|
Mission Council
The purpose of
the Mission Council is to enable the Church, in its General Assembly,
to take a more comprehensive view of the activity and policy of the
Church, to decide more carefully about priorities and to encourage the
outreach of the Church to the community. Its service is directly
towards the Assembly, but its concern is with the whole Church and all
its members, so it will seek to be aware of the pains and joys, the
adventures and hopes of the whole body.
Members: The
officers of the General Assembly, the past Moderator, the
Moderator‑elect, the Legal Adviser, the conveners of the Assembly
standing committees (except the Pastoral Reference Committee), the
synod moderators, two representatives of FURY Council, and three
representatives from each synod.
The
representatives of synods in March 2003 were:
Northern Synod
Dr Peter Clarke, Revd Pamela Ward, Mrs Roberta Wood
North‑Western
Synod. Revd Geoffrey Townsend, Mr Eric
Chilton, Mrs Janet Eccles
Mersey Synod
Revd Martin Hardy, Revd John Kingsley, Mr
Donald Swift
Yorkshire
Synod Revd John Jenkinson, Mr John
Seager, Mrs Val Morrison
East Midlands
Synod Mrs Anne Ball, Mrs Barbara Turner,
Revd David M Miller
West Midlands
Synod. Revd Simon Helme, Mr Simon
Rowntree, Mrs Ann Sheldon
Eastern Synod
Revd Richard Mortimer, Revd Victor Ridgewell, Mr
Ken Woods
South Western
Synod Revd Roz Harrison, Revd Paul
Snell, Miss Angela Bebbington
Wessex Synod
Revd David Bedford, Mrs Veronica Taylor, Revd Simon
Thomas
Thames North
Synod Mrs Helen Clapp Revd Dr Robin
Pagan, Revd Jane Wade
Southern Synod
Mr Ian Chalmers, Revd Lesley Charlton, Mrs Marion
Bayley
National Synod
of Wales Mrs Janet Gray, Mr Stuart
Jones, Revd David Marshall‑Jones
National Synod
of Scotland Revd Ken Forbes, Mrs Helen M
Mee, Miss Catriona Smith
1
Our meetings
1.1
During the year Mission Council has met
residentially at High Leigh, Hoddesdon and the Hayes, Swanwick
Conference Centres; and for a one‑day meeting at the Arthur Rank
Centre, Stoneleigh.
1.2
As will be seen from several paragraphs in this
report (e.g. 4.1, 4.3 and 4.7) Mission Council has given a good deal
of time and attention to the future mission of the church and to the
international context in which Christians live.
1.3
The Moderator has played a significant role in
guiding the January and March meetings. His use of the Psalms as a
focus for worship and bible study at last year’s General Assembly was
extended to Mission Council, well complemented by the worship
leadership of the Moderator’s chaplain, the Revd Lesley Charlton. The
Council was grateful to the Revd Elizabeth Welch (the immediate past
Moderator) for chairing the October Mission Council at short notice,
when the Moderator was indisposed.
1.4.........
Theological reflection at the October meeting was provided by the Revd
Nigel Collinson (Secretary of the Methodist Conference) and at the
March meeting by Mrs Elizabeth Fisher, a member of the General Synod
of the Church of England. The practice of discussing the written
reflections at the following meeting has continued.
2
Responding to the Assembly
2.1
The following are responses to resolutions of the
2002 General Assembly:
2.2
Resolution 4 (Record page 38) Ecumenical Bishop
in Wales. Subsequent to the Assembly accepting the Proposal for
the Appointment of an Ecumenical Bishop for Cardiff East (The Common
Document), it failed to secure necessary support from some ecumenical
partners. The Clerk will therefore bring a resolution which halts the
process agreed by last year’s General Assembly.
2.3
Resolution 14ii (Record page 15) asked Mission
Council to issue guidelines on ways in which District Councils and
synod appointments to Assembly could offer continuity and respect the
church’s policy on equal opportunities; and on the more effective
sharing of reports and decisions with district/ area councils and
church meetings. This work is yet to be done.
2.4
Resolution 17 (Record page 41) in last year’s
Mission Council Report (one of the resolutions from the report on
Authority in the United Reformed Church) was withdrawn for further
consultation. A revised resolution appears below (Resolution 10)
2.5
Resolution 54 (Record page 40) asked Mission
Council to appoint an Honorary Assistant Treasurer. As a new
Hon. Treasurer took up his responsibilities in January, it was
decided ( with his agreement) to delay seeking to appoint an Hon.
Assistant Treasurer for the time being.
