Diocesan Synod Minutes March 2021
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NORWICH DIOCESAN SYNOD Minutes of a meeting held via Zoom on Saturday 20th March Attendees: House of Bishops – 2 representatives House of Clergy – 46 representatives House of Laity – 37 representatives Please note that not everyone attended the whole meeting, and this is reflected in the voting. The Chair was taken by Kandi Kammoun (Chair of the House of Laity), who welcomed Rosemary Pearce (Interim Diocesan Secretary) and Mark Jeffries, the new Chair of the DBF Executive Committee. Other guests were welcomed for items 3, 4 and 5, and Synod gave its consent for them to speak if necessary. OPENING PRAYERS Led by Pam Spychal (Great Yarmouth). 1. THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10th OCTOBER 2020 The minutes were approved and will be signed as a true record once the COVID-19 restrictions are lifted. 2. ANY MATTERS ARISING There were no matters arising. 3. CLERGY CARE AND WELLBEING Synod was asked to approve the following motion: ‘This Synod:- 1. Welcomes and adopts the Covenant for clergy care and wellbeing; 2. Notes the resources available on the national website; 1 3. Calls on all Deanery Synods and PCCs to discuss and adopt the Covenant; 4. Calls on all Bishops, Bishop’s Staff, Cathedral & Clergy Chapters, Deanery Synods, PCCs, congregations and the wider Church, both clergy and laity, to engage in the “Big Conversation” about Clergy Care and Wellbeing; 5. Calls on parishes to report at their 2022 APCM on their progress with discussion and adoption of the Covenant; 6. Calls on Deanery Synods to report to Diocesan Synod on adoption in March 2022; 7. Calls on Bishop’s staff to report to Diocesan Synod in March 2022 on their response to the covenant and where relevant, its specific recommendations. A video presentation was shown by The Revd Dr Patrick Richmond and Jane Keeton, a copy of which will be uploaded to the Diocesan website at https://staff.diocesan.co.uk/comfiles/view?id=1. Feedback from small groups around the following questions was received by the Clergy Wellbeing Forum via Zoom chat. They will discuss it at their next meeting. • Laity – how do our clergy know we care for them? Clergy – how do I know my laity care for me? • Laity – what are our clergy finding challenging right now, and how could we help? Clergy – what am I finding challenging right now, and who could help? • Laity – what are our clergy finding rewarding and life affirming at the moment? Clergy – what am I finding rewarding and life affirming at the moment? Following this The Revd Dr Patrick Richmond invited comments and queries from Synod. In proposing the motion and answering comments and queries he mentioned that the intention was to include all clergy, as we seek commitment to starting an ongoing conversation and the process of creating a culture in the whole church that cares for and comprehends clergy well-being. The Revd Charles Read (General Synod) commented that the project tends to focus on stipendiary clergy, and perhaps needs to remember that clergy wellbeing should include that of non-stipendiary clergy who often have to balance Christian ministry alongside a secular job. The Revd Peter Leech (Blofield) queried whether there was sufficient time for PCCs to feed back to Diocesan Synod on this. Harry Verney (Heacham and Rising) suggested that the demands on churchwardens also needed to be looked at. Time spent by churchwardens on paperwork limits the amount of time that they can spend on supporting their clergy. The Chair concluded this item and asked Synod to approve the motion. The motion was proposed by The Revd Dr Patrick Richmond and seconded by the Bishop of Thetford. 2 The result was as follows: In Favour 72 Against 0 Abstentions 1 The Chair was taken by The Revd Dr Patrick Richmond (Chair of the House of Clergy). 4. A PRESENTATION ON THE GOVERNANCE REVIEW The following motion was received by Synod: - This Synod approves the recommendations in the Governance Review pages 5, 6, 7 and 8, with recommendations iv and vi adapted as in the paper of 16th March 2021 from the Interim Diocesan Secretary, and tasks the Interim Diocesan Secretary to begin their implementation, and approves the changes to the Standing Orders and the terms of reference for the Bishop’s Council of Trustees’ Synod members had been invited to take part in workshops in advance of the meeting to explore the recommendations in detail. The Bishop of Norwich welcomed Mary Chapman who had chaired the Review Group and was extremely grateful to her and the Working Group which worked with her. Mary had vast experience both in her professional life as well as in Non-Executive Directorships and her work with the Archbishops’ Council in chairing the Audit Committee. He had been keen that the