LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 303

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

X. TASK FORCE ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION REPORT
Referral Panel
2.17.5 In the determination whether or not to initiate formal proceedings, the district president may form a Referral Panel consisting of
three circuit visitors of the district.
(a) If three circuit visitors from the district are not available to
serve by reasons of conflict of interest or otherwise, the district
president may select a sufficient number from other districts in
order to form the panel.
(b) This panel shall be formed by blind draw and shall not include
the circuit visitor of the accused or the accuser. The blind
draw shall be administered by the district president audited by
witnesses.
2.17.5.1 In the event that the accused is a district president, an officer of the Synod, or the President of the Synod, the Referral Panel shall
consist of three district presidents selected by a blind draw administered
by the chairman of the Council of Presidents and audited by witnesses.
Such panel, which shall exclude any involved district president, shall
function as set forth hereafter.
2.17.5.2 After reviewing the accusation and the results of the investigation, the Referral Panel shall make the determination whether or not
to initiate formal proceedings.
2.17.45.23 Whether made by the district president or the Referral
Panel, if If the determination of the district president or the President
of the Synod is not to initiate formal proceedings, he shall in writing
so inform the accuser, any other district president involved, and the involved member, which shall terminate the matter, unless the accuser
presents the written complaint or accusation to the President of the Synod or Chairman of the Council of Presidents as provided below (Bylaw
2.17.4.3).
2.17.45.34 If the district president (or the President of the Synod
in the case of a district president or officer of the Synod) fails to actor
declines to suspend the member within 6090 days after receipt of the
formal written complaint or accusation, the accuser may present the a
formal written request complaint or accusation to the President of the
Synod (or in the case of a district president or officer of the Synod to
chairman of the Council of Presidents).to the district president for the
forming of the Referral Panel, which request the district president must
grant. If the provisions of Bylaw 2.17.4 have not been carried out, the
Referral Panel shall carry out these provisions in the process of making
its determination whether or not to initiate formal proceedings.
(a) In the case of an individual member, if, after investigation and
consultation with the Praesidium of the Synod, the President
of the Synod determines that the facts are such that it could
lead to expulsion of the member under Article XIII of the
Constitution, the President of the Synod shall designate one of
the vice-presidents of the Synod to proceed in the same fashion
as is hereafter required of the district president. If the President
of the Synod determines not to proceed, he shall in writing so
inform the complainant and the involved member, which shall
terminate the matter.
(b) In the case of a district president or officer of the Synod, if,
after investigation and consultation with other members of
the Council of Presidents, if deemed necessary, Praesidium
of the Synod, the Chairman of the Council of Presidents
determines that the facts are such that it could lead to expulsion
of the member under Article XIII of the Constitution, he shall
proceed in the same fashion as is hereafter required of the
district president. If the Chairman of the Council of Presidents
determines not to proceed, he shall in writing so inform the
complainant and the involved member, which shall terminate
the matter.

Commencing Formal Proceedings
2.17.56 If the appropriate district president or the President of the
Synod or the chairman of the Council of Presidents or the Referral Panel, whichever the case may be, concludes that the facts form a basis for

303

expulsion of the member under Article XIII of the Constitution, the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor in commencing formal proceedings
shall.…

——————
E. To Reformulate the Composition of Hearing and Final
Hearing Panels
Rationale
While the 1854 Constitution of the Synod continued to place the
supervision of the doctrine and practice of the officers, pastors and
teachers, individual districts, pastoral conferences, and congregations
of the entire Synod into the hands of the President of the Synod, it
also made the district presidents his agents in carrying out this ecclesiastical supervision within their districts, including the authority
for temporary suspension of members of the Synod. This provision
remained largely unchanged until a major revision of the structure
of the Constitution took place in 1920, whereupon the duties of the
President of the Synod were articulated in the same form and manner as they are articulated in Article XI B of the current Constitution
of the Synod.
For many years after 1854, suspensions of rostered church workers
were resolved by the next district convention, which made the decision whether or not to expel the member, such decisions appealable
to a convention of the Synod. After Synod conventions struggled with
the problem of properly dealing with such appeals due to “increasingly vexing problems of procedure” (1935 Proceedings, p. 211),
the 1944 convention adopted a precise procedure to be followed for
these appeals, calling for a Board of Appeals for each district and for
the Synod and a convention Committee of Review to determine if
boards of appeals had made procedural errors. The 1965 convention
later eliminated all appeals to conventions, whereupon appeals from
a district Board of Appeals (after 1971, called commissions on adjudication) were now directed to the Synod Board of Appeals.
In the 1980s, the Synod attempted in numerous ways to clarify
procedures that it felt would be most useful in resolving conflicts
at various levels within the Synod, the system of adjudication and
appeals proving to be extremely costly in terms of money and time. By
1990, the President of the Synod had appointed a task force to study
the matter of conflict resolution and to make appropriate recommendations. The end result was the adoption by the 1992 convention of
Res. 5-01B “To Adopt New Process for Conflict Resolution” (1992
Proceedings, pp. 141ff), essentially the process still in use today,
altered by 2004 Res. 8-01A “To Amend Bylaws on Ecclesiastical
Supervision and Dispute Resolution” (2004 Proceedings, pp. 165ff).
With reconciliation the primary purpose of all of the processes,
“reconcilers” appointed by district boards of directors play a key
role—“people ‘of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom’ (Acts 6:3)” (quote from Bylaw 1.10.10.1). They also serve as
members of panels to decide disputed matters still remaining after
reconciliation efforts have not been successful in resolving disputes.
Most recently, 2010 Res. 7-04A “To Approve Changes to the Process
of Bylaws 2.14, 2.15, and 2.17” placed a single lay reconciler (along
with two district presidents) on Hearing and Final Hearing Panels for
deciding whether suspensions by district presidents are to be upheld.
In Part 2 of his 2013 report to the convention, the President of
the Synod recommended that the convention consider a resolution to
address a shortcoming in the Bylaw 2.14, 2.15, and 2.17 expulsion
processes, i.e., “a need to provide doctrinal training or a doctrinal
track for reconcilers.” He further suggested: “Perhaps an appeal
2016 Convention Workbook