THE FUTURE of boards and commissions of the Archbishops’ Council came under discussion on Tuesday morning.
“Why should we change anything?” asked the chairman of the House of Laity, Dr Christina Baxter (Archbishops’ Council), as she began a presentation about the proposed changes. “Sometimes a new vantage point enables us to see what might be improved.”
The review group had started their work by informing themselves about the legal situation as regards the various constitutional bodies; then it went on to examine what they actually did, how they did it, and who took the decisions.
They took into consideration, she said, that the dioceses had called for strict control of finances at the centre, and had already done that for themselves. In their discussions, they agreed that no ideas should be off- limits, “though some of our crazier ideas did not get into the report”. She apologised that they had not shared their thinking with anyone else during their deliberations, but they wanted to “be able to tell everyone together”.
She hoped that both those who had long experiences of the boards and councils, and those relatively new to the Synod, would write to the review group with their ideas. She then went through the proposals in detail. A number of commissions and committees, those concerned with finance and legislation in particular, would remain unaffected: it was the boards and committees such as those for education, Christian unity, minority-ethnic concerns, ministry, mission and public affairs, conditions of service, and ministry for the deaf, which should be replaced by a number of small reference groups, each with a “lead person” appointed by the Archbishops’ Council, with delegated responsibility for specific areas of the Council’s work. All groups would meet during the July sessions when Synod members would have the opportunity to observe their work.
Dr Baxter said that the present system involved about 50 General Synod members in the work of the boards and councils; the new system would include up to 150 members — one third of the Synod. Even so, smaller bodies meeting less frequently, but keeping in touch by email, would mean considerable financial savings.
Questions from Synod members followed. This was not a debate, and there were no speeches.
Clarification was sought on the nature of the report and review groups, and how their lead persons would test their thinking against the mind of Synod; on whether there would be a limit to the number of bodies on which a member could serve; whether extra or extended sessions would be needed.
Dr Baxter gave reassurances about the cost and administration of the setting up of groups — members would be at the General Synod anyway — and of the greater involvement of the Synod during the year. The goal was not to multiply groups, but to work “swifter, lighter, and more effectively”.
Synod members sought reassurance on accountability and transparency, and on what real power and authority the groups would have: were they fit for purpose? The whole process was to ensure better accountability, Dr Baxter said. More people would be able to ask questions. She resisted pleas for retention of particular boards and councils.
Dr Baxter emphasised this was not a “one-size-fits-all” but “one model will fit all.” It would enable responses to be made in a lighter-touch way. She also responded to concerns that the expertise of boards and the fellowship and networks that Synod members had built up might be lost.
|
back to Synod
previous story
|
next story 
back to top
