The Methodist way

Contradictions in Standing Orders

with particular reference to

the Complaints Procedures.

 ABSTRACT

This article covers the main points on which the complaints system in the Methodist Church founders. It examines the Standing Orders, the problems created by their wording and the conflicts that are inherent in them. In particular, it looks at the powers of leaders of connexional panels of inquiry, the right of appeal against decisions, the openness and confidentiality involved in inquiries and the system of the balance of probabilities. Readers are encouraged to look at other articles submitted to this site which deal with some of these particular problems in greater depth.

 Research is based on the edition of Standing Orders (Volume 2) issued in 2016.

 

Considering the complexity of Standing Orders, particularly concerning complaints,  it is not surprising that many in the church become confused by them. There is a tendency in Conference to add Standing Orders without due regard to how any new Standing Order may affect an earlier one.

 

In general, there is not a lot wrong with current Standing Orders. Problems arise however in their interpretation and in striking a balance between one and another.

 

What follows are a few examples of the problems and confusions that can arise.

 

1. The powers of the leader of a Connexional complaints  panel - General.

 

SO 1102 states:

 

“(3) Except as otherwise specifically provided in these Standing Orders every complaints team and every church court hearing a discipline charge or appeal has power to regulate its own procedure in the light of the principles set out in Standing Order 1100 and clause (1) above and having regard to guidelines approved from time to time by the Committee on Methodist Law and Polity appointed under Standing Order 338”.

 

The powers of the leader are therefore curtailed by S.O. 1100 and in particular clause (2) which requires:

 

“justice, openness and honesty, and to the need for each of us to accept responsibility for our own acts.”

 

The problem is that there is no definition of “justice”, “openness” and “honesty”.

 

We all believe we know what these words mean, but our interpretations are all subjective – and may differ. How then can we balance SO 1102 with S.O. 1100?

 

Worse, as explained in SO 1102 and the phrase “Except as otherwise specifically provided”,  other Standing Orders[1] may have an effect on the justice, openness and honesty of any complaint inquiry and the conduct of the connexional panel leader.

 

The assessment of the justice, the openness and honesty of an inquiry, determined as it is by the leader of the panel during a complaints procedure, may differ from the assessment by the complainant or the respondent. However, there is no independent arbiter in this. The decision of the panel leader is definitive.

 

SO 1100 (3 vi) states “the person or body making the decision at each stage should be competent to do so” – and this would resolve the matter if there were any definition in Standing Orders of the competency required to serve on an inquiry panel. However, there is none[2].

 

SO 1102 (a) deals with “competency” to some degree – but it largely concerns the independence of any such person from others involved in the matter under review.

 

One problematic aspect of this is that the decision on whether  a panel member is “competent” must, of necessity,  be taken before the inquiry begins. This is particularly important, for if the leader of the panel is subsequently shown to be incompetent, there is often no remedy within the system. This is the consequence of SO 1126 (2) – for in any case in which  the complaint was referred to the connexional Complaints Panel by the complainant rather than the local complaints officer, there is no appeal possible[3].

 

If the complainant considers that a panel member is incompetent, there is nowhere in the system to lodge an appeal.

 

Ironically, this is not so for the respondent. The respondent does not have any similar restraint The respondent therefore has an unfair advantage – which is contrary to SO 1100.

 

Any person who is to be judged competent to lead a complaints inquiry should have a thorough knowledge of Standing Orders – or be willing to take advice from someone with such knowledge. Such a person must also have a track record for being fair in disputes and capable of understand the system of “the balance of probabilities” -  as well as having a forensic approach to evidence.

 

Standing Orders currently make no reference to checking such details when a complaints panel is set up – further, there is no requirement for the complaints officer who make the choice of panel leader to appreciate the necessity for such qualifications.

 

--00—

 

2. The powers of the leader of an inquiry panel – time limits.

 

 

SO 1102 (4) states

 

“ Except where otherwise expressly provided or where all those affected agree, all time limits specified in this Part must be strictly observed.”

 

 

It is the duty of the complainant to present his or her case. It is the duty of the inquiry panel to weigh “the balance of probabilities”. It follows that the complainant must present the entire complaint, for the inquiry should aim for finality in its decisions. A partial case will prevent a proper balance of probabilities.

 

All complaints are different and will require different lengths of preparation time. In addition to this, the complainant may have other duties, or disabilities, which make it difficult to prepare a complaint within the time limit that a different person may be able to adhere to. We all have different abilities, in argument, education and secretarial skills.

