LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — July 8, 1999, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

VIII of the Bylaws of the Synod. However, if proper procedures were followed, the decision of the Board of
Regents is not subject to appeal.
If the answer to the first question is “yes,” may the charges be pressed against the
institutional president or others who recommended the appointment?
The answer to this question is “no.” Faculty appointments are the responsibility of the Board of Regents
under Bylaw 6.03, h.
If the answer to the first question is “yes,” may the charges be pressed against the Board
of Regents as the body which made the appointment?
The answer to this question is “yes,” but as explained in the response to the first question above, only if the
issue is that the procedures followed in making the appointment were not in accord with those prescribed in
the Bylaws of the Synod.
If the answer to the third question above is “yes,” under what LCMS Bylaws are such
charges processed and by whom are they adjudicated?
As explained in the response to the first question above, the dispute is processed under the provisions of the
Synod’s dispute resolution process as set forth in Chapter VIII of the Bylaws.
46. Questions regarding the Relationship of Bylaw 2.27 to Chapter VIII of the Bylaws (99-2151)
A District President, concerned that the dispute resolution process and the work of a District President may
work at cross purposes with each other, addressed the following questions to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters:
How do Bylaw 2.27 and Section VIII of the Bylaws, detailing the operation of the
Synodical Dispute Resolution process, relate to each other? Or do the processes and
procedures outlined by Bylaw 2.27 and Section VIII operate independently of and
without regard for each other?
The Commission responds that Bylaw 2.27 establishes a procedure to terminate congregational or
individual membership in the Synod. In broad general terms, 2.27, a, triggers the procedure, provides the
initial steps to be taken by a District President, and describes the manner in which the concern is to be
resolved; 2.27, b, describes if and how the Praesidium becomes involved; and 2.27, c, stipulates what a
District President is to do if he decides to seek the expulsion of the member from the Synod. It is in 2.27, d,
which describes what is to be done if the member contests the expulsion, that the procedure now moves to
Chapter VIII and specifically to Bylaw 8.07, h. In this case the “complainant” is the member who is
contesting the expulsion, and the “report of the reconciler” is the District President’s “statement of the
matter in dispute and…written memorandum describing the manner in which there was compliance with the
mandate of Matt. 18:15-16” required by Bylaw 2.27, d.
Therefore, in response to the question, Bylaw 2.27 and Chapter VIII of the Bylaws do not operate
independently of and without regard for each other.
May a District President in responding to a complaint received under Bylaw 2.27 direct
one or more of the parties to file the complaint with the Secretary of the District who
then, by blind draw, selects and appoints a District reconciler to work with the parties in
dispute?