LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — July 8, 1999, Page 1

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Raymond L. Hartwig, Secretary

Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes - July 8, 1999
41. Call to Order and Prayer
Chairman Walter Tesch called the conference call meeting to order and asked Secretary Raymond
Hartwig to provide an opening prayer.
42. Review of “GUIDELINES for Constitution and Bylaws of a Lutheran Congregation” (982135)
Albert Marcis reported on his continuing efforts to review and provide the Commission with a draft
of a revised version of the “GUIDELINES.” He explained that he is waiting for an answer to
questions that have been submitted to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations before
completing his task.
43. Response to Letter Re Commission Opinion 99-2144 Re Dispute Resolution Process
The Commission received a letter from a party in a dispute that had submitted questions to the
Commission regarding the dispute resolution process, advocating its own interpretation of the
Commission’s May 5, 1999 ruling. Although the letter did not pose new questions, the Commission
agreed that a letter be sent by its secretary as follows:
Your May 23rd letter has been discussed by the Commission on Constitutional Matters. It
does not pose new questions to the CCM, but it did suggest to the Commission that it
would be useful to you if the significance of that opinion and its relationship to our Synod’s
dispute resolution process were further expounded upon by letter.
Please observe, first of all, that an opinion of the CCM is binding on all parties unless
overturned by a convention of the Synod (Bylaw 3.905, d). Your letter suggests that you
dislike and disagree with the CCM’s opinion in response to your earlier questions. While
you may certainly disagree, the opinion stands as official and binding. The Commission has
found that a complainant’s resignation letter does not operate as a per se bar to preclude
him from resorting to Chapter VIII of the Synod’s Bylaws. He can bring his grievance
under Chapter VIII and receive a decision on its merits. Your argument regarding his
resignation and the effect of your congregation’s bylaws may be raised as your factual
defense to the grievance, along with other evidence you believe to be relevant to the
decision of the case.
In reading your correspondence, it appears that you may be misconstruing the role that the
CCM plays in the dispute resolution process. The CCM is not an appellate body that can
summarily short-circuit the dispute resolution process. It is charged with interpreting the
Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws (Bylaw 3.905, d). It does not decide evidentiary or
procedural matters that arise in the dispute resolution process unless a question can be
decided by interpretation of the Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws. In all other cases, issues
are to be addressed to the panel and, if dissatisfied with the outcome, to the next level in the
process by a request for reconsideration under Bylaw 8.16. In such case, evidentiary or
procedural errors may certainly be cited as a basis for reconsideration.