LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 10–12, 2012, Page 14

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

“shall share this information with the parties to the dispute.” “N” continues, where the relationship
between panel members is challenged, “the question shall be decided by a special panel of three district
presidents not involved in the case, selected by blind draw by the Secretary of the Synod for this
purpose.” The panel selected to determine such a challenge must consider these matters addressed in this
opinion in making its conclusion.
Concerns regarding an appearance of fairness or the independence of panel members are different from
the question of partiality. If the Synod believes that two panel members coming from the same district
leads to the appearance of unfairness or the potential for undue influence between panel members, the
Synod ought to address this in convention.
Question 3: Can panel members be removed from their participation in the formation of a final hearing
panel beyond the scope of “actual partiality or the appearance thereof”?
Opinion: No. See answers to Questions 1 and 2 above.
Question 4: Can Final Hearing Panels and/or special panels formed to hear special issues/concerns make
up rules and/or extend the rules of the hearing panel process when the rules are silent on a
specific issue or do not presently exist?
Opinion: Panels are required to function to the best of their ability and judgment under the provisions of
the pertinent bylaws and procedures manuals, to the extent they are applicable. While at the time of the
commission’s opinion 02-2303, the Synod had not yet established standard operating procedure manuals
(which must be followed by all panels), that opinion gives guidance to a disqualification panel in regard
to procedures to follow to make an informed decision. See also answers to Questions 1, 2 and 5.
Question 5: If a panel member was removed based on the improper use of the rules and procedures, thus
creating a material violation of the hearing panel process, should and/or must that panel
member be reinstated?
Opinion: The Bylaws contain no provision for an appeal following the removal of a panel member.
However, paragraph “U” of the “General Regulations for Bylaws Section 2.14” of the SOPM states:
U. Right to Object: If any party learns that any provision of this Standard Operating Procedures Manual has
not been complied with and fails to object in writing within three (3) days after learning that the provision
has not been complied with, the party shall be deemed to have waived the right to object. Issues raised in a
timely manner shall be considered and resolved by the appropriate panel (Bylaw 2.14.9.2).

In an opinion regarding a Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the commission addressed this issue on June
23, 1998, in Ag. 2109, in answer therein to Question 7:
7. Do Bylaw 3.905 d and Bylaw 8.21 i require a CCM opinion to be implemented by a DRP and require a DRP
to change, modify, or otherwise revise its decision in accord with a CCM ruling?
Bylaw 3.905 d states that a function of the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) is to "interpret the
Synod's Constitution, Bylaws and resolutions..." It further states that "An opinion rendered by the
commission shall be binding on the question decided unless and until it is overruled by a synodical
convention."
Accordingly an opinion rendered by the CCM must be implemented by a DRP and, further, a decision by a
DRP must be changed, modified, or otherwise revised to bring it into accord with an opinion of the CCM.

303