2.6
Resolution 56, Record page 35 requested the
Ethical Investment Advisory Group to “give regular attention to
the more detailed research and policies of some sister churches; the
scope for greater United Reformed Church participation in relevant
ecumenical bodies; the option of day‑to‑day investment decisions being
given to managers explicitly committed to a Christian ethos” and “to
bring recommendations to the 2003 meeting of the General Assembly
through Mission Council”.
Mission Council
confirmed the appointment of Dr Brian Woodhall (subsequently replaced
by Mrs Fiona Smith)(United Reformed Church Trust), Mr Richard Nunn
(United Reformed Church Pensions Trust Limited), Ms Avis Reaney
(Financial Secretary), Mr John Ellis (Church and Society Committee
Nominee) and Mr Matthew Prevett (FURY) to the group, its convener
being the Deputy General Secretary, and its secretary being the
Secretary of Church and Society.
Recognising that it
can act only in an advisory capacity, the group seeks to become a
standing independent forum which discusses ethical issues, gathers
information and produces guidelines which will be of use to the whole
Church. It is also investigating ecumenical partnerships with which it
may be possible to work. Further work to consolidate all these ideas
needs to be done, and the group hopes to report more fully to Mission
Council and General Assembly in 2004.
The group noted that
the United Reformed Church Trust has taken the decision to transfer
the management of the Church’s own investment funds from HSBC Asset
Management (Europe) Limited to an ethical fund of CCLA Investment
Management Limited.
The Clerk will
propose a correction to the Assembly Record 2002 related to this
resolution.
3
Actions on behalf of the General Assembly
3.1
Appointments of synod moderators. Acting on
behalf of General Assembly, Mission Council appointed the Revd Terry
Oakley as Moderator of the East Midlands Synod, for a period of seven
years to 31 September 2010, and re‑appointed the Revd Elizabeth Anne
Welch as Moderator of the West Midlands synod for a further 5 years
until 31 August 2008.
3.2
Appointments to staff posts. Acting on
behalf of General Assembly, Mission Council appointed the Revd Richard
John Mortimer as Secretary for Ecumenical Relations and Faith and
Order, for a period of five years to 31 August 2008. It also
re‑appointed the Revd John William Steele as Secretary for Life and
Witness for a further period of three years to 30 September 2006, and
Mrs Karen Bulley as Pilots Development Officer for a further period of
three years to 30 September 2006.
3.3
Other appointments. Acting on behalf of
General Assembly, Mission Council made the following appointments :
Section O process
working party
The Revd Tony
Burnham (convener) (2006)
Mr Hartley Oldham
(secretary) (2006)
Racial Justice
Committee
The Revd Andrew
Prasad (convener)(2007)
Westminster College
Board of Governors
Mr John Kidd (2006)
Conference of
European Churches Assembly
The Revd Malcolm
Hanson
Council for World
Mission Assembly
Mrs Olive Bell, the
Revd David Coleman,
Ms Catherine
Lewis‑Smith,
The Revd Philip
Woods
3.4
Basic ministerial stipend. Acting on behalf
of Assembly, Mission Council set the basic ministerial stipend for
2003 at £17,952.
3.5
Assembly Commission. Mission Council,
acting on behalf of General Assembly appointed a Commission to
consider the circumstances of a minister who has been in dispute with
various councils of the United Reformed Church for a considerable
period of time. The report of the Commission was considered in a
closed session of Mission Council at its March meeting, as a result of
which the Council agreed a process to be undertaken in an attempt to
bring this matter to a conclusion. On completion of the process, a
further written report will be made to General Assembly.
4
Other actions
4.1
Review of the United Reformed Church. “With
a view to transforming the United Reformed Church for effective life
and witness in the 21st century”, Mission Council has committed itself
“urgently and radically to rethink the Church’s priorities, programmes
and processes, consulting widely throughout the United Reformed
Church, ecumenically and with secular organisations”. The General
Secretary has been charged to call together a small group to undertake
this work as a matter of urgency, drawing up the terms of reference
for the group, and providing regular progress reports to meetings of
Mission Council.
4.2
The task group on personal and conciliar
leadership and authority in the United Reformed Church,
established to provide a theological understanding of leadership and
authority as practised in the Church, reported to Mission Council on
two occasions during the year. The report is still under
consideration, especially that part which refers to the role of synod
moderators.
4.3
Pastoral Strategy. Mission Council
initiated conversations with the Methodist Council to see if the two
churches could work together more closely in discovering an
appropriate pastoral strategy, which would allow a more efficient and
effective sharing of resources in mission. The initial positive
response, which led to meetings between General Secretaries and some
other staff, resulted in the production of a joint leaflet which
encourages people, wherever there is genuine potential, to explore
together creative ways of being an effective Christian presence.
