LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 30, 1998, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Does the phrase "If after investigation" (Bylaw 2.27, b) mean that when the Praesidium receives charges
which allege Article XIII violations against a member, including a District President, the Praesidium is to,
that is, must conduct an investigation (assuming that the 90 day requirement has been fulfilled)?
The Commission answers that Bylaw 2.27, a, requires that, when "facts which could lead to the expulsion
of a member from the Synod under Article XIII are made known," the matter is to be "thoroughly
investigate(d) whether the allegations can be substantiated" (paragraph 1). In a case in which the District
President or Vice President fails to act on the allegation within 90 days and the Praesidium of the Synod is
presented with the written complaint, it becomes the responsibility of the Praesidium to "thoroughly
investigate whether the allegations can be substantiated." The answer to this question is therefore “yes.”
Is the phrase "If the Praesidium determines not to proceed" to apply to a decision of the Praesidium
following an investigation (i.e., the Praesidium concludes, upon investigating the charges, that there is no
evidence to support said allegations)? Or can the Praesidium dismiss the matter out of hand without an
investigation?
In answer, the Commission again notes that the words "If after investigation" require that an investigation
take place. A determination "not to proceed" must therefore be made on the basis of this investigation.
Does the phrase "which shall terminate the matter" mean that the Praesidium of the Synod, having
received and investigated specific charges, is the final authority and has the power to formally terminate
the matter and is to do so only after a proper investigation?
The Commission responds that the words "which shall terminate the matter" assume that the entire
procedure has been carefully followed, including a proper investigation. In such case and after concluding
that the facts do not form a basis for expulsion of the member under Article XIII of the Constitution, the
Praesidium is the final authority and has the power to formally terminate the matter.
Given the wording of this Bylaw, can the Praesidium of the Synod refer the charges back to the same
district officers who failed to investigate the matter the first time?
The Commission responds to this question by reviewing the provisions of Bylaws 2.27, a, and b, as these
relate to the duties of the Praesidium of the Synod.
Subsection a directs the Praesidium to decide the question of whether the District President or the next
appropriate District officer to function has a conflict of interest. The Praesidium must decide the issue of
conflict of interest only if the matter is presented to it in writing by one of the parties to the dispute. The
Bylaw leaves open the question of how this decision is to be made, allowing for the referral of the charges
back to a District officer who failed to investigate the matter the first time. The decision by the Praesidium
is final and not subject to appeal.
If the Praesidium concludes that there is not a conflict of interest, the Praesidium is to advise the appropriate
District officer that he is to proceed in accord with Bylaw 2.27, a, 1. If the Praesidium concludes that a
conflict of interest does indeed exist, it is to so advise the District officer of its decision and direct that the
next qualified District officer is to undertake the matter.
Subsection b deals with the situation where the District President or the next qualified District officer to act
has declined to suspend the accused member of the Synod or has failed to act within 90 days after receipt of
the written complaint. If the complainant appeals such alleged non-action to the Praesidium, the Praesidium
is then to take the following steps: First, it is to decide whether the appropriate District officer has declined
to suspend or failed to act within the 90 day period. If its answer is "no," it shall so notify the parties to the