license

Creative Commons License
Where the stuff on this blog is something i created it is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License so there are no requirements to attribute - but if you want to mention me as the source that would be nice :¬)

Thursday 15 January 2015

the @c_of_e #simplification report - a summary of the 42 proposals and the reasons given as to why they are proposed



The clip above was posted on the afternoon of 14/1/15 and there is also a transcription (for a bit of a giggle when on the you tube site click on "More..." below the youtube clip to look at the transcript which is an english (automatic captions) one from youtube with some "truer than you think" misinterpreted transciptions - my favs are 1.47's vicious mission orders or 2.23's ....)

There is also a tumblr one page post on the report and on the Cofe website the report itself along with a discussion forum on it.

The Simplification Group’s focus was to develop proposals for simplification and deregulation, with the aim of facilitating the mission of the Church. (para 2 page 8). "At the outset we carried out a consultation (including Bishops, Archdeacons, Diocesan Secretaries, DBF Chairs, and Diocesan chairs of Houses of Clergy and Laity)" (para 10 page 9).  Annex 1 to the report includes a Table summarising proposed responses to consultation responses

My summary of what the report is proposing is below.  First I simply list the 42 proposals. Then below that list is a more detailed summary that lists the proposals along with the reason(s) why the report says it is proposing such.  (obviously there are various conditions and caveats applied to the headlines I've listed below - see the referenced paragraphs and pages for these).  


A list of other related posts and summary of reports is at the foot of this post.



A SIMPLE LIST OF THE 42 PROPOSALS


Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure (and Regulations) 2009 
Regulation 29 and short-term appointments
1) Allow curate licence extensions up to a year (if looking for a post & training OK). 
2) Allow appointment of an assistant curate as a locally supported minister for a fixed or limited time (but not priest-in-charge of the benefice).
Interim or turnaround Posts 
3) Allow appointment to interim or turnaround posts for 3 years (renewable once only)
Statements of Particulars
4) Introduce simplified arrangements for sickness reporting for Self-Supporting Ministers (SSMs) - so not to the diocese -  and to time off reporting
5) Only require - in sickness cases - medical certificates from clergy in receipt of a stipend.

Capability
6) Continue use of capability procedure to address under-performance but provide greater clarity in the accompanying guidance emphasising that using the procedure, even in its informal stages, is a last resort and should only be undertaken when other attempts have failed. 

Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011
Pastoral Reorganisation
7) Introduce a new class of Bishop’s Pastoral Order covering a range of "administrative” decisions which do not significantly impact on the legal rights of individuals or the status of churches (e.g. creation or alteration of archdeaconries or deaneries). 
8) Remove the right of statutory interested parties to be consulted about such decisions and to make representations to the Church Commissioners.  Provide instead for the bishop to decide who they think appropriate to consult and to consider any received views
Streamlined Consultation for other Pastoral orders and schemes
9) Streamline consultation of statutory interested parties on substantive pastoral reorganisation, limiting this to two stages: initial consultation on the issues, followed by consultation on proposals in the form of a draft Scheme or Order.
10) Have a statutory presumption in favour of proposals to implement a Deanery Plan validated by the DMPC unless material considerations dictate otherwise. For such proposals consultation should be on the draft scheme only (initial consultation stage on the issues is not required).

Improving consultation and engagement
11) Drafting, publishing and consulting on draft schemes to be undertaken either by the by the Diocese or the Church Commissioners, as the Bishop desires.
12) Provide for notices to be read out at services in affected parishes, and draft schemes publicised on the Church of England website (with links on diocesan websites)

Representations and Public Hearings
13) Endorse the Church Commissioners’ emerging proposal to simplify its public hearing process through a pre-hearing sift to determine cases which can be dealt with on the paperwork.
14) Give the Commissioners a power, exercisable with the Bishop’s consent, to amend a Scheme or Order, having considered representations, and to determine whether a further second-stage consultation is required.

Teams and Groups 
15) Streamline the provisions for teams and groups, including removal of enabling provisions for matters more suitably dealt with by licence, and of administrative requirements, such as holding meetings.
16) Conduct a wider review of the operation of teams and groups, particularly in the rural context, taking into account other emerging forms of collaborative ministry.

Church Buildings and Closure
“Festival Churches”
17) Amend Canon B14A to enable the Bishop to direct the use of a building for occasional services of worship only to support the concept of “festival churches”.
Church Buildings and the Closure Process
18) Establish a group to review issues regarding church buildings and, in particular, the options for change on how closed church buildings are dealt with.
Consultation on New Uses for Closed Church Buildings
19) Streamline consultation arrangements for draft schemes providing for alternative uses for closed church buildings by removing the need for statutory public consultation on such proposals (except where there are burials within the building or any surrounding churchyard).
20) Retain public consultation for the proposed demolition of closed church buildings
21) Similarly it would be retained for proposals to vest such buildings in the Churches Conservation Trust.
Membership of Churches Conservation Trust
22) Simplify the provisions dealing with membership of the Churches Conservation Trust to enable the appointment of additional trustees.

