icimoi , just read your post - I'm not in regular contact with any panel members. I'm basically just a regular parent of kids with SN who helps a charity out with research and campaigning from time to time. That's how I've come into contact with panel members, random LA bods etc.
I think it's absolutely right and fair that SENDIST should know more about the impact of their decisions - not just during the process, but afterwards too. I think that their service would be better if they understood how their decisions matter - how a great provision transforms the lives of the child and family, or how a poor decision does the exact opposite. The SOS!SEN links that Bilberry put up - particularly the response from SENDIST - show how far they have to go.
I don't know if the panel members I've met thus far are representative. But the ones I met couldn't give a toss about the impact on the child or family.
I don't get the impression that there are many full-time panel members, tbh. Many of them seem to belong to that class of 'SEN experts' that make a living gliding between different state services as contractors: Ofsted inspectors, burned-out senior EPs, retired LA specialist service staff, and so on.
Being on a panel is a decent gig - a couple of years ago, it was about £400 per day plus expenses in the South-East, according to one I spoke to. But it's not the only iron that many of these people have in the fire.
It does make me wonder how SENDIST ensures that there are no conflicts of interest. I hope that they'd investigate each panel member's recent employment history to ensure that they haven't recently worked for the LA at the hearing, or intend to do so in the future. OTOH, they might just do what Ofsted do, and rely on the innate honesty and integrity of the person being employed...