# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S203
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

10. ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
To Amend Bylaws to Clarify
Dispute Resolution Processes
RESOLUTION 10-01
Overture 10-29 (CW, 535–37)

Preamble
The Commission on Handbook, responding to a variety of
observations from officers, agencies, and members of the
Synod, has proposed substantive revisions of bylaws
regarding dispute resolution processes of the Synod:
A. CONSULTATION IN DISPUTE
BETWEEN MEMBER AND ECCLESIASTICAL
SUPERVISOR (COH 16-012)
Rationale
Bylaw 2.14.4.1 acknowledges that a district president may
be disqualified from handling an expulsion case, but the
dispute resolution section (Bylaw section 1.10) makes no
such explicit allowance. If a member’s dispute is with the
member’s district president there should be allowance for
someone else to conduct the required consultation (CCM
Op. 16-2799).
Therefore be it
Resolved, That Bylaw 1.10.5 be amended as follows, to
allow an alternate to conduct a dispute resolution
consultation if the district president is the respondent:
PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
1.10.5
Before any matter is submitted to the formal
reconciliation process, the parties involved in a dispute
must meet together, face-to-face, in a good-faith attempt to
settle their dispute in the manner described in Matthew
18:15 and may involve the informal use of a reconciler. And
further, before any matter is submitted to the formal
reconciliation process, the complainant must meet and
consult with the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor to
seek advice and also so that it can be determined whether
this is the appropriate bylaw procedure (Bylaw section 1.10)
or whether the matter falls under Bylaw sections 1.8, 2.14,
2.15, 2.16, or 2.17, or Bylaws 3.10.5.7.9, 3.10.6.7.1, and
3.10.6.7.5.2. In regard to this consultation:
…
(f) Should the otherwise appropriate ecclesiastical
supervisor be the intended respondent, or be
disqualified due to conflict of interest, the next qualified
district officer without such a conflict shall conduct the
consultation and provide the attendant evangelical
supervision, counsel, and care.

B. CONSISTENCY OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
AND DISCIPLINE PANEL TIMELINES (COH 16-014)
Resolutions

Rationale
The Bylaw section 1.10 process has a minor unclarity in its
timeline, regarding the appointment of the panel, setting of
hearing date, and conduct of the hearing. That unclarity
can be resolved by reconciliation of the Bylaw section 1.10
timeline with that for Bylaw sections 2.14 and 2.17.
Therefore be it
Resolved, That Bylaws 1.10.7.2–3 be amended as follows,
to clarify the timeline for dispute resolution and to increase
its consistency with the timelines for discipline panels:
PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
1.10.7.2
Each Dispute Resolution Panel shall have a
nonvoting hearing facilitator who will serve as chairman of
the panel. Within 15 days after the appointment of the
panel, the hearing facilitator shall confer with the parties to
the dispute and the Dispute Resolution Panel for the
purpose of choosing a location and a date for the formal
hearing of the matter.
1.10.7.3
The formal hearing before the Dispute Resolution
Panel, conducted by a hearing facilitator, shall take place
within 45 days after the selection of the location and date of
the formal hearing, unless there is unanimous consent by
the panel members for a short delay beyond such 45 days
for reasons the panel deems appropriate. The formal
hearing before the Dispute Resolution Panel shall be
conducted by the hearing facilitator within 45 days after the
Hearing Panel was constituted. The hearing facilitator shall,
within 15 days of panel formation, confer with the parties
and the Dispute Resolution Panel to select the date and
location of the formal hearing. The formal hearing may be
delayed for a short time beyond the 45-day period with the
unanimous consent of the panel members.

Committee 10 Chairman John Wille
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2019 (67TH) LCMS CONVENTION | 203