Responses are invited offering ideas and suggestions, to be sent
either to the Deputy General Secretary or the Assistant Secretary of
the Methodist Conference before 24th October 2003.
4.4
The report of the task group established by
Mission Council to review the Windermere Centre was received by
Mission Council and the following recommendations were approved:
1
That appreciation be expressed to all who have
contributed to the Windermere Centre in the years since its inception
enabling it largely to achieve the objectives for which it was
founded.
2
That the United Reformed Church continue to regard
the Windermere Centre as its Assembly training centre and a training
resource for the whole Church.
3
That the Director be encouraged to continue to
implement his vision of the Windermere Centre as a place where the
future pattern of life and witness of the United Reformed Church can
be explored.
4
That, as far as possible, a balance be maintained
between essential activities aimed at assisting the Church corporately
to develop its mission and the more popular activities aimed at
personal spiritual development and fellowship.
5
That Assembly and synods be encouraged to use the
Windermere Centre as much as possible for committee meetings,
consultations and training events.
6
That the Windermere Centre and Northern College
continue to explore the possibility of joint work, particularly in the
area of Continuing Ministerial Education, and implement it as soon as
possible.
7
That the Windermere Centre and Carver Church
together through the Interim Joint Council, give further consideration
to the building project and investigate possible sources of funding
from outside the United Reformed Church.
8
That the ongoing programme of alterations to
provide more en‑suite and more single bedrooms be continued.
9
That the annual central church financial support
for the Windermere Centre be maintained.
10
That the budget figure for the Windermere Centre in
the central United Reformed Church accounts be clarified by being
divided into specific headings.
11
That a review of the work of the Centre be
initiated by Mission Council in 2007 and thereafter every five years.
4.5
Resource Planning Advisory Group. Mission
Council appointed the Revd Bill Wright to be secretary of this group
until 2006 on the resignation of Mrs Erica Young, who would remain as
a member of the group until 2005. The need for responsible and careful
judgement about the Church’s financial position vis‑á‑vis deployment
totals was the main theme of the group’s report to Mission Council
during the year, and is reflected in resolutions 7 and 14 below.
4.6
The Church House Management Group,
established to oversee issues of management and staffing at Church
House, and to provide guidelines for terms and conditions of
Assembly‑appointed staff, met for the first time in November and had
its own terms of reference agreed by the January Mission Council.
Those serving on the group include the Revd John Waller (convener),
the Revd David Marshall‑Jones, Mrs Val Morrison, and Mr John Woodman.
Four staff members are in attendance: the Financial Secretary, the
Secretary for Communications and Editorial, the Office and Personnel
Manager, and the Deputy General Secretary, (who is secretary to the
group).
4.7
Statements on the International Situation:
News of the
deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe conveyed through our Commitment
for Life partners at Silveira House, led to the following statement
being issued from the January meeting :
4.7.1
The Mission Council of the United Reformed Church,
having received news of the continuing deterioration of the situation
in Zimbabwe
·. Expresses its
support for our partners and people in Zimbabwe in these difficult
times
·. Encourages
Christian Aid to be more responsive to the situation in Zimbabwe and
requests that a delegation appointed by the Church & Society Committee
meet with the Director of Christian Aid to explore this further.
4.7.2 Increasing
concern about the military build‑up which led to armed conflict with
Iraq, caused Mission Council, meeting in January, to issue the
following statement in the name of the United Reformed Church:
The Mission
Council of the United Reformed Church, noting the increasing military
preparations for an invasion of Iraq and the universal rejection by
churches and church leaders in the United States, the United Kingdom
and around the world of war as the solution to the threat posed by
Saddam Hussein’s regime
·. Expresses its
concern that the scale of this military build‑up creates a momentum
that increases the probability of war
·. Supports the
view that the UN Weapons Inspectors should be allowed to complete
their work
·. Believes that,
in the ‘post 9.11’ world, United States and United Kingdom‑led
military action against Iraq will further destabilise the
international situation
·. Urges,
therefore, that more be done to effect a peaceful outcome that affirms
western respect for the Arab world and a desire to foster just and
peaceful relations between all God’s peoples
·. Recognises the
considerable stress and worry for the families and friends of military
personnel already sent to the region and for those with relatives and
friends living in the region
·. Urges its
congregations to seek ways of ministering to those facing such anxiety
·. Calls upon
members of the United Reformed Church to reach out to people of the
other Abrahamic (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) faiths and covenant with
them to work and pray for peace in Iraq and throughout the Middle
East, and for good community relations in the UK, recognising that the
journey to such commitment will be costly and painful as difficult and
divisive issues are faced and wrestled with before our God who calls
us all to live with justice and mercy
· Encourages all
those who are praying and witnessing for peace, giving thanks for
their ministry.
A further statement
was issued at the outbreak of hostilities, and was reported to March
Mission Council
4.8
Time for Action. The publication of the
report of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland, Time for Action,
on sexual abuse and the church, led Mission Council to establish a
small inter‑committee working party under the convenership of the Revd
Bill Mahood, to study it and consider a response to CTBI on behalf of
the United Reformed Church.
4.9
Church Related Community Work Programme.
Mission Council, considering deployment targets for numbers of Church
Related Community Workers, resolved:
i)
that from 2004 the total deployment quotas for
Synods should include both posts for stipendiary ministers and Church
Related Community Workers;
ii)
the aggregate United Reformed Church quota should
increase by 26 with effect from 2004 to allow for the inclusion of
CRCW posts; and
iii)
from 2004 onwards two posts for each of the 13
Synods should be reserved exclusively for CRCW appointments.
A letter has been
sent to each Synod to clarify the practicalities of implementing this
decision.
4.10
Mission Council also accepted that the partial
devolution of management of CRCWs was an appropriate response in
current circumstances to the concern expressed in 1998 about the
involvement of Synods and Districts in the management of the CRCW
programme. It also agreed that proposals for a renewal of the CRCW
Development Worker appointment from 2004 onwards could be placed
before the Staffing Advisory Group for assessment by the same criteria
as applied to other applications.
4.11
On the advice of its Staffing Advisory Group,
Mission Council agreed to the appointment of a Secretary for Youth,
giving authority to the Youth and Children’s Work Committee and
Staffing Advisory Group to agree a job description.
4.12
The Oversight of Youth and Children’s
Work Trainers
Mission Council,
having taken account of the extensive consultation which has taken
place between the Training and Youth and Children’s Work Committees,
and with those most directly involved, agreed to amend the terms of
reference of both the Training Committee and Youth and Children’s Work
Committee to bring about a change of responsibility for the oversight
of YCWTs. Close co‑operation shall continue between the two
committees; the Training Committee giving “advice” to the programme,
while the Youth and Children’s Work Committee shall have “oversight”.
YCWTs shall continue to be managed at synod level.
Resolution 7
Ministries
Recognising the
current financial difficulties of the United Reformed Church, General
Assembly:
i) reiterates the
call it made in 1992 to church members to give at least 5% of their
take home pay to the Church;
ii) agrees that for
2004, and until further notice, the target number of stipendiary
ministers should be changed from that of the previous year by the same
percentage as membership has changed;
iii). encourages
Synods and District and Area Councils to develop appropriately
flexible and adventurous deployment plans.
Resolution 8
Westminster College Bursar
General Assembly
agrees to the following changes to the Structure of the United
Reformed Church
Delete ‘and Bursar’
from General Assembly function (vi) and replace ‘Board of Studies’ and
with ‘Board of Governors’ in that same function so that it reads:
‘..to make
regulations respecting Theological Colleges belonging to the United
Reformed Church, to appoint the principal, professors and other
members of the teaching staff, and Board of Governors, and to
superintend their work’.
There are two
respects in which Function (vi) of the functions of the General
Assembly as laid down in the Structure of the United Reformed Church
and which apply to Westminster College is now out of date. The Board
of Governors feel that the time is right to amend it to reflect the
present situation. They concern the Board of Studies and the Bursar.
Function (vi) of the
General Assembly in The Structure of the United Reformed Church reads
as follows:
‘to make regulations
respecting Theological Colleges belonging to the United Reformed
Church, to appoint the Principal, Professors and other members of the
teaching staff, Board of Studies, and Bursar, and to superintend their
work’.
Since 1980, General
Assembly has not appointed the Bursar, and it will make for effective
management if the Board of Governors continues to exercise this
function. Hence the proposed change.
In 1978 General
Assembly agreed that the Board of Studies should be appointed by the
Ministerial Training Committee, and in 1995 the Assembly established a
Board of Governors, one of whose functions was to appoint a Board of
Studies. Neither of these decisions is reflected in a change in the
Structure. The Assembly is invited to amend the Structure to give
effect to its earlier decisions.
Resolution 9
Section O Advisory Group
General Assembly
agrees to make the following changes to Part I of the Section O
Process for Ministerial Discipline:
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1.2.
Insert “disciplinary” after the opening words “Once the¼”
Paragraph 2
Insert “(whether or
not on appeal)” after the words “particular case”.
Paragraph 3
Insert the following
additional definitions in their correct alphabetical positions and
amend the sub‑numbering of the other definitions as required:
‘Initial Enquiry’
shall mean the enquiry conducted by the Mandated Group in conjunction
with the Moderator of the Synod during the period beginning when it is
called in by the Moderator and ending when it serves either a Notice
of Non‑Continuance or a Referral Notice in accordance with the Rules
of Procedure.’
‘Notice of
Non‑Continuance’ shall mean a Notice served on the Moderator of the
Synod by the Mandated Group at the conclusion of the Initial Enquiry
to indicate that it does not intend to proceed further with the
disciplinary case against the Minister.’
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4.1 Delete
the current paragraph and replace with:
‘Subject the age
limit imposed by Paragraph 4.4, appointment to the Commission Panel
shall be by Resolution of the General Assembly on the advice of the
Nominations Committee (or such other committee as may in the future
perform the functions of the Nominations Committee), who shall in
considering persons for appointment take into account (i) the need for
balance and for a variety of skills and specialisations, particularly
in the following areas – experience in ministerial oversight, theology
and doctrine, law, counselling, psychology, mental health, experience
in conduct of meetings and tribunals, and (ii) the advantages of
including on the Commission Panel persons from a variety of ethnic
minority backgrounds.’
Paragraph 4.2.
Insert the words ‘Subject the the age limit imposed by Paragraph 4.4,’
before the words ‘Members of the Commission Panel’
Paragraph 4.4.
Insert a new Paragraph 4.4. ‘When any member of the Commission Panel
reaches the age of seventy, s/he must forthwith resign from the
Commission Panel and shall no longer be eligible to serve on any new
Assembly Commission, but any person who reaches his/her seventieth
birthday whilst serving on an Assembly Commission in a case in
progress may continue so to serve until the conclusion of that case.’
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6.4 Delete
all and replace with:’ Those charged under this Paragraph 6 with the
appointment of the Assembly Commission shall (so far as possible) (i)
appoint at least one man and at least one woman onto the Assembly
Commission, and (ii) have regard to the nature of the case, the need
for balance and the skills, specialisation and cultural understanding
of the members of he Commission Panel.’
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7.1.1
Delete all.
Paragraph 7.1.2
Renumber as 7.1.
Paragraph 8.
Delete all and
Insert ‘Procedural matters arising under the Section O Process shall
in every case be dealt with in accordance with the Rules of
Procedure.’
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11.3. Add
a new Paragraph 11.3. ‘ No‑one other than the Parties has any right of
appeal from a decision of the Assembly Commission.’
Paragraph 12.
Delete all and
insert:
12.1 ‘The Appeals
Commission for the hearing of each such appeal shall consist of the
following five persons:
(a) a Convener who
shall be a member of the United Reformed Church (but not necessarily a
member of the General Assembly) with legal and/or tribunal experience
to be selected by the officers of the General Assembly and
(b) the Moderator of
the General Assembly or if for any reason he/she should be unable
to serve, a former Moderator of the General assembly to be
selected by the officers of the General Assembly and
(c) three other
members of the General Assembly to be selected by the officers of the
General Assembly.
12.2 ‘The relevant
date for ascertaining whether persons qualify for appointment under
Paragraph 12.1 is the date on which under the Rules of Procedure the
Secretary of the Assembly Commission notifies the General Secretary
that an appeal has been lodged against the decision of the Assembly
Commission.’
12.3 ‘In selecting
persons for appointment to the Appeals Commission in accordance with
Paragraph 12.1(c) the officers of the General Assembly shall, so far
as possible, apply the same criteria as are set out in Part I,
Paragraphs 4.1 and 6.4, in relation to appointments to the Commission
Panel and to Assembly Commissions.’
12.4 ‘All persons
proposed for appointment to an Appeals Commission, in any
capacity, are subject to Part I, Paragraph 7.1.’
Paragraph 18
Delete “shall, if
requested to do so, appoint a representative to attend any hearing
conducted under the Section O Process for such purpose’ and Insert
‘shall appoint a representative to attend the Hearing for such
purpose, unless his/her attendance has been expressly dispensed with
by the Assembly Commission or the Appeals Commission as the case may
be.’
Paragraphs 21 &
22
Delete all and
Insert a new Paragraph 21
Save only as
provided in Paragraph 21.2, this Part I of the Section O Process is
subject to Paragraph 3(1) of the Structure.
