LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 10–12, 2012, Page 10

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

believed to have relevant information in order to reach the decision as to whether to commence a formal
action and to prosecute that action effectively if the decision is made to do so. The district president
would also have the ability to discuss issues with an investigation committee under 2.17.4 (a) or a referral
panel under Bylaw 2.17.5.
In fulfilling his responsibilities, he must with any communications also keep in mind the provisions and
requirements of Bylaw 2.17.7.8, requiring compliance with Bylaw 2.14.7.8 (a)–(j), subsection (g) of
which states:
While the matter is still undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or pending, publicity shall not be given to
the issues in the matter by any of the persons involved during any part of the procedures outlined in this bylaw.
However, at his discretion and as the needs dictate in order to “promote and maintain unity of doctrine and
practice” (Constitution, Art. XI B 3) and in order to provide counsel, care, and protection for all the members of
the Synod (Article III 8, 9), the President of the Synod or the district president in consultation with the President
of the Synod, as the case may be, may properly advise or inform the involved congregation(s) and/or the district
or the Synod.

Question 3: During the phases under Bylaw 2.17.3 or 2.17.4, is it inconsistent with or otherwise violate
the Eighth Commandment, Bylaw 2.17.3 (d), or Standard Operating Procedure I F., G., I.
(6), N.; II D., F., G., I., or Q FOR AN ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISOR to share any
information or status updates with alleged witnesses?
Opinion: See answer to Question 2.
156. Questions re “Actual Partiality or the Appearance Thereof” (12-2651)
In a June 25, 2012 emailed letter, a member of the Synod involved in the Bylaws section 2.14 expulsion
process asked a series of questions of the commission.
Background: After an appeal to a Final Hearing Panel in a Bylaws section 2.14 matter, each party
selected a district president for the panel. The remaining panel member and the hearing facilitator were
selected by blind draw. After providing general information regarding the matter and identifying the
persons involved in the matter in order to uncover potential conflict of interest concerns with the parties
to the matter, the administrator asked all selected panel members to consider whether the standard of
disqualification (“actual partiality or the appearance thereof”) applied to them in this case. All three
replied they did not think the standard applied to them and did not disqualify themselves. After the parties
to the matter were informed of the panel members selected, the district president who imposed the
suspended status then challenged the objectivity of two of the panel members: the district president
selected by the accused (because of possible involvement in the matter) and the lay reconciler member of
the panel (who resides in the same district as the district president chosen by the accused). The two
challenged panel members were then asked by the administrator of the process to consider whether the
standard for disqualification provided in the Standard Operating Procedures Manual (SOPM) for Bylaw
section 2.14 (“actual partiality or the appearance thereof”) applied to them in this case, noting particularly
the stated objections to the chosen district president (for possible prior involvement in the matter) and to
the lay member (not for partiality toward any party, but rather for residing in the same district as the
district president selected for the panel by the accused). Both replied that they did not think the standard
applied to them and therefore did not disqualify themselves.

299