 

Time limits therefore depend in part on the length and detail of the complaint and the physical and mental abilities of the complainant.

 

This may cause injustice elsewhere, for if there is a circumstance when, for one reason or another, a complainant needs to take an unusual amount of time to prepare a complaint, it is in the interests of the respondents to deny the complainant such amount of time as is necessary. This may seem unfair and contrary to SO1100 (2), yet such is quite possible by one  reading of SO 1102 (4).  

 

The leader of the inquiry panel may also have reasons for curtailing the amount of time allowed to a minimum  - and may therefore not agree to the time limits that the complainant claims is necessary.

 

This is an unfair situation – and yet there is no body, or arbiter to whom to refer the matter. There is nothing in Standing Orders to determine that the principles of SO1100 establish the definition of SO1102 (4).

 

--00—

 

3. The powers of the leader of an inquiry panel – length of presentation.

 

SO 1102 (1) states that a respondent should have:

 

(i) have an adequate opportunity of responding to the complaint, meeting any charge and dealing with the evidence;

(ii) be treated fairly by any complaints team dealing with the complaint; and

(iii) receive a fair hearing from any church court which is to decide whether any charge is established.

 

These rights of the respondent in a complaints process rely upon the words “adequate” “treated fairly” and “fair hearing”. However, there are no definitions of such words  – and no system of arbitration in settling disputes over the use of them.

 

Worse however, there are no such specific guarantees  for the complainant[4].

 

It may be assumed by the connexional panel leader that the complainant has stated his or her entire case before the panel of inquiry is formed. Thus the leader of the panel may decide to determine how much time is fair, what length of complaint is adequate to the task etc, before receiving any further evidence.  However, this initiative by such a leader is based on a false premise -  that initial grievances are complete.

 

Initial grievances are rarely complete. Estimating the time necessary to prepare final complaints following the initial grievance may be longer than such consideration when based on the initial grievances.

 

The reality is often that complainants will submit a mild form of grievance initially  - in the hope that reconciliation may take place. Sometimes, there is no other way of persuading the respondents to enter the reconciliation process.

 

When all attempts of reconciliation have proved fruitless, the complainant may then take the matter to the Connexional complaints officer – and begin to write a detailed complaint. Only with the detailed complaint can an estimation of time needed for the procedure be made.

 

A further complicating element in this is that the complainant will normally have received initial responses from the respondents -  and may be using those  responses to help substantiate his or her final complaint.

 

Thus, initial assumptions by the leader of the inquiry panel, which determine his or her approach and allocation of time for the inquiry may be completely overtaken by the depth of the final complaint.

 

What seemed to be capable of being accomplished in a month, may actually need several months. Without proper and full consideration, the leader of the inquiry panel may draw up a schedule which is wholly inappropriate and unfair – yet there is no office of arbitration or appeal which the complainant might approach.

 

--00--

 

 

4. The powers of the leader of an inquiry panel – combination of complaints.

 

Standing Order 1132(2) states

 

“The chair’s preliminary case management powers are to give directions:

 (iv) that charges against more than one respondent…. be heard together.”

 

The leader of a connexional inquiry team has complete discretion in determining whether a complainant’s several complaints should be decided by the same panel at one hearing.

 

This has prejudicial possibilities.

 

The system of judgment being used is the balance of probabilities; that balance is often made on the probability or otherwise of whether the complainant is a truthful person.

 

If the balance is decided against the complainant in the first complaint, then this is likely to prejudice any subsequent balance in other complaints. This would be on the basis that someone having probably lied in the first instance is likely to have lied in other instances. The panel may take this view no matter how persuasive the evidence to the contrary may be in those other cases.

 

This is also prejudicial in that it is clearly in the panel’s interests to do so – for if they were to decide in the complainant’s favour in all instances except the first, there would be doubts about the reliability of the decision in the first instance.

 

In any inquiry in which separate complaints are considered together, there will always be this problem.

 

Standing Orders give no guidance on consideration of evidence, be it hearsay, eye-witness, or documented. When several complaints are considered together, even when the complainant presents documentary evidence, his or her credibility may be been undermined by a decision in an earlier complaint.

 

In simple terms, “mud sticks”.

 

Note further that SO 1132 (2)  refers to the “preliminary case management powers”  - in other words, the decision on how to proceed with several complaints combined – or not – is taken before the work of the inquiry gets underway. 

 

This is invariably before the panel can assess the extra evidence they may need to make a balance of probabilities. It is also invariably before the panel can assess the nature of such extra evidence.

 

Further, Standing Orders [5] allow for further investigation. Such may produce evidence that highlights significant differences between several complaints that are treated by one panel at one hearing.

 

Such a situation may lead to confusion. What if, for example, there were charges by a complainant against three separate ministers;  would it be reasonable to continue with one hearing when the substance of the complaints  was each different to all the rest, with different evidence and different witnesses?

 

And exactly what does “heard together” mean? Does it mean that the submission by the complainant must cover all the charges together, no matter  how many they may be,  – in  one single submission so that the panel can hear them together? This appears to be left to the discretion of the panel leader.

 

Arrangements for inquiry hearings may be made for one single day when more than one day is ultimately required – because several cases are being heard together. Such is the nature of busy people that there will inevitably be a desire to finish all such complaints within the space of one hearing – and the panel leader may use SO 1132 (2) in order to force such a curtailment through.

 

However, inquiry panels have discretion to take any extra time that may be necessary. Standing Order 1133 (9) (a) states:

 

“The chair of the committee at his or her sole discretion may adjourn a hearing from time to time for a period not exceeding one month, unless the grounds of the application for the adjournment are such that, if an adjournment is granted, it should be for a longer period. The date and time when the hearing is to be resumed must always be stated.

(b) More than one adjournment may be granted in any case.”

 

We should note that the rights of the complainant and the respondent are completely ignored by these Standing Orders – and of course in many cases there would be no right of appeal[6] for the complainant against any leader’s decision on such a matter.

 

Underlying all this is the fact that, while allowing complaints to be heard together, there is no limit mentioned as to how many might be reasonably combined in order to be heard together. Nor is there any definition of how many variations in the complaints might be accepted within such z conflation of complaints. How alike must complaints be to be heard together?

 

--00--

 

5. The right of appeal.

 

 

S.O. 1126 (2) states:

 

“No appeal may be brought against a decision that a complaint should be dismissed if the complaint was referred to the connexional Complaints Panel by the complainant rather than the local complaints officer.”

 

However, SO 1100 (vii) states:

 

“there should be a means of correcting any errors which may be made”

 

And  SO 1103 states:

 

“1103 (6) No action may be taken on a complaint against a person carrying out the responsibilities of a local complaints officer”  unless:

…“the Secretary of the Conference….. has agreed in writing that the complaint may be made."

 

This is a complicated way of saying “If two people, not particularly qualified in assessing complaints , think that the complainant should not have any right of appeal, they that is how it should be”

 

This is not a fair way of dealing with a complaint when we consider SO 1100 (2). It further interferes with the rights of the individual by placing the ban on the right to appeal within the complaints system – when it should be outside the complaint procedures.

 

Any appeal about decisions within the procedure must be taken by a body outside the procedure – i.e. another authoritative body of the church   

 

Right of appeal is separate to the judicial process of the complaints procedures.

 

SO 1103 points to the role of the Local Complaints officer.

 

The duties of the local complaints officer are detailed in SO1121. This officer is in charge of the “first formal complaint stage”.

 

The first responsibility is to contact both sides in the dispute, then attempt to define the complaint precisely and then settle the complaint informally. The two persons involved must be made aware of the role and responsibilities of those involved - and of the local complaints officer. The officer must ensure that the proper formalities have been explained and followed.

 

Thus the local complaints officer simply ensures openness – and that things are done in accordance with Standing Orders. He or she has no discretion – until it comes to the question of reconciliation.

 

The  local complaints officer must try to reconcile the complainant and the respondent – until he or she decides that reconciliation is not possible.

 

At this point, there is a further decision to make – whether or not to refer the matter to the Connexional Complaints Panel.

 

This decision is based on the file of paperwork that the officer has collected. There will be a document of complaint from the complainant – and a response from the respondent. These documents will  describe  events about which the complaint has been made, along with the opinions of each party concerning those events.

 

The  complaints officer must decide  whether these documents are serious enough to merit engaging the Connexional complaints panel -  which is a costly exercise. So a part of this decision is necessarily the question of cost. 

 

Beyond such burocratic considerations, what the local complaints officer is effectively doing is considering whether there is a prima facie case of wrongdoing on the part of the respondent.  

 

In short – he decides whether there is a case to answer.

