is a rather
broad statement involving a considerable degree of judgment on the part of the Synod and those acting in its
behalf. It went on to state that included in the "circumstances" is certainly the cause(s) for initiating action
leading to censure or removal from office. The Commission remarked that "Christian procedure" would
require the citing of convincing proof for the allegation and where such proof is lacking or where the
charges on the surface seem to be nothing more than a form of harassment, the charges should not be
entertained by those qualified to censure or to remove a District President from office.
The Commission noted that specific procedures are not prescribed beyond the statement that such removal
from office must be "in accordance with Christian procedure." It ruled that whether the procedure followed
did indeed measure up to this requirement is a fit subject for appeal to the Commission of Adjudication and
if the appeal is carried further, the Board of Appeals.