Bishops’ Mission Orders (BMO)
Initial exploration and consultation
23) Streamline the recommended practice on initial exploration 
Provisionality of BMOs and their renewal
24) Remove the requirement for an initial order to operate for no more than five years.
Role of Visitor
25) Remove much of the prescriptive provision relating to this role 
Other Issues
26) Provide additional guidance on matters such as charitable status and representation.
27) Change so that the BMO leader has the right to make representations - regarding any order to vary or revoke a BMO - to the Bishop or their delegated representative in such circumstances. 
28) A copy of any BMO made should be served on the Church Commissioners, and the revised Code of Practice should include up to date guidance on specimen BMOs, Supplementary Instruments, charitable status and representation. 

Compensation for loss of Office (by pastoral reorganisation)
29) Replace existing provisions with compensation based on the length of past stipendiary ecclesiastical service in years.
30) Provide a lump sum cash payment based on one month’s stipend for every year of service, capped at twenty one months’ stipend in total (but providing for a minimum cash payment of six months stipend regardless of length of service).
31) Provide suitable housing for a period of six months.
32) Compensate clergy for loss of pensionable service as part of the lump sum.
33) Apply the compensation arrangements to all office holders regardless of when they took office, including clergy on historic freehold.

Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976
34) Remove the requirement to consult incumbents and PCCs on glebe transactions.

Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986
35) Provide for the right of presentation to lapse to the Diocesan Bishop rather than the Archbishop of the Province after nine months.
36) Examine the scope for further streamlining of processes and paperwork. 
37) Consider whether a more fundamental review of the Measure should be undertaken.

National Clergy Payroll
38) The Church Commissioners to provide clarification and improved guidance on when a post is an office and thus eligible to be paid through the clergy payroll

Availability of Guidance
39) Encourage further consideration of how best to publicise the availability of guidance on legislation and encourage greater ease of access through the Church of England website.

Canon C4 Faculties
40) Retain requirement under Canon C4 for an Archbishop’s faculty, on an application made by a diocesan bishop, for the removal of an impediment to the admission of a person into holy orders. 

Confirmation of election ceremony for bishops
41) While the report writers do not propose amending the primary legislation, consideration of the ceremonial aspects may be a matter for Cathedrals and their legal advisers to explore further in the context of their own statutes and procedures.

Conclusion
42) Propose that the work of the Simplification Group continues in the 2015-2020 Quinquennium, working through a substantial programme of change that is likely to be more complex and in some cases more controversial. 



THE MORE DETAILED SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSALS AND THE REASONS GIVEN FOR WHY THEY ARE PROPOSED




Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure (and Regulations) 2009
Regulation 29 and short-term appointments
1) Allow curate licence extensions up to a year (if looking for a post & training OK). 
Why? to help retain clergy & their confidence levels (para 16 page 11).

2) Allow appointment of an assistant curate as a locally supported minister for a fixed or limited time (but not priest-in-charge of the benefice).
Why? Current regulations are not flexible enough to allow where local funding not guaranteed long term (para 17 page 11)


Interim or turnaround Posts
3) Allow appointment to interim or turnaround posts for 3 years (renewable once only)
Why? To allow interim or turnaround ministry in appropriate circumstances (para 18-22 page 11&12)


Statements of Particulars
4) Introduce simplified arrangements for sickness reporting for Self-Supporting Ministers (SSMs) - so not to the diocese -  and to time off reporting

5) Only require - in sickness cases - medical certificates from clergy in receipt of a stipend.

Why? A lighter-touch for SSMs will encourage a culture where there is better balance between local and diocesan oversight. (para 27-29 page 13)

Capability
6) Continue use of capability procedure to address under-performance but provide greater clarity in the accompanying guidance emphasising that using the procedure, even in its informal stages, is a last resort and should only be undertaken when other attempts have failed. 

Why?  The report also comments that " A diocese is unlikely to find the capability procedure helpful if it has not already committed itself to doing Ministerial Development review thoroughly in a way that challenges and stimulates clergy as well as supporting them" AND "If MDR is properly resourced, it is likely that, in at least some cases, potential issues will be identified, prevented and addressed without needing to activate the process" (para 30-34 pages 14 to 15).  


Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011
Pastoral Reorganisation
7) Introduce a new class of Bishop’s Pastoral Order covering a range of "administrative” decisions which do not significantly impact on the legal rights of individuals or the status of churches (e.g. creation or alteration of archdeaconries or deaneries). 
Why? to take account of criticisms that the current process of pastoral reorganisation is lengthy, difficult and expensive, and geared more towards protecting the status quo rather than focussing on mission and growth. (para 41-43 pages 16 & 17)

8) Remove the right of statutory interested parties to be consulted about such decisions and to make representations to the Church Commissioners.  Provide instead for the bishop to decide who they think appropriate to consult and to consider any received views
Why? These new provisions create greater scope for innovative and creative change which can be done in a timeframe that serves the mission of the Church.



AND

Streamlined Consultation for other Pastoral orders and schemes
9) Streamline consultation of statutory interested parties on substantive pastoral reorganisation, limiting this to two stages: initial consultation on the issues, followed by consultation on proposals in the form of a draft Scheme or Order.
Why? This is intended to reduce and speed up the consultation process while also enabling formulation of proposals based on wider understanding of practical issues including the availability and prioritisation of resources. (para 44 & 45 page 18)

10) Have a statutory presumption in favour of proposals to implement a Deanery Plan validated by the DMPC unless material considerations dictate otherwise. For such proposals consultation should be on the draft scheme only (initial consultation stage on the issues is not required).
Why? Planning for parish reorganisation at deanery level is now a widely used practice across the Church.  Recognising the extensive time, discussion and consultation that can go into producing an agreed deanery plan, it seems unnecessary and wasteful of resources to undertake further extensive consultation rounds on proposals which implement such a plan (para 46-48 pages 17 & 18)


Improving consultation and engagement

11) Drafting, publishing and consulting on draft schemes to be undertaken either by the Diocese or the Church Commissioners, as the Bishop desires.
Why? Some dioceses continue to avail themselves unofficially of the Commissioners’ expertise in this area particularly where pastoral reorganisation is rarely undertaken. The report writers propose that there should be the flexibility for this work to be undertaken by dioceses or the Commissioners, as the bishop desires. (para 49 page 19)

12) Provide for notices to be read out at services in affected parishes, and draft schemes publicised on the Church of England website (with links on diocesan websites)
Why? to improve consultation and engagement. (Para 50-51 page 19)


Representations and Public Hearings
13) Endorse the Church Commissioners’ emerging proposal to simplify its public hearing process through a pre-hearing sift to determine cases which can be dealt with on the paperwork.

14) Give the Commissioners a power, exercisable with the Bishop’s consent, to amend a Scheme or Order, having considered representations, and to determine whether a further second-stage consultation is required.

Why? These streamlining recommendations will address some of the concerns identified in this area - in particular the ability of only one individual, however remote their connections with the life of a parish or congregation, to make representations a scheme and trigger a public hearing (Para 52-53 page 20)


Teams and Groups
15) Streamline the provisions for teams and groups, including removal of enabling provisions for matters more suitably dealt with by licence, and of administrative requirements, such as holding meetings.

Why? Existing provisions (such as the relationship between the team rector and other members of the team) are in practice rarely used, do not really belong in legislation, impose an excessive level of detailed control on the team rector and in any case do not attract any sanctions if they are disobeyed - they are therefore toothless.

16) Conduct a wider review of the operation of teams and groups, particularly in the rural context, taking into account other emerging forms of collaborative ministry.
Why?  The reason is in the proposal  
(para 54 to 57 - page 21)


Church Buildings and Closure
“Festival Churches”
17) Amend Canon B14A to enable the Bishop to direct the use of a building for occasional services of worship only to support the concept of “festival churches”.

Why? Some dioceses are looking to promote a solution for particular buildings which would support lesser use, either while further consideration is given to the building’s future or longer term - which the report writers support (para 58-59 page 22)

Church Buildings and the Closure Process
18) Establish a group to review issues regarding church buildings and, in particular, the options for change on how closed church buildings are dealt with.
Why?  The report writers support proposals for a review of the strategic issues affecting church buildings generally and, in particular, the options for change in dealing with closed church buildings, including the existing division of responsibilities for closed church buildings between dioceses and the Church Commissioners (para 60-61 page 23)

Consultation on New Uses for Closed Church Buildings
19) Streamline consultation arrangements for draft schemes providing for alternative uses for closed church buildings by removing the need for statutory public consultation on such proposals (except where there are burials within the building or any surrounding churchyard).
Why? The current consultation arrangements predate wider public involvement in the planning system and to a significant extent now duplicate the statutory planning process,
This also responds to concerns raised regarding the sometimes lengthy process of dealing with such buildings.(para 62-63 page 23)

20) Retain public consultation for the proposed demolition of closed church buildings i
Why? In order for the ecclesiastical exemption (from listed building consent) to continue to operate and to take into account the wider interest in the loss of heritage. 