 

The local complaints officer is not chosen on the same basis as a leader of a complaints inquiry team is chosen. The question of competency is not applied to the officer’s ability to be a judge – but rather on his or her ability to perform secretarial duties and to persuade people to settle and argument informally and find reconciliation.

 

It is therefore wrong to demand that the local Complaints officer make an initial judicial decision on the case – a prima facie assessment.

 

In fact, it is the duty of the connexional complaints team to consider whether or not there is a prima facie case for the complaint to be considered.

 

To have the local complaints officer do the same task is to taint the case. Taking such a decision at such an early stage may even constitute coercion to drop the matter.

 

There is also, inevitably, a danger that the first assessment will prejudice the consideration of the second.  After all, a local complaints officer has, presumably, common sense – so if he or she thought the case not strong enough to go further, then surely the connexional panel should think so too.

 

There is good reason for the connexional panel to wish to support the view of the local complaints officer – for if the local complaints officer has reached a view that the case should not go forward, then in line with S.O. 1126 (2),   the connexional panel will not suffer the ignominy of having its decision examined later by some appeal panel.

 

No judicial body is happy to see its decisions questioned.

 

In short the system outlined in  SO 1126 (2) means that, in general,  probably the most inexperienced person in the entire process determines whether the right of appeal should be taken away from the complainant. This cannot be right – nor can it be in keeping with SO 1100 (vii) “there should be a means of correcting any errors which may be made”.

 

The problem of the report by the Local Complaints officer is further muddied by a total lack of direction in Standing Orders as what should be considered by the officer and put in his report to the connexional complaint team. Not being an officer with overt judicial duties, he or she may put into this report personal opinions. Worse, he or she may use evidence concerning the complainant and respondent that is not part of the complaint or response. Such extraneous matter may prejudice the later inquiry.

 

This latter problem is particularly likely when it comes to assessing the possibilities of reconciliation. If one party is apparently “bloody-minded” about reconciliation, this consideration may be reflected in the documentation sent on the inquiry panel.

 

--00--

 

6. Openness and Confidentiality in the Complaints Procedure.

 

This is perhaps the most important point in this document, for the rules on confidentiality readily allow “cover-ups” to take place. The reputation of the Methodist Church is often at stake in such circumstances.

 

 

SO 1100 (2) states that the Church requires:

 

“justice, openness and honesty, and to the need for each of us to accept responsibility for our own acts.”

 

This conflicts with the Standing Order on confidentiality in complaints procedures.

 

SO 1104 (7) :

 

“The complainant and the respondent and any person who has brought a complaint under previous Standing Orders relating to complaints and discipline or had such a complaint made against him or her must observe at all times the confidentiality of those proceedings. The provisions of Standing Order 1157 apply if there is any breach of this obligation.”

 

The key words are perhaps “at all times”. Do they mean “at all times during the complaints process” – or do they mean “at all times until the end of time”?

 

Or do they apply to a period of five years as is mentioned in clause 11 of 1104, which indicates the “life” of a document?

 

“Any person retaining a record or copy of a record under the provisions of this Part must retain the record or copy in conditions which are appropriate having regard to the confidentiality of the document and after the expiration of five years  from the date of the document should normally destroy it or send it to the Secretary of the Conference for safe custody with the other records relating to the complaint in question.”

 

The words “”having regard to the confidentiality of the document” indicates that such documents are confidential – not only for five years, but  any period during which the document is in the keeping of the Secretary of the Conference.

 

Clause 11 refers, of course, only to documents. There is elsewhere restriction on verbal exchanges repeating the content of such documents; conversations between complaints and respondents are generally confidential. However, here again, the Standing Orders present problems.

 

SO 1111(7):

 

“Conversations between members of a district Complaints Support Group acting in that capacity and a complainant or respondent are confidential, but confidentiality does not extend to admissions or to the disclosure of material evidence”

 

 

The problem here lies with the definition of the word “admission”.

An admission is an acknowledgement of the truth or validity of something. For the purposes of the complaints procedure, it need not necessarily relate to facts that lie at the very heart of the complaint. An admission may relate to some peripheral fact. Admissions can be explicit or implicit, unambiguous or ambiguous, genuine or false.

 

It follows from this that, should there be conversations between a complainant, a respondent,  and a district complaints group, and should one of these parties tell a local complaints officer – or indeed perhaps a connexional panel leader – that one of the parties made a comment which was an implicit admission, then such a claim that there has been an implicit admission is not confidential.  Indeed the content of that implicit admission would not be confidential either.

 

If this implicit admission is not confidential, then it may be repeated publicly.

 

The corollary of this is that should the complainant in a dispute reveal such an implicit admission, it being  in the written response from the respondent and passed to a member of the District complaints group, then this too would not be confidential.  It might be published.

 

This seems contrary to all intentions in the rules on confidentiality.

 

 

Closer examination of SO 1104 (7) reveals a further problem, for it refers to the :

 

“confidentiality of those proceedings”

 

SO 1104 seems to indicate a total ban - except of course, that this clause would not apply if there is “an admission”, or “an implicit admission” as mentioned in SO 1111(7).

 

To illustrate the difficulty of this, let us examine a hypothetical situation.

 

A minister takes out a grievance against his local Superintendent. The Superintendent is coming to the end of his current term and there is to be a meeting of an invitation committee to discuss the further extension of the Superintendent’s employment. Under the terms of SO 040 there is the possibility that, in order to be fair to all, a circuit steward may request that a chair from another district intervene in such circumstances. However, many circuit stewards are not aware of such detail of Standing Orders – so in order that he be aware of such a possibility in Standing Orders and not to deny him or her the right to make such a request, the complainant reminds the stewards that the Superintendent in question is the subject of a grievance -with the implication that a chair from another district would be more appropriate.

 

Is such a reminder a breach of confidence?  Is the very existence of a complaint confidential?  Indeed, is the existence of the complaint a part of “the proceedings”?

 

Perhaps the timing of the reminder by the complainant is important.

 

What if it occurs before the connexional panel has been formed to consider the complaint? Is this any different to the situation if the revelation occurs whilst the connexional panel is actually considering the case?

 

Or, considering that the respondent has already sent a copy of his or her response to the local complaints officer – and that response has been sent to the complainant, does the admission that there is a complaints procedure in progress come under SO 1111(7) as outlined above?

 

 

 

Does the confidentiality of the fact that there is a complaint in progress overturn the rights of a steward to be warned of his or her duties under Standing Orders?

 

Where is the balance between the many Standing Orders concerning confidentiality and those concerning duties of ministers and stewards?

 

There is no body of arbitration within  the Church which can determine this. If the complaint has reached the connexional panel, the leader of that panel may make such a decision – but the danger is that such a decision may prejudge the issue before the panel.

 

--00—

 

There may be another way to approach the problem of confidentiality in the complaints procedures.

 

Since the provisions of Standing Order 1157 apply if there is any breach of this obligation of confidentiality in 1104, it follows that SO 1157 may clarify the matter.

 

According to SO 1155, those affected by the SO are:

 

“In this Standing Order, “the conducting officer” means the person who most recently became responsible, with respect to a particular complaint or charge, for exercising the functions of:

(i) a local complaints officer;

(ii) the lead member of a complaints team;

(iii) the chair of a discipline committee;

(iv) the chair of an appeal committee;

(v) the person presiding or intended to preside at the hearing of

an appeal to the Conference.”

 

It may be of significance that these are all persons involved in the procedure of a complaint.

 

SO 1157 goes on:

 

“If a complainant is in breach of the obligation of confidentiality imposed by Standing Order 1104(7) in relation to a particular complaint or charge, the provisions of clause (3) apply.”

 

Clause 3  offers us some clarity on the period of time when disclosure is a breach of confidentiality:

 

“(3) Subject to clause (4) below, where this clause applies the conducting officer may:

(i) decline to provide the complainant with copies of further documents or further information in connection with the relevant complaint or charge until the complainant has provided a written acknowledgment that all documents and information already received or hereafter received in connection with that complaint or charge are confidential and a written undertaking to comply with Standing Order 1104(7) at all times;

 

(ii) decline to provide the complainant with copies of further documents or further information in connection with that complaint or charge at all;

 

(iii) determine that the complainant shall be excluded from further participation in the complaints and discipline process relating to that complaint or charge either altogether or as set out in the determination.”[7]

 

These three paragraphs in clause 3 are all actions which can only take place within the period of a complaints process.

 

After the decision of the connexional panel is sent to the executive, the time when the complainant  could be denied “copies of further documents or further information in connection with the relevant complaint” is gone.

 

Further, it is no longer possible to “determine that the complainant shall be excluded from further participation in the complaints and discipline process relating to that complaint.”

 

All the penalties for breach of confidence apply to the period within the process itself. There are no penalties otherwise.

