# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S191
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

and unless it is clear that the absence of such evidence
resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice.
(d) The standards of review, which define the parameters for the panel’s consideration of an appeal, limit
the panel’s review to three basic areas.
(1) Factual findings: The Appeal Panel shall review
factual findings of the Dispute Resolution Panel
only to determine if they are supported by evidence. The Appeal Panel shall not ordinarily sit in
judgment of the Dispute Resolution Panel’s conclusions regarding evidence, since that panel was
in the best position to judge factual issues. The
Appeal Panel must be convinced that a mistake
has been committed, that is, that the evidence is
such that reasonable minds could not disagree.
(2) Conclusions on authority: The Appeal Panel
may approve an appeal if the Dispute Resolution Panel was clearly outside its authority, e.g., a
decision that the panel had no authority to make
under the Constitution and Bylaws, or a decision
on an issue not identified by the Dispute Resolution Panel, or a decision on a theological question
that the panel had no authority to make.
(3) Discretionary acts: The Appeal Panel may
approve an appeal if there was a clear abuse of
discretion impacting the decision of the Dispute
Resolution Panel, resulting in a gross miscarriage
of justice, or that involves an obvious and inappropriate bias or prejudice.
(I) Responsibilities of the Review Panel
(Bylaw 1.10.8.4)
Rationale
If an Appeal Panel grants a request for reconsideration of the
decision of a Dispute Resolution Panel and the matter goes before a
Review Panel, current bylaws advocate that the panel “shall generally decide the issue on the record without further formal hearing,”
though they also allow the panel to “follow the procedure used by
a Dispute Resolution Panel if deemed necessary.” In practice, this
bylaw has been found to be less than realistic in its advocacy of
deciding disputed matters solely on the record of the Dispute Resolution Panel. In most cases, a serious error by the earlier panel is the
reason for granting a request for reconsideration by Review Panel.
In addition, the written record cannot convey the oral testimony
and conversation that necessarily takes place during a hearing. For
these reasons, the Commission on Handbook advocates the following bylaw changes.
PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
Procedure of a Review Panel
1.10.8.4	If an appeal is granted, the Secretary of the Synod,
or his representative, shall, within 21 days, select
a Review Panel in the prescribed manner (Bylaws
1.10.15ff.). The Review Panel shall generally decide
the issue by following the procedure used by a DisR e s olu t i on s

pute Resolution Panel (Bylaws 1.10.7ff.)on the record
without further formal hearing but may follow the
procedure used by a Dispute Resolution Panel decide
the issue on the record without further formal hearing if deemed necessary sufficient and appropriate.
(J) Special Three-Member Panel
(Bylaw 1.10.16.1–1.10.16.2)
Rationale
From time to time the need arises for a decision by the “separate
three-member panel of reconcilers” referred to in Bylaw 1.10.16.1.
The current bylaw offers no instruction regarding this panel other
than that it shall be “drawn for that purpose according to the
SOPM.” Questions have resulted regarding the selection and performance of this panel. The Commission on Handbook proposes
the following changes to the bylaw.
PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
1.10.16.1 Any party and/or parties to a dispute shall have the
right to request disqualification of a reconciler, panel
member, or hearing facilitator. If that individual does
not agree to the disqualification, the decision shall be
made by a separate three-member panel of reconcilers drawn for that purpose according to the SOPM.
(a) Nine names shall be selected by blind draw from
the Synod’s roster of reconcilers.
(b) The list shall be mailed simultaneously to each
party, who shall be entitled to strike up to three
names. The list shall be returned to the Secretary of
the Synod within one week after receipt.
(c) The Secretary of the Synod shall correct any problem with the list. No member of the panel shall be
from the district in which the dispute arose or any
district of any party to the dispute. No two panel
members shall be from the same district. If more
names remain than are needed, the final selection
shall be made by blind draw.
(d) In the event that additional names are needed,
three names will be selected in the manner set forth
above, which names shall be submitted to each party,
who shall have the right to strike one name before
returning the list to the Secretary of the Synod within
one week.
1.10.16.2	In the event that a reconciler, panel member, or hearing facilitator is disqualified, another individual shall
be chosen by blind drawaccording to the SOPM.
(a) Three names shall be selected by blind draw from
the Synod’s roster of reconcilers or hearing facilitators as appropriate.
(b) The list shall be mailed simultaneously to each
party, which shall be entitled to strike one of the
names. The list shall be returned to the Secretary of
the Synod within one week after receipt.
(c) The Secretary of the Synod shall correct any problem with the list. No member of the panel shall be
2 0 1 3 C o n v e n t io n P r o c e e d i n g s

|

191