21) Similarly it would be retained for proposals to vest such buildings in the Churches Conservation Trust.
Why? In view of the commitment of public funds on their preservation.

Membership of Churches Conservation Trust
22) Simplify the provisions dealing with membership of the Churches Conservation Trust to enable the appointment of additional trustees.

Why? It draws attention to a larger issue of the extent to which primary legislation is generally overly prescriptive for a wide variety of statutory bodies in terms of specifying membership and other constitutional arrangements in some detail. This is an area where the report writers consider there is scope for further simplification. In the meantime they propose amending the provisions for the Churches Conservation Trust so that these provide for the process of appointments but not the size of its membership. (para 64 pages 23 to 24)


Bishops’ Mission Orders (BMO)
Initial exploration and consultation
23) Streamline the recommended practice on initial exploration 

Why? To address concerns regarding its complexity which may discourage use of BMOs (para 67 pages 24&25)

Provisionality of BMOs and their renewal
24) Remove the requirement for an initial order to operate for no more than five years.
Why? While some BMOs are planned at the outset as short-term experiments, other mission initiatives are already mature Christian communities when the question of a BMO arises. The fact that all BMOs, regardless of their circumstances, can only be made initially for up to five years (and then renewable) seems unnecessarily over-cautious and bureaucratic (para 68-69 page 25)


Role of Visitor
25) Remove much of the prescriptive provision relating to this role 

Why? There is a mandatory requirement to designate a Visitor under each BMO who exercises oversight of the initiative and provides encouragement and advice, as well as carrying out a range of statutory duties. On balance the report writers recognised the value of such a role but consider that differing oversight arrangements and models might apply, particularly for experimental or mature projects. (para 70 & 71 page 25)

Other Issues
26) Provide additional guidance on matters such as charitable status and representation.
Why? A simplified Code of Practice should also offer more guidance on matters such as CRRs, charity frameworks and housing. (para 66 page 24)

27) Change so that the BMO leader 
has the right to make representations - regarding any order to vary or revoke a BMO - to the Bishop or their delegated representative in such circumstances. 
Why? At present a BMO leader has to make such representations to the DMPC even though the DMPC is not directly responsible for the BMO. (para 72 page 25)

28) A copy of any BMO made should be served on the 
Church Commissioners, and the revised Code of Practice should include up to date guidance on specimen BMOs, Supplementary Instruments, charitable status and representation. 
Why? To facilitate sharing of good practice and collation of statistics. (para 73 page 25)


Compensation for loss of Office (by pastoral reorganisation)
29) Replace existing provisions with compensation based on the length of past stipendiary ecclesiastical service in years.
Why?  The report writers 
consultation confirmed a widespread view among dioceses that the current arrangements are highly and unusably generous in a modern context and can be a major deterrent to pastoral reorganisation.  E.g. While compensation is only payable for up to a maximum of twelve months for a displaced priest in charge, for other office holders it is payable for financial loss until retirement age unless they obtain (or unreasonably reject) a suitable alternative role. Payment to compensate such financial loss covers loss of stipend, housing, removal costs and pension, along with any other genuine pecuniary loss arising from abolition of the office.  (para 75-76 page 26&27 and para 83-84 page 28 )

30) Provide a lump sum cash payment based on one month’s stipend for every year of service, capped at twenty one months’ stipend in total (but providing for a minimum cash payment of six months stipend regardless of length of service).
Why? In proposing revised arrangements the report writers sought to ensure that clergy receive the financial and housing support they need at a difficult time, but also to ensure that compensation is set at a realistic level that does not act as an insuperable financial obstacle to pastoral reorganisation. They also wish to make entitlements as clear and simple as possible, and avoid situations where the level of compensation is complex to calculate, ambiguous or open to dispute. (para 77 -78 page 27)


31) Provide suitable housing for a period of six months.
Why? How this is provided will much depend on the circumstances of an individual case, including whether this might involve staying in the parsonage for this period, or moving to alternative accommodation (para 79 page 27)

32) Compensate clergy for loss of pensionable service as part of the lump sum.
Why? Pension Board staff were strongly of the view that it would be better simply to compensate clergy for loss of pensionable service as part of the lump sum payment, in proportion to the years served. (para 80 -82 pages 27 to 28)

33) Apply the compensation arrangements to all office holders regardless of when they took office, including clergy on historic freehold.

