# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_November 2 4 2012_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

•

While the matter is pending, no party or panel member may publicize the matter.

The seriousness of the need to maintain fairness is also reflected in disqualification of individuals in both
the dispute resolution process of the Synod and the expulsion process, not merely for actual partiality but
even the appearance of partiality. See Bylaw 1.10.16 and SOPM general regulation “N,” as well as CCM
Opinion 12-2651.
There are many ways in which either fairness or due process concerns may arise in a Bylaw section 2.14
proceeding, and even more ways in which some detail of SOPM regulations may be breached. As with
any human endeavor, errors occur. While every effort should be made to avoid unfairness or procedural
error, not every error or breach or unfairness will have the same impact on the process. To the extent that
corrections can be made, they should be acknowledged and corrected promptly. Until and unless the
Synod provides specific remedies or consequences for such errors, that is a responsibility of the panel
itself. To the extent that an error cannot be corrected or an unfairness remedied, it is incumbent on the
panel itself to consider an appropriate remedy. This may involve consideration of whether the parties
were aware of and timely raised objections as provided in Bylaw 2.14.9.2 1, or expressly waived such
defect after it was brought to the party’s attention 2. It must take into consideration both the seriousness of
the underlying issue and the seriousness of the breach. It may involve consideration of whether the error
was a single, unintentional, and isolated breach or whether breaches were repeated, systematic,
fundamental, or even intentional. The panel may need to consider whether the unfairness rises to the level
of undermining the integrity of the Synod itself, on whose behalf the panel is acting.
The Bylaws and the SOPM generally provide no absolute remedies. The panel itself must make that
determination. Under some circumstances, errors may be rendered moot by subsequent events.
Sometimes a remedy may involve simply an acknowledgement and request for forgiveness. When
warranted, the remedy may involve dismissal of a single panel member or a request for the replacement of
the Secretary of the Synod as administrator. Where circumstances warrant, the panel itself may initiate or
suggest the initiation by others of a Bylaw section 1.10 dispute resolution process. But where a panel
deems proper, where an error or series of compounding errors are serious enough or unfairness great
enough, a panel may in good conscience and fairness need to terminate the current process entirely. If a
member’s ongoing actions warrant, the initiation of a new proceeding raising ongoing issues would be in
order. In the meantime, the Synod’s integrity is maintained, the benefit of the doubt inures to the member,
and the opportunity for reconciliation continues.
173. Commission on Constitutional Matters Internal Governing Policies
Taking into consideration discussion that took place during its February 2011 meeting, the commission
revised its internal governing policies to read as follows:
Commission on Constitutional Matters
1

Bylaw 2.14.9.2: “Any member participating in this bylaw procedure that violates any of the requirements or procedures in this
bylaw or is persistent in accusations is subject to the same disciplinary measures as set forth in this bylaw. Violations of the
prohibition against publicity while a matter is still undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or pending (Bylaw 2.14.7.8 [g])
above) by any of the persons involved are specifically included as violations subject to the same disciplinary measures set forth in
this bylaw.”
2
Please note also that if an objection is timely raised, SOPM general regulation “U” requires: “Issues raised in a timely manner
are to be considered and resolved by the appropriate panel.”

313