21.2 Mission
Council acting in the name of General Assembly has authority by single
resolution of that Council to make as and when necessary and with
immediate effect such changes to Part 1 as are, on the advice of the
legal advisers to the United Reformed Church, required to bring the
Section O process into line with the general law of the land
consequent upon any changes in legislation and/or case law.
All such changes to
the Section O Process as are made by Mission Council under Paragraph
21.2 shall be reported to the next annual meeting of the General
Assembly.
The main function of
the Section O Advisory Group is to keep the wording of the Section O
Process itself under constant review and to advise Mission Council
upon any changes which need to be brought to General Assembly.
However, it also has the important role of providing guidance and
training for those people who will be involved in the cases
themselves. Currently it is producing five sets of Guidelines; for
District Councils, their Mandated Groups, Ministers, Synod Moderators,
members of Assembly Commissions and a more general paper setting out
the process and general timetable intended for complainants and people
indirectly affected by the Section O processes.
During the last
twelve months, the Group has also run two training sessions, one for
Synod Moderators and one for members of the Commission Panel. In
addition it is sometimes asked to examine the impact of issues of
discipline on other areas in the life of the Church.
The General Assembly
of 2002 remitted questions to the Group concerning the disciplining of
lay persons and elders, and of Ministers of other denominations in the
service of the United Reformed Church. Together with these questions
the group has been engaged in discussions on the question of the
disciplining of Ministers of the United Reformed Church who serve in
Local Ecumenical Pastorates and have been granted Ministerial status
in another denomination.
It was felt
inappropriate to use Section O procedures in dealing with Elders and
Church Members. Part 1 Paragraph 9 of Section O defines the criteria
to be used by the Assembly Commission in terms of Schedule E of the
Basis of Union and this schedule applies only to Ministers of Word and
Sacrament.
Ministers of other
denominations in the employ of the United Reformed Church will
generally be treated for disciplinary purposes as though they were lay
employees except that in cases where, were they ministers of the
United Reformed church, reference to the section O process might be
deemed appropriate, a formal reference and report to the appropriate
authorities of their own denomination will be made.
In the case of
Ministers holding status in more than one denomination the Group is
not yet in a position to report.
The Group has been
reviewing the working of the Section O Process and proposes several
changes to Part 1. While many of these are clarification four are
not.
i)
It is proposed to introduce an upper age limit at
which members of the Commission Panel must retire. This is not
because of any dissatisfaction with any current members of the Panel
but rather to bring our practices into line with the general practice
whereby Judges, Magistrates and members of Secular panels must retire.
ii)
It is proposed to alter the rule regarding
the chairing of the Appeals Commission so that this shall in future be
the responsibility of a Convener with specialist skills in this area,
rather than the Moderator of the General Assembly as at present.
iii)
It is proposed to introduce a special exception to
the rule requiring changes to Part 1 of the Section O Process to be
dealt with under Paragraph 3(I) of the Structure of the United
Reformed Church, where rapid changes are needed because of changes in
the law.
iv) It is proposed
to introduce a clause requiring those appointing the members of the
Assembly Commission to ensure that there is at least one man and one
woman on the Commission together, where appropriate, with people
appointed because of special skills, knowledge or cultural awareness.
Resolution 10
Task Group on Authority in the United Reformed
Church
General Assembly
agrees to make the following changes to the Standing Orders of the
Assembly with effect from the close of the annual meeting of the
Assembly in 2003:
Alter the title of
Standing Orders section 5 to read:
“Motions on Status
or Closure of Debate”
and add a new
paragraph 5a:
“A member of
Assembly may deliver to the General Secretary not less than 21 days
before the date of the meeting of the Assembly a notice in writing of
a motion that the General Assembly, for the better consideration of a
specified resolution and its related documents, goes into a committee
of the whole Assembly. Provided that the Moderator, Clerk and General
Secretary together decide that this rule may appropriately be applied
in the case of the said resolution, the motion shall be presented
immediately following the opening speeches in support of the primary
motion. For such a motion to be carried, two thirds of the votes cast
must be given in its favour. Committee procedure enables members to
speak more than once and exploratory votes to be taken on particular
points or suggested changes. The number and length of speeches shall
be at the discretion of the Moderator. After discussion in committee
and decision on any proposed changes the Clerk shall draw the
attention of the Assembly to any changes to the original text which
have been agreed.
