LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 1–2, 2019, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

10. Review of Standard Operating Procedure Manuals for Bylaw Sections 1.10, 2.14–17 (19-2921)
The commission reviewed changes to the Standard Operating Procedure Manuals (SOPM) for the noted
bylaw sections, as related to 2019 convention actions and to other opportunities for improvement noted by
the Secretary in administering the triennium’s cases. The commission provisionally approved the draft
manuals for Bylaw sections 1.10 (requiring consultation with the Council of Presidents) and Bylaw sections
2.14–17 (requiring concurrence of the Council of Presidents). The Secretary was directed to present the
drafts to the Council of Presidents at its upcoming November meeting for consultation and concurrence.
Generally updates were minor, to correspond to minor bylaw changes enacted by the 2019 convention. The
following were the principal changes to the Bylaw section 1.10 SOPM:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

inclusion of recognized service organizations and auxiliaries that have opted to resolve call-related
disputes through the system (2019 Res. 4-06A);
inclusion of material from CCM Op. 16-2798A, intended to assist consulting ecclesiastical
supervisors in determining which process to follow;
note that documents submitted to a panel need to be clearly and individually identified by the parties
as exhibits so that they can be handled efficiently;
allowance for initial consultation with next district officer in line, should ecclesiastical supervisor
be intended respondent (2019 Res. 10-01 [A]);
inclusion, from reconciler training material, of a more explicit treatment of the important step of
identifying issues to be decided;
adjustment of timing for hearing, to correspond to that for Bylaw 2.14–17 processes (2019 Res. 1001 [B]);
harmonization of treatment of standards for appeal with bylaw language (Bylaw 1.10.8.2 [d]); and
explicit specification of long-term practice, that those serving on the initial Dispute Resolution
Panel be ineligible for service on a Review Panel in the same matter.

It was noted, for future work, that there is no defined mechanism for removal of hearing facilitators for
cause, as there is for reconcilers (Bylaw 1.10.10.4), and that such a mechanism could prove necessary. It
was also noted that the Commission on Handbook is considering removing from Bylaw 1.10.12 the
impossible requirement that appointment of hearing facilitators be performed “in time for resulting
vacancies on district rosters of reconcilers to be filled by appointment by district boards of directors.”
With regard to the Bylaw section 2.14–17 SOPMs, the following principal adjustments were made:
•
•
•
•
•

more fulsome inclusion of Constitution and Bylaw text related to the processes, to render the SOPM
a more self-sufficient reference;
note that documents submitted to a panel need to be clearly and individually identified by the parties
as exhibits so that they can be handled efficiently;
clarification of what constitutes a basis for a district president’s taking action (that is, initiating a
formal investigation) under Bylaw 2.14.4, etc., in light of CCM Op. 05-2420;
clarification of what belongs in the report of the hearing facilitator following a hearing panel
proceeding;
in Bylaw section 2.16, the change that the secretary of the Council of Presidents, not its chairman,
conducts the blind draw (2019 Res. 10-01 [D]).

The commission noted, having discussed with the Secretary his review of issues encountered in the cases
of the past triennium, and in light of its having been assigned 2019 Ov. 10-28, “To Revise the Synod Dispute
Resolution Process,” in 2019 Omnibus A (Proceedings, p. 230; Workbook, p. 535), that it would invite a
conversation with the Council of Presidents as to the effectiveness of, and due process afforded by, the
Bylaw section 1.10 and 2.14–17 processes. Topics for assessment might include “how the processes are
working,” how the appeal panels are supported with materials from the initial panels, how hearing
facilitators might be removed for cause, how panel proceedings are recorded for appeal and subsequent
CCM Minutes – November 1–2, 2019 – Page 4