 

From this, one may consider that the words “at all times” in SO 1104 (7) refer to “at all times during the complaints process”, for SO 1104 deals exclusively with the complaint procedure.

 

If punishment for breaches of confidentiality during a complaints procedure only applies for the period of the duration of the complaints procedure, we should consider if there can be punishment beyond this for any breach of confidence within the complaints procedure. 

 

--00--

 

There is a more general restriction in SO 015(3A) :

 

(3A) "A restriction on access of seventy five years from the date of the last entry in the relevant document shall apply to records of a confidential nature, including correspondence, papers and machine-readable records containing personal details of a sensitive nature relating to individuals in respect of complaints, disciplinary procedures, interviews, invitations, stationing, pastoral matters, case-studies and assessment files, and the responsible supervisor shall inform the depositee accordingly in writing whenever such records are deposited."

 

This Standing Order restricts access, but does not define what is confidential and what is not – other than records containing personal details of a sensitive nature relating to individuals in complaints and such.

 

Further it appears to deal only with records in the Methodist Church archives. Persons who retain such files in their personal possession do not appear to be affected by this.

 

Does this mean that access is not restricted when the details are not of a personal sensitive nature? [8]

 

There are no details of punishments relating to any breaches of confidence of this nature, but one may presume that S.O. 040 (Failure to fulfill obligations) takes effect and disciplinary measures are considered.

--00--

 

In order to help clarify this matter, let us look to the intention of the Standing Orders.

 

We may only presume about the intentions – however, in doing so,  we should start with first principles.

 

SO 1100 begins with two important clauses:

 

Principles.

(1) The need of the Methodist Church for a complaints and discipline process stems from the imperfect nature of human beings. The Church is a fallible community and its members on occasion behave in ways which are damaging to themselves and others and which undermine the credibility of the Church’s witness. A complaints and discipline process is one of the means by which the Church recognizes that all human beings are made in the image of God and are entitled to be treated as such, and by which it maintains its witness to the new life to which we are called through Christ.

 

(2) Through the complaints and discipline process members of the Methodist Church are accountable to the Church in matters of faith and behaviour. The Church seeks to enable healing and reconciliation to take place through that accountability whenever possible. The Church also responds to the call through Christ for justice, openness and honesty, and to the need for each of us to accept responsibility for our own acts.

 

Any action by any member of the Church, if considered to be culpable in that there appears to be a breach of Standing Orders, ( which are designed to bring Order to the Church and in its dealings) , such  action may be judged to be in accordance with the principles laid down in SO 1100.

 

There is an argument that could be raised in such a context.

 

In civil law there is the “public interest defence”. This largely goes along the lines of “if the public in general is put in jeopardy by some action and that action is later exposed to the public, then the person doing the exposing is acting in the public interest.”

 

Applied to the Methodist Church, this general principle might be re-stated as “if the rules stated in SO 1100 or 1104 are breached and yet the information that is subsequently disclosed exposes something detrimental  to the reputation of the Church, then any person exposing such is acting in the best interests of the Church”.

 

In other words, if any unfairness, or any action, took place in a complaints process, then the person exposing such is acting in the best interests of the Church.

 

 

It is clear from the above that Standing Orders concerning confidentiality in the complaints procedure are in need of clarification. An alternative way forward would be to create a body which will be capable of being called upon to judge the merits of any particular incident of alleged breach of confidence.

 

--00--

 

 

7. Procedures reflecting on the system of assessment, the “balance of probabilities”.

 

 

There are many forms of evidence which may affect an assessment made on a balance of probabilities. These are the main types normally available in addition to the testimony of the participants in the complaints procedure.

 

  1. Character witnesses who may testify to the reputation of the participants, the complainant or the respondent.
  2. Hearsay evidence of someone who overheard something material to the allegations, though necessarily at the time of the events in dispute.
  3. Eye-witnesses to the events in dispute.
  4. Documentary evidence, particularly if written by either party to the dispute.
  5. Other documentary evidence, being objective proof of certain points in dispute.
  6. Physical evidence (such as a black eye etc) .  

 

Many complaints relate to matters which have occurred in meetings, or church services and such -  where several persons have been present, and who are therefore eye witnesses. 

 

Many complaints are also centred on words being said by one person to another – resulting on one of these persons taking out a grievance against the other.

 

In a search for truth, all witnesses who might be in the above six categories should  be considered.

 

However, the rights of both respondent and complainant are unclear in the Standing Orders concerning the calling and use of such witnesses. There is only one reference to this in Standing Orders.

 

SO 1131 (5 iii) states that the presenting officer:

 

“may, if he or she thinks fit, meet the complainant and any witnesses whom he or she may wish to call at the hearing.[9]”

 

This clause refers only to cases in which  a complaints team  refers a matter to a Connexional Advocate for the preparation of a charge. However, it is the best guide that exists in Standing Orders on how witnesses are to be used in the complaints process.

 

This clause, if applied to a panel of inquiry, allows the leader of the panel to meet any such witnesses and, presumably listen to their testimony.

 

It does not necessarily allow such witnesses to be cross-examined in such meetings, nor does it allow the leader to stop the complainant calling such witnesses. 

 

On the other hand the opposite is also true. The panel leader may ban all witnesses from the hearing, even choose which witnesses the complainant or respondents might call. And cross-examination prior to deciding whether such witnesses are to appear may also take place.

 

The simple fact is that a procedure which frequently needs to assess a balance of probabilities between one version of hearsay evidence against another version of hearsay evidence, there are no compulsory systems in place for the use of eye witnesses.

 

This invites conflict with the Standing Order on the system of judgment being used.

 

1133 (8c)

“The standard of proof required to establish a charge is the balance of probability.”

(It is important to remember however, that connexional complaints panels do not necessarily need to use the system of the "balance of probabilities". This is only required for hearings by a Connexional Disciple Hearing" - though most connexional complaints panels follow this rule.)

 

In assessing the balance of probabilities, there is no “red line” of law such as in the system of “reasonable doubt”. 

 

In criminal cases, such as murder, if the facts prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that the crime was committed, then the judgement will be against the accused. Such evidence will have shown that a legal line has been crossed, a law has been broken. There may be need for only a little evidence to support this. This is why criminal lawyers try to cut their case down to the essentials.

 

This is not so in a balance of probabilities. When one side is weighed against the other, the more evidence that can be found to be assessed, the more likely the balance will be correctly reached. 

 

The fact that the Standing Orders of the Constitutional Practice of the Methodist Church have so little guidance on the acquisition of evidence by complaints panels means that no matter the desire for “justice, openness and honesty” (SO 1100), vital evidence may be missed and  the balance of probability incorrectly made. This is  because the procedure does not encourage the full acquisition of evidence that is required.

 

--00--

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above document represents only a few of the confusions and contradictions in Standing Orders. A complete overhaul of the Standing Orders may not be necessary - and  such an overhaul would no doubt produce  a set of Standing Orders just as complicated as the present ones.

 

The following recommendations might help:

 

  1. The principles set down in SO 1100, in particular those of justice openness and honesty, should be labelled as “over-arching principles” ( as in Bellamy’s Guide) which govern and qualify the definitions in  all other Standing Orders. 
  2. All complaints officers should be issued with a booklet which is prepared by a legal team on how to collect evidence for forensic use. There should be a set pattern of how complaints officers should address and proceed with cases in order to properly produce evidence on which to base a “balance of probabilities”. That system of judging should be obligatory.
  3. If any person, either respondent or complainant in a case refuses in any fashion to enter a reconciliation process, then his or her reasons must be written down and presented to the Complaints management who will in turn submit such documents to an independent assessor of reconciliation. Should the assessor decide that the grounds for refusal of reconciliation are insufficient, such will be reported to the leader of the panel of inquiry handling the complaint, or to the local complaints officer if the case has not progressed further than that office.

 

 

 

 


FOOTNOTES:

[1] For example, see the effect of SO1102 (4) “all time limits specified in this Part must be strictly observed.” The imposition of a time limit on all complaints, without reference to the complexity of an individual complaint, can result in unfairness and a consequent lack of justice.

[2] See SO 1122 (2) where the phrase “whenever possible” and “if possible” weaken the requirements. Note too that the word “forensic” does not appear in the requirements. There is no absolute requirement:

“1122 (2) The person appointed as lead member must, whenever possible, have undergone

relevant training in the last two years and must additionally, if possible, have had

experience under the present or a previous church complaints and discipline process. The

other team members must be selected having regard to their skills in matters relevant

to the particular complaint, the need for balance within the complaints team (including in

particular any need which may arise in connection with issues of gender, race or disability

or status within the Church) and the geographical location of all concerned.”

