LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — July 10–11, 2009, Page 8

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Opinion: The commission regards this question as not answerable, since it does not ask for an
interpretation of the Bylaws. It asks for the commission’s opinion whether the situation described “would
be viewed as providing a fair process.”
Question 2: If a reconciler had participated earlier in the dispute resolution process (i.e., as a reconciler,
dispute panel member, facilitator, or in the blind draw), should that reconciler (member) still
be eligible to serve on the Review Panel of the same case?
Opinion: While this question is not specifically addressed in the bylaws governing Review Panels as part
of the dispute resolution process, Bylaw 1.10.16.1 provides opportunity to a party to the dispute to request
disqualification of a panel member. Paragraph P of the “General Regulations” provided in the Standard
Operating Procedures Manual for Bylaw section 1.10 expands upon this right:
P. Disqualification of Reconcilers or Panel Members: The standard for disqualification
shall be actual partiality or the appearance thereof. When identified by blind draw,
reconcilers, hearing facilitators, and panel members shall be contacted personally by the
acting administrator of the dispute resolution process (see paragraph [a] of Bylaw 1.10.4)
to discuss their availability to serve. The administrator shall provide information
regarding the dispute and the parties to the dispute to surface potential conflict of interest
concerns. Any reconciler or panel member may disqualify himself or herself from
service. Circumstances that are thought to or are likely to affect performance of duties
and the outcome of a formal process shall be disclosed to the administrator.
Any party and/or parties to a dispute shall have the right to request disqualification of a
reconciler, hearing facilitator, panel member. 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 method for blind draw provided in
this manual. In the event of a disqualification, another individual shall be chosen, again
by blind draw from the appropriate pool of names. If a pool of names is exhausted, a new
pool shall be developed in the same manner as the former.
Question 3: Ought not a clause be added to Bylaw 1.10.15.1 (b) and 1.10.15.2 (b) which could be worded
like: (new and additional wording underlined): “No member shall be selected from the district
in which the dispute arose, or, if it is a Synod question, from any district in which a party
holds membership, or who was engaged previously in the same dispute resolution
proceedings, or in the dispute resolution selection process of the same case”?
Opinion: Again, the commission regards this question as not answerable, since it does not ask for an
interpretation of the Bylaws. It asks for the commission’s opinion whether “a clause be added” to the
existing bylaws. However, the commission does instruct the Secretary to bring this concern and
suggestion to the attention of the Synod’s Commission on Structure.
110. Final Business, Adjournment, and Closing Prayer
Remaining meeting time was used to discuss the work of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure
and Governance and the commission’s anticipated role as the task force prepares its report. After again
noting the commission’s next meeting date, August 29-30, the meeting was adjourned with prayer.

Raymond L. Hartwig, Secretary
75