The Moderator shall
then declare the committee stage to be ended, and the Assembly shall
proceed to hear a closing speech from the mover of the motion under
discussion and proceed to a vote on the motion, subject to any further
motion under Standing Order 5. The decision of the Moderator with the
Clerk and the General Secretary on the application of this Standing
Order shall be final.”
Re‑number the
existing paragraphs 5a, 5b, 5c and 5d as 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e
respectively, and in the new 5e, amend the first reference to “5a, 5b
and 5c” to read: “5b, 5c and 5d” and the second reference to “5a, 5b
and 5c” to read: “5a, 5b, 5c and 5d”.
1
General Assembly 2002 received the report of the
Task Group on Authority in the United Reformed Church and passed eight
of the nine resolutions arising from the report. The outstanding
resolution was Resolution 17, which sought to change standing orders
to make it possible for the whole Assembly to go into committee.
2
The report of the Task Group on Authority offered
the following commentary to resolution 17 (3.9.2a):
This would be a
useful provision for those occasions when a document is attached to a
resolution. At present only the resolution can be amended, which
means that the presented document must be accepted in total, as it
stands, or rejected. It has been useful, for example when considering
a proposed revision to Schedule C to the Basis, for the Assembly to
have the flexibility of working on the document in committee.
If the Assembly were
to work in this way certain practical arrangements would need to be
made (e.g. sufficient time must be allowed and consideration might be
given to asking someone other than the Moderator to chair the debate
in committee). Therefore, it would be advisable to require 21 days’
notice to be given of the intention to move that the Assembly go into
committee. Any document which might need to be considered in this way
would be included in the Book of Reports which is sent to members of
Assembly well in advance of the meeting, so the requirement for notice
should not present difficulties.
At present if a
document is to be debated in this flexible manner it requires that the
Standing Orders be suspended. A motion to achieve this must be
supported by three quarters of members in order to be passed. It
would be excessive to require such a
level of support
for a motion that the Assembly should go into committee. It is,
however, of sufficient significance to require a two thirds majority.
3
At General Assembly 2002 an amendment to Resolution
17 was tabled which did not challenge the principle of a change to
standing orders, but suggested two specific changes to the mechanism
for going into, and coming out of, committee that was being proposed
to General Assembly by Mission Council:
i)
The amount of written notice required of a motion
to go into committee (Mission Council was proposing a firm ‘not less
than 21 days’; the amendment suggested a much more flexible ‘normally
¼ not less than 21 days’).
ii)
The inclusion of a different process for coming out
of committee which would ensure that closure was reached in the matter
before the re‑imposition of standing orders. The minute would then be
read and formally agreed.
4
In the light of this amendment, and given that time
was tight to allow adequate consideration of the amendment, the
Convener of the Task Group offered to withdraw the Resolution ‘in
order that further consultation could take place’.
5
Following further consideration and consultation,
Mission Council is not persuaded by the force of the proposed
amendment for the following reasons:
i)
The amount of written notice required:
a)
Operating ‘in committee’ would likely be
considerably more time consuming for Assembly than operating under
standing orders. The timetabling of Assembly would be extremely
difficult if it were permissible for resolutions to be proposed to
move the Assembly into committee mode at any point during debate.
b)
Precedent suggests that it may not necessarily be
the Moderator who chairs the Assembly when it is operating in
committee mode, helping to make clear that Assembly is functioning in
a different way. Time would be needed to make proper provision for
this.
ii)
Process for coming out of committee mode:
a) Under the change
to standing orders proposed by Resolution 17, the original resolution
would be proposed and seconded under the normal rules of debate, then
the motion to go into committee would be put. If this were agreed
then all subsequent debate and decision‑making would be carried out
without the restriction of the normal rules. It seems appropriate for
the closing speech to be taken, as were the opening speeches, under
the normal Assembly rules, providing symmetry. Of course, as the
wording made clear, decision on proposed changes would be made while
the Assembly was working in committee, but it would still need to hear
the closing speech, and would still have the opportunity to vote
against the whole motion.
b ) It may be
difficult given the constraints of time to formulate a minute of the
decisions made in committee. Of course, everyone would need to be
clear about any changes which had been made, but this could adequately
be done on the resumption of standing orders by the Clerk (backed up
by the PowerPoint presentation) drawing the attention of Assembly to
the changes which had been made whilst in committee mode.
6
Accordingly, Mission Council brings Resolution 10
which is largely in the same form as the resolution which was
withdrawn in 2002, but with the addition of the inclusion in the
standing orders of provision for the Moderator, Clerk and General
Secretary to decide together that the suggested use of the standing
order is appropriate.