group was chaired by someone of experience so that our governance should not only be healthy and purposeful, but should also fulfil the principles of good governance that the Charity Commission outlines. Mary Chapman spoke of the questions that the pandemic had asked of us and how we respond to them. Other dioceses had followed this path and their experiences had been vital to the work of the Review Group. Good governance was crucial, not only in terms of compliance but also so that decision-making was transparent and trustworthy. The Revd Margaret McPhee (Norwich North) asked how close we were to implementing the recommendations. The Revd Dr Steven Sivyer (Great Yarmouth) was supportive but expressed concern that in the proposals almost everything fed into the Bishop’s Council of Trustees but almost nothing fed into Diocesan Synod. What assurances can be given that the ordinary elected members of Diocesan Synod can bring items to its agenda? The Revd Graham Wilkins (Humbleyard) had shared some of the recommendations with Deanery Chapter and questions had resulted mainly around where power is held in this structure, particularly around the Nominations Committee where people are nominated rather than directly elected. It would be good if this could be talked about with the rest of the Diocese. 3 In response, The Very Revd Jane Hedges (Dean of Norwich Cathedral and member of the Review Group) agreed that Diocesan Synod was a vital part of the work of the Diocese. The Nominations Committee was intended not only to make things more open but also to ensure that committee members had the requisite skills. The Ven Karen Hutchinson (Archdeacon of Norwich and member of the Review Group) commented that Diocesan Synod would be much more engaged as these reviews go through. For the Bishop’s Council of Trustees and the Agenda Planning Group, more meetings will be taking place with a clearer path through to Diocesan Synod and other bodies. This will enable people to be more engaged, and there is a real desire to work with Diocesan Synod so that everyone is involved. If the proposals were to be implemented today, then the intention is that changes will take place in Autumn 2021 when the new session begins. Susan Bunting (Diocesan Director of Finance and member of the Review Group) agreed that openly advertising posts with a view to getting people with the relevant skills can only be advantageous to the Diocese. Susan Martin (Dereham in Mitford and member of the Review Group) urged Synod to look at the proposals in the wider context and support the motion. This now allows us to have a fully compliant governance structure. Previously we have not been compliant with a lot of the regulatory recommendations. The Revd David Smith (St Benet at Waxham and Tunstead) commented on his experience in another diocese with similar structures and commended the findings of the review to Synod. He felt that there was a disconnect between the Standing Orders and the Terms of Reference, in particular where six additional members of the laity were proposed to be appointed by the Bishop’s Council of Trustees. This latter is the Standing Committee of Diocesan Synod, and it is not up to it to appoint members of Synod. The Revd Martin Young (Norwich East) was broadly supportive but expressed concern that the Bishop’s Council of Trustees would consist of seven members of the Bishop’s Staff as well as six further members being appointed by the Nominations Committee chaired by the Bishop of Norwich. As well as removing inertia the proposals placed a responsibility on Diocesan Synod to hold the Bishop’s Council of Trustees accountable. He suggested that the Nominations Committee could be chaired by someone other than the Bishop of Norwich, and that a review could take place on strengthening the work of Diocesan Synod as a consultative body. In response, Susan Bunting advised that the Nominations Committee would be chaired by a layperson rather than the Bishop of Norwich. Mary Chapman commented that the requirements for membership when bringing together the Bishop’s Council, DBF Executive and other bodies are governed by various church laws. The challenge is to put together a central group of Trustees that complies with these regulations but is not so unwieldy as to be ineffective. This could be described as a centralisation of power, but this depends entirely on the accountability of the group and is 4 why improving the effectiveness of Synod is key. It is the responsibility of the Nominations Committee that the process is clear, transparent and gives confidence in the outcomes. Gerald Palmer (Dereham in Mitford) expressed concern that the process seemed one- directional. As a member of the Board of Education he wanted this body to be able to feed things into the Bishop’s Council of Trustees.