# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2010_S279
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
3. Regular call of pastors, teachers, directors of
Christian education, directors of Christian outreach, directors of family life ministry, directors of
parish music, deaconesses, certified lay ministers,
and parish assistants and regular election of lay
delegates by the congregations, as also the blamelessness of the life of such.
4. Exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and catechisms in church and school.
5. A congregation shall be received into membership only after the Synod has convinced itself that
the constitution of the congregation, which must
be submitted for examination, contains nothing
contrary to the Scriptures or the Confessions.
6. Pastors, teachers, directors of Christian education,
directors of Christian outreach, directors of family
life ministry, directors of parish music, deaconesses, certified lay ministers, or candidates for
these offices not coming from recognized orthodox
church bodies must submit to a colloquium before
being received.
7. Congregations and individuals shall be received
into membership at such time and manner, and
according to such procedures, as shall be set forth
in the bylaws to this Constitution.
Adopted Jan. 23–24, 2010
Dispute Resolution Process Appeal Panel Decision (09-2571)
In a letter dated November 16, 2009, a member of the Synod
recently involved in the dispute resolution process submitted a series
of questions to the commission regarding the final decision rendered
by the panel.
Question 1: If the Standard Operating Procedures Manual (SOPM)
rule of directly contacting the Appeals Panel were violated by one side of the dispute during the Appeal Panel
deliberations, do the Bylaws permit that Appeal Panel be
declared invalid? And do the Bylaws permit that another
Appeal Panel be formed? And by whom?
Opinion: There is no provision in the Bylaws providing that an
Appeal Panel be declared invalid or a new panel formed should
a party directly communicate with members of an Appeal Panel
without the knowledge of the other party in the dispute in violation
of Bylaw 1.10.18.1 (c), which states that “[n]o party and/or parties
to a dispute nor anyone on the party’s behalf shall either directly or
indirectly communicate with the reconciler, the hearing facilitator,
or any member of the Dispute Resolution Panel, Appeal Panel, or
Review Panel without the full knowledge of the other party to the
dispute.” Any member of the Appeal Panel so contacted should
promptly notify all other members of the panel, the other parties
involved, and the administrator to report the contact. Paragraph 4.2
of the Standard Operating Procedures Manual states, in part, that
“[i]f the request for reconsideration is not granted, the decision of
the Dispute Resolution [Panel] shall be regarded as final and binding upon the parties to the dispute.”
Question 2: If the SOPM rules of directly contacting the Appeal
Panel were violated by one side of the dispute, and a
final decision is rendered by the Appeal Panel, do the
Bylaws permit that the decision of that Appeal Panel be
declared invalid? And by whom?
Opinion: There is no provision in the Bylaws providing that an
Appeal Panel decision is to be declared invalid because Bylaw
1.10.18.1(c) was violated by one of the parties to the dispute.

279

Question 3: If the SOPM rules of directly contacting the Appeal
Panel were violated by one side of the dispute, and the
content of the message is construed as disparaging to the
process or towards the other party (in other words, taints
the overall process), do the Bylaws allow that Appeal
Panel to be declared invalid, and do they allow that the
decision of that Appeal Panel be declared invalid? And
by whom?
Opinion: There is no provision in the Bylaws that provides that
an Appeal Panel is to be declared invalid if a party communicates
with panel members in violation of Bylaw 1.10.18.1(c). Should an
individual member of the panel determine that the inappropriate
contact has tainted the individual’s ability to fairly carry out his
responsibilities, the member may recuse himself, the matter then
determined by the balance of the panel as described in SOPM section IV paragraph Q Should an Appeal Panel find that improper
communication has tainted its ability to carry out its responsibility
in a fair manner, the panel itself may disband and request the formation of a new panel.
Question 4: If the SOPM rules of directly submitting additional
new evidence to the Appeal Panel and not through the
administrator were violated by one side of the dispute
during the Appeal Panel deliberations, do the Bylaws
permit that Appeal Panel be declared invalid? And do
the Bylaws permit that another panel be formed? And
by whom?
Opinion: There is no provision in the Bylaws that provides that an
Appeal Panel is to be declared invalid or that permits a new panel
to be formed should a party violate a provision of the SOPM. The
panel itself retains responsibility for maintaining the integrity of
the process and addressing any violation or attempted violation of
the SOPM.
Question 5: If the SOPM rules of directly submitting additional new
evidence to the Appeal Panel and not through the administrator were violated by one side of the dispute during
the Appeal Panel deliberations, and a final decision is
rendered by the Appeal Panel, do the Bylaws permit that
the decision of that Appeal Panel be declared invalid?
And by whom?
Opinion: No. See above. Please also note Bylaw 1.10.18.1(i):
Any member participating in this bylaw procedure who intentionally and materially violates any of the requirements in this bylaw …
is subject to the disciplinary measures as set forth in the appropriate
Bylaw sections 2.14–2.17. Any member of the Synod who has personal
factual knowledge of the violation shall inform the appropriate district
president as the ecclesiastical supervisor.

Adopted Jan. 23–24, 2010
Notes
1. Although he did not serve as administrator of the Dispute Resolution Process in the particular matter underlying this question, the
Secretary of the Synod recused himself from consideration of this
matter. Another member of the commission had been designated as
administrator for this matter and also recused himself from participation in the opinion. The minutes for this portion of the meeting were
kept by commission member Daniel Lorenz.
2. Q. Inability of Panel Members to Serve: If a panel member
withdraws or is unable to perform required duties after a panel has
begun its work, the remaining panel members shall continue without
the vacancy being filled.

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 279

4/15/10 2:40 PM