LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — July 8, 1999, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Your frustration is understandable after what has no doubt been a long and painful process
for your congregation. Again, however, the CCM does not interpret your congregation’s
constitution and bylaws. Your argument that the language of your bylaws terminates a
matter regarding removal of a teacher upon that teacher’s resignation may be an argument
that will be accepted by a Dispute Resolution Panel, but it may also be rejected. (It is noted
in passing that your congregation’s bylaws do not explicitly state that a resignation has the
effect of abandoning claims for past compensation by the teacher. It is noted, also in
passing, that civil courts have developed a concept known as “constructive discharge” in
cases where a person quits but alleges that he quit only because his employer made his
working conditions intolerable, thus constructively discharging him, despite his
resignation.)
It might also be noted that Synod’s Bylaw 1.05, d, could be taken to hold that where the
bylaws of a congregation conflict with those of the Synod the congregation’s bylaw must
yield. Synod Bylaw 2.03, b, while it requires the approval of a congregation’s bylaws, does
not indicate that such approval is an invincible imprimatur that makes those bylaws
unassailable.
A word is also in order regarding your concerns about due process and the presentation of
evidence. These concerns were also of primary interest to the committee that developed our
Synod’s dispute resolution process. The Rules of Procedure and Bylaws that govern the
work of the dispute and review panels were developed to balance the need for evidence
with the need for relevance and economy. While relevant evidence must be included to
allow a decision based on the fullest possible set of facts, matters that are irrelevant or
tangential are best excluded to prevent confusion or waste of time. These are decisions to
be carefully made by the panels.
In summary, I urge you to use the dispute resolution process in the spirit of reconciliation
that is its purpose. The Commission’s May 5, 1999 decision is binding. There is no basis in
the Synod’s Constitution or Bylaws to conclude that the complainant’s resignation in your
case precludes him from bringing his grievance, despite the anguish that this process causes
your congregation. Your argument that his resignation ends his right to claim additional
benefits from your congregation may or may not be persuasive, should your case be given
to a Dispute Resolution Panel. I urge you therefore to develop any other defenses that you
may have and not rely on this one defense. I also strongly suggest that you take advantage,
should your case be heard by a panel, to take advantage of any conference calls or prehearing conferences that the panel might hold to clarify issues and raise any concerns you
may have regarding procedure or presentation of evidence. In this way your concerns can
be addressed and the dispute panel can do the best possible job of reaching a proper
decision.
44. The Relationship between Doctrinal Resolutions and Doctrinal Statements (99-2149)
A pastor of the Synod requested an opinion from the CCM on the relationship between doctrinal resolutions
and doctrinal statements, specifically the relationship between Bylaw 1.09, which makes a clear distinction
between doctrinal resolutions and doctrinal statements and Bylaw 2.39, c, which he believes adds extra
weight to doctrinal resolutions and, in effect, obscures the distinction laid out in Bylaw 1.09. He writes in
his April 21, 1999 letter: