# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_December 3 4 2021_S12
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

aspects of this correspondence have been addressed by the Commission on Handbook, as relate to the
Bylaws, in action items 19-009A and C.)
The commission determined, in the interest of clarity, to propose adding “non-appealable” before
“decision” in the following locations in its next revision of the Standard Operating Procedures Manuals:
•
•
•

in Section 1.10, IV. General Regulations, H
in Section 2.14, IV. General Regulations, Q
in Section 2.17, IV. General Regulations, Q

The commission also determined to make the following changes, related to inclusion of terms of settlement
reached by the parties during a panel process, to reflect the fact that the panel is not compelled by such a
settlement to concur in terms not in keeping with its duty:
•

SOPM for Section 1.10, VI. Flow Chart Detail, 3.4 [e] and 5.3 [c]: “If the parties settle their
dispute during the course of the panel hearing or prior to the rendering of a decision, the panel
should may set forth the terms of the agreed-upon settlement in the decision.”

The commission, having considered the standards for review of a panel decision (e.g., Bylaw 2.14.8),
determined no clarification of “hearing panel minutes” was necessary in the bylaws or procedures, but noted
that their content should be addressed in training.
The commission also reviewed 2019 Overture 10-28, referred to it by 2019 Omnibus Resolution A,
recalling that such an assignment invited the commission to study appropriate action on the issue but did
not direct specific action. It was noted that the resolution calls for a comprehensive study of the dispute
resolution process, though the rationale speaks more directly to the process for handling suspension
appeals, Bylaw sections 2.14–17, and most specifically those changes adopted in 2016 Res. 12-14. Even
apart from the resolution, the commission’s responsibility, in concert with the Council of Presidents, to
maintain standard operating procedures for dispute resolution and expulsion processes, does suggest the
appropriateness of periodic, broad review.
Questions are often asked how frequently and in what ways the trained reconcilers are used in the various
districts; also, whether, given the small number of panels convened, a smaller pool of more highly trained
and frequently utilized facilitators might be more advantageous. It has also been questioned whether, given
that reconciliation and adjudication involve different skills, the use of a common pool for these two
purposes is best. The present appointment process has also resulted in frustration for some districts. The
commission discussed these ideas, as well as the possibility of periodic continuing education or “just-intime” modules intended for those being drawn for particular service—as a reconciler, an adjudicator, or a
hearing facilitator. Noting that most of the apparent potential for improvement in the process appears to be
in how well it prepares and facilitates the people responsible for doing the work, the commission suggested
that the Secretary survey the existing pools of hearing facilitators and reconcilers to inquire at least
regarding the following:
•
•
•
•
•

how often reconcilers and facilitators are used informally and formally, within their districts and in
individual or panel matters, and how long these engagements last.
relative comfort or feeling of preparedness for coaching, mediation, adjudication, and facilitation
(as appropriate).
how difficult the cases tend to be, in terms of demands on the reconciler / facilitator.
biggest challenges or perceived areas for improvement in current process and training.
interest in continuing education or “just-in-time” modules.

CCM Minutes – December 3–4, 2021 – Page 84