# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_December 10 2012_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

party to the matter considers the process unfair, that party is to call it to the attention of the Hearing Panel
or Final Hearing Panel, as the case may be, for resolution.
Therefore, with regard to the questions from the Final Hearing Panel with reference to the statement, “The
Commission rules that the [special] panel itself shall establish the procedure it wishes to follow to reach a
decision” from CCM Opinion 02-2303, the commission responds as follows.
Part 1, Question 1: Does this sentence as stated as such mean that a special panel can make up any
procedure it wishes even stepping out of the general principles of the SOPM and
bylaws of 1.10 and 2.14 procedures?
Opinion: No. A panel may not make up any procedure it wishes. As indicated above, Opinion 02-2303
directed the panel to use a procedure that was sufficient to allow it to make an informed decision. The
opinion gave the panel authority to reach that decision either on the basis of the written materials
submitted to it, or to hold a hearing following the procedure of a Dispute Resolution Panel (which was the
process for resolving all disputes at the time of Opinion 02-2303).
It is unclear to the commission what the questioner means by the phrase, “even stepping out of the general
principles of the SOPM and bylaws of the 1.10 and 2.14 procedures.” Both 1.10 SOPM Section IV,
“General Regulations,” and 2.14 SOPM Section II, “General Regulations,” deal with a wide variety of
aspects pertaining to various portions of the process.
Thus, while a special panel to resolve a dispute over disqualification determines its own procedure to
follow in reaching an informed opinion, its process must demonstrate impartiality and fairness to all
parties to the matter. And the process cannot contradict the Constitution, Bylaws, and SOPMs of the
Synod. If a party to the matter believes that the process was unfair, it may bring that concern to the
Hearing Panel or Final Hearing Panel, which will investigate and rule accordingly.
Part 1, Question 2: Does CCM opinion 02-2303 negate the general SOPM guidelines and even the
bylaws themselves as found in 1.10 and 2.14 DRP procedures?
Opinion: No. See the answer to Part 1, Question 1 above.
Part 1, Question 3: Since the SOPM guidelines allow for a 'special panel,' how does the sentence in
SOPM Section II, paragraph Y, Should the provisions of this manual vary from the
Constitution or Bylaws of the Synod, the Constitution and Bylaws control and
supersede'- effect the phrase "shall establish the procedures it wishes to follow ..." as
found in Opinion 02-2303?
Opinion: Regulation “Y” of the 2.14 SOPM states:
Panels and ecclesiastical supervisors are responsible for interpreting and applying the principles, regulations,
and other provisions provided in this manual. General questions regarding the process may be discussed with
the Secretary of the Synod. Specific questions may be directed to the Commission on Constitutional Matters,
whose responsibility it is to maintain this manual in consultation with the Secretary of the Synod and with the
concurrence of the Council of Presidents. Should the provisions of this manual vary from the Constitution or
Bylaws of the Synod, the Constitution and Bylaws control and supersede.

This regulation gives panels and ecclesiastical supervisors the responsibility for interpreting and applying
the principles, regulations, and other provisions of the SOPM. It indicates that general questions regarding
the process may be addressed to the Secretary of the Synod and specific questions may be addressed to
the Commission on Constitutional Matters. The final sentence makes clear that the SOPM may not
contradict the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.

340