Resolutions from
the Task Group reviewing the National Youth Resource Centre at Yardley
Hastings
The text of the Task
Group’s report is in Appendix 2.
Resolution 11
Yardley Hastings 1
General Assembly
thanks God for all who have been involved in the life of the National
Youth Resource Centre, Yardley Hastings, for their commitment and
inspiration.
Mission Council
has requested that the Alternative Resolutions procedure be used.
The Task Group
presents the following alternative resolutions
EITHER
Resolution 12a
Yardley Hastings 2
The General Assembly
instructs the Youth and Children’s Work Committee and General
Secretariat to oversee its implementation as recommended in the Task
Group Report so that
a)
the Centre be renamed the “Yardley Hastings Centre
for Youth and Children’s Ministry (United Reformed Church)”
b)
the positions of Centre Minister and Centre Manager
be discontinued and the positions of Centre Director and Centre
Chaplain be created
c)
the Centre Management Committee be discontinued and
the Executive Committee be created
d)
decisions are made about the location of Assembly
staff for youth and children’s work
e)
the appraisal and review process timetabled in
section 6 of the Task Group report is implemented
f)
the ‘greater vision’ contained in Appendix VIII is
given to the General Secretary to consider as a part of the review of
the life of the United Reformed Church commissioned by Mission Council
in October 2002
OR
Resolution 12b
Yardley Hastings 3
The General Assembly
instructs the Youth and Children’s Work Committee and General
Secretariat to implement the closure of the National Youth Resources
Centre Yardley Hastings and cessation of use of the Yardley Hastings
United Reformed Church buildings by the General Assembly of the United
Reformed Church
The Task Group
will not put forward Resolution 13 if the alternative resolution 12b,
requested by Mission Council, is agreed by the Assembly.
Resolution 13
Yardley Hastings 4
General Assembly
requests all its committees to contribute to the development of the
Yardley Hastings Centre for Youth and Children’s Ministry (United
Reformed Church).
Resolution 14
Budget for the year 2004
General Assembly
accepts the budget for the year 2004, set out in Appendix 6 to the
Book of Reports
1. The proposed
budget for 2004 is set out in Appendix 6 to the Book of Reports which
also shows, for comparison, the budgets for 2002 and 2003 and the
actual amounts for 2001 and 2002.
2. Assumptions
This Budget is based
on a number of assumptions and it is important that all concerned
recognise that if these assumptions are not realised there could be a
major problem.
The assumptions
include:
·......... that a
declining budget deficit can be accepted for 2004 and 2005 provided
that we can see it being eliminated thereafter.
·......... It is the
intention that the target number of stipendiary ministers will track
membership from 1st January 2004, but the budget for 2004 is based on
the expected number of stipendiary ministers. Initially the number on
the payroll will exceed this tracking figure, but the projections show
that within a few years numbers will be on track. Indeed it is vital
to continue to encourage all suitable candidates for stipendiary (as
well as non‑stipendiary) service.
·......... that the
Ecumenical Committee and Communications & Editorial Committee will be
able to put into effect the substantial savings that they have most
helpfully offered, and that other expenditure will be within budget.
·......... that
General Assembly does not agree to any additional expenditure not
fully matched by reductions in expenditure already budgeted.
·......... that the
increase in contributions needed for the Ministers’ Pension Fund will
be 3.8%, of which the Church would pay 2.55% and ministers 1.25%.
3. Stipend
Increase
The budget allows
for an increase in stipend of 3.5% in 2004. It should be noted that in
addition to the additional 1% employee’s National Insurance
contributions our assumption is that ministers will also have to pay
an additional 1.25% pension contributions. After taking account of
inflation ministers would, therefore, have a small pay cut in real
terms.
4. Ministry and
Mission contributions
The draft 2004
budget was discussed at a District and Synod Treasurers’ consultation
at Swanwick in February. The impact of the increase in employer’s
National Insurance contributions of 1% (announced too late to affect
the 2003 budget) and employer’s Pension Fund contributions (2.55%) was
recognised as well as the difficulties faced by many congregations in
raising their own M&M targets. As a result of rigorous control of
expenditure and change in the future target number of stipendiary
ministers (noted in the assumptions above) an increase in M&M
contributions of 4% over the actual pledges for 2003 was accepted,
noting that this would lead to a projected deficit of £430,000 in
2004. Projections showed that provided our assumptions continue to be
realised future increases in M&M contributions would be lower and our
budget deficit eliminated before our reserves are reduced to a
dangerous level.
Mission Council
received a full presentation on these issues and supported the
proposals.
top |