Why? These arrangements should apply in future to all clergy office holders, including those on historic freehold, priests in charge and SSMs, although house for duty clergy would not receive compensation for stipend or pension. (para 78 page 27)


Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976
34) Remove the requirement to consult incumbents and PCCs on glebe transactions.

Why? The original purpose of the consultation (it is presumed) was because the diocese would be disposing of what was previously held by the incumbent as benefice glebe. Nearly forty years on it can be argued that this should now be regarded as simply a decision for the diocese in the proper management of the funding of its diocesan stipends fund (para 85-86 page 28)


Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986

35) Provide for the right of presentation to lapse to the Diocesan Bishop rather than the Archbishop of the Province after nine months.
Why? In practice the Diocese continues to take the leading role and so the report writers propose that presentation in such circumstances instead should lapse to the Diocesan Bishop. (para 87 page 29)

36) Examine the scope for further streamlining of processes and paperwork. 

Why? Other aspects of the Measure could also be simplified and brought up to date.  The report writers did not have the opportunity to examine the case for a more fundamental review within the time-limits of their work but this may merit further consideration. (para 88 page 29)

37) Consider whether a more fundamental review of the Measure should be undertaken.
Why?  In any event the current processes and paperwork should be subject to further review. (para 88 page 29)


National Clergy Payroll

38) The Church Commissioners to provide clarification and improved guidance on when a post is an office and thus eligible to be paid through the clergy payroll

Why? Consultation highlighted the practical difficulties faced in determining which forms of ministry are able to be processed through the national clergy payroll operated by the Church Commissioners, including the complexities of dealing with dual posts held by those who are not full time office holders.  In terms of the administration of allowances, which it was important not to jeopardise, the report writers support efforts to increase the scope of the clergy payroll. (para 89-90 page 29 & 30)


Availability of Guidance

39) Encourage further consideration of how best to publicise the availability of guidance on legislation and encourage greater ease of access through the Church of England website.
Why? In discussions on a number of the areas the report writers considered they noted that often there is helpful guidance already available, but that this may not be widely known or easily found, particularly by those new in office. This raises questions as to how best to publicise the availability of guidance and encourage ease of access.  So they recommend that those taking forward the work of the task group on optimising the role of the NCIs should give this further consideration in the context of the Church of England website. (para 91-92 page 30)

Canon C4 Faculties
40) Retain requirement under Canon C4 for an Archbishop’s faculty, on an application made by a diocesan bishop, for the removal of an impediment to the admission of a person into holy orders. 

Why? On balance the report writers felt that this should be retained in order to ensure consistency of practice across the Church.

Confirmation of election ceremony for bishops

41) While the report writers do not propose amending the primary legislation, consideration of the ceremonial aspects may be a matter for Cathedrals and their legal advisers to explore further in the context of their own statutes and procedures.
Why?  The report writers considered a submission on behalf of Deans to abolish the confirmation of election ceremony for bishops, which would involve amending the Appointment of Bishops Act 1533, which remains in force. This had been raised previously in General Synod in the 1980s but rejected in view of attachment to the historical and ceremonial aspects of the occasion.  The report writers  noted that the 1533 Act required election “in due forme”. This need not necessarily entail a public ceremony, but the practical arrangements for determining such form would be a matter for the statutes of individual cathedrals. (para 94-95 pages 3- to 31)


Conclusion
42) Propose that the work 
of the Simplification Group continues in the 2015-2020 Quinquennium, working through a substantial programme of change that is likely to be more complex and in some cases more controversial. 
Why? The report writers recognise that some of the proposed changes may seem minor or technical in nature. Nevertheless, taken together, these proposals are an important first step in enabling mission and growth to be served by the Church’s legislation and not frustrated by it. Furthermore, they set a trajectory for further simplification and deregulation within the life of the Church. (para 96 page 31)





Related CofE Posts

CofE Discerning & nurturing paper - with Green Report attached - from January 2015

Church Commissioners' funds and inter-generational equity - from January 2015


CofE Resourcing the Future - from January 2015


CofE Resourcing Ministerial Education - from January 2015


CofE Simplification paper - from January 2015

CofE Developing Discipleship paper - from January 2015

“In Each Generation” : A programme for reform and renewal - from January 2015

The Green Report - on CofE talent management - from December 2014

CofE typos in services - a compilation of a @OurCofE twitter hashtag - from December 2014


CofE 2013 mission stats - from November 2014

Household of faith conference - one of several posts summarising - from July 2014


CofE Strategies - one of several posts summarising - from June/July 2014

Role of church in society conference - from June 2014

CofE church growth research conference - from January 2014

No comments:

Post a Comment