Women Bishops 2: Resolving Disputes


L


ast month Colin Podmore outlined the legislation. Now he looks at the Resolution of Disputes Procedure.


Are we now simply relying on trust where before we relied on law? No. Te Act of Synod is not part of the


law of the land, so for episcopal ministry we have already been relying on trust not law (and Resolution C has in pracice been complied with). Te new Resolutions (not ‘leters of


request’ – that was the old, defeated legislation) will not be enforceable in the courts as Resolutions A and B are (though legal acion has in fact never been taken). But we are not simply relying on trust. Tere will be a Resolution of Disputes Procedure for challenging non-compliance with the House of Bishops’ Declaration.


What is the legal basis for the new Procedure? Te new Canon C 29 will require the


House of Bishops to make ‘regulations prescribing a procedure for the resolution of disputes arising from the arrangements for which the House of Bishops’ declaration…makes provision’. Because the Regulations will be made under canon law, refusing to take part in the process will be a disciplinary offence.


Who decides what the Procedure is? Te House of Bishops has already


decided. Tey have published the Regulations they intend to make once the Canon is in force in GS 1932. Te Regulations do not need the Synod’s approval, nor can the Synod amend them.


Can the Regulations be changed later? Te House of Bishops can only amend


the Regulations if two-thirds majorities in each House of the Synod approve the amendment.


Who will be resolving any disputes? Te Regulations will provide for the


appointment of an Independent Reviewer and Deputy Independent Reviewers. Tey will


‘administrative support’ from staff in Church House [Steering Commitee Report (GS 1924), paras 69, 24].


Who will choose the Independent Reviewer? Te Reviewer will be chosen by the


Archbishops, with the concurrence of the Chairmen of the Houses of Clergy and Laity of the General Synod.


What sort of person will the Independent Reviewer be? As the name suggests, the Reviewer


will need to be, and be seen to be, independent. Te Steering Commitee comments: ‘He or she would not necessarily have


judicial experience but would need to be judicious. A knowledge of, and commitment to, the Church of England would be important but the Reviewer should not be someone with other current


national or diocesan


responsibilities… the choice of a person of quality, integrity and fairness will be absolutely crucial.’ [GS 1924, paras 68– 9]


Who can bring a grievance against whom? A Parochial Church Council will be


able to bring a grievance against any archbishop, bishop, dean, archdeacon, rural dean or priest with the cure of souls.


Will the process drag on? No. Normally the grievance must be


brought within three months of the act or omission complained of. Te review must be completed within two months.


What will the Reviewer do? Te Reviewer can require the parties


to provide information and documents and answer questions. He or she can hold a hearing and require people to atend. It is important to remember that


have


this is a Resolution of Disputes Procedure: its purpose is to resolve disputes. Te Reviewer may seek to achieve a setlement of the grievance, for example by mediation. Otherwise the outcome is a writen report. If the grievance is found to be justified, the Reviewer may make recommendations for addressing it.


What about maters other than parish Resolutions? Although grievances can only be


brought by PCCs, anyone will be able to raise concerns with the Independent Reviewer about ‘any asect of the operation of the House of Bishops’ Declaration’, and the Reviewer may inquire into them, requiring office holders to provide information and documents and answer questions as necessary. Such an inquiry will usually be about issues in general (selection, training, ordination, appointments), though the Reviewer may conduct an inquiry into a single act or omission. Forward in Faith will be monitoring


implementation of the Declaration in general, and will send regular reports to the Reviewer.


Will the process be transparent? Te Reviewer must publish an annual


report, including information about the grievances, decisions


taken and


recommendations made, the extent to which recommendations have been carried out, other concerns received, and inquiries undertaken in response to those concerns.


Is this sort of procedure used elsewhere? Te procedure is based on similar


procedures that operate with regard to the civil service, the health service and universities.


continued on page 32


June 2014 ■ newdirections ■ 19


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36