 

[3] 1126 (2) No appeal may be brought against a decision that a complaint should be dismissed

if the complaint was referred to the connexional Complaints Panel by the complainant

rather than the local complaints officer

 

 

[4] Though note SO 035 (10) The process to be followed in preparation for, and during, the hearing of the

appeal shall be within the discretion of the person presiding, having taken the necessary procedural advice from the appropriate Conference officers and subject always to the overriding requirement that all persons involved should be treated fairly and receive a fair hearing.

 

[5] 1124 Full Consideration by Complaints Team. (1) As soon as possible after it becomes clear that the complaint is to be fully considered, the complaints team must agree what further steps are to be taken to investigate the complaint. They may subsequently agree that additional steps must be taken or that certain steps are no longer required.

[6] See SO 1126 (2)

[7] Such sanctions also apply to respondents – see SO1157 (5)

[8] There are of course the restrictions imposed by the Data Protection Act 1998

[9] Apart from SO 1133 (6) which is not relevant here.

 

 

 

 To return to home page press back button on your browser. Conflicts in Standing Orders/title> </head> </font> <body> <div align="center"> <table border="0" width="90%" cellpadding="45" id="table1"> <tr> <td> <font size="4"> <div style="border: 7px solid #F9B3F9"> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">Contradictions in Standing Orders</span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:3.75pt;text-align:center"> <u><span style="font-family: Arial Black">with particular reference to</span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:3.75pt;text-align:center"> <u><span style="font-family: Arial Black">the Complaints Procedures.</span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> <u>ABSTRACT</u></span></p> </font> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal">T<i>his article covers the main points on which the complaints system in the Methodist Church founders. It examines the Standing Orders, the problems created by their wording and the conflicts that are inherent in them. In particular, it looks at the powers of leaders of connexional panels of inquiry, the right of appeal against decisions, the openness and confidentiality involved in inquiries and the system of the balance of probabilities. Readers are encouraged to look at other articles submitted to this site which deal with some of these particular problems in greater depth. </i></p> </font> <font face="Gungsuh"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black; font-style: italic">  Research </span><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">is based on the edition of Standing Orders (Volume 2) issued in 2016</span></i><span style="font-family: Arial Black; font-style: italic">.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black; font-style: italic">  </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Considering the complexity of Standing Orders, particularly concerning complaints,  it is not surprising that many in the church become confused by them. There is a tendency in Conference to add Standing Orders without due regard to how any new Standing Order may affect an earlier one. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">In general, there is not a lot wrong with current Standing Orders. Problems arise however in their interpretation and in striking a balance between one and another. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">What follows are a few examples of the problems and confusions that can arise. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">1<u>. The powers of the leader of a Connexional complaints  panel - General</u>.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><u> <span style="text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial Black"> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">SO 1102 states:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">“(<i>3) Except as otherwise specifically provided in these Standing Orders every complaints team and every church court hearing a discipline charge or appeal has power to regulate its own procedure in the light of the principles set out in Standing Order 1100 and clause (1) above and having regard to guidelines approved from time to time by the Committee on Methodist Law and Polity appointed under Standing Order 338”.</i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">The powers of the leader are therefore curtailed by S.O. 1100 and in particular clause (2) which requires:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">“justice, openness and honesty, and to the need for each of us to accept responsibility for our own acts.”</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The problem is that there is no definition of “justice”, “openness” and “honesty”. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">We all believe we know what these words mean, but our interpretations are all subjective – and may differ. How then can we balance SO 1102 with S.O. 1100?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> </font> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal">Worse, as explained in SO 1102 and the phrase “<i>Except as otherwise specifically provided”,  </i>other Standing Orders</font><font face="Gungsuh"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style""><a name="_ftnref1" title href="#_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">[1]</span></span></a></span><font face="Arial Black"> may have an effect on the justice, openness and honesty of any complaint inquiry and the conduct of the connexional panel leader.</p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The assessment of the justice, the openness and honesty of an inquiry, determined as it is by the leader of the panel during a complaints procedure, may differ from the assessment by the complainant or the respondent. However, there is no independent arbiter in this. The decision of the panel leader is definitive.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal">SO 1100 (3 vi) states “the person or body making the decision at each stage should be competent to do so” – and this would resolve the matter <u>if there were any definition in Standing Orders of the competency required to serve on an inquiry panel. </u>However, there is none</font><font face="Gungsuh"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style""><a name="_ftnref2" title href="#_ftn2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">[2]</span></span></a></span><font face="Arial Black">. </p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">SO 1102 (a) deals with “competency” to some degree – but it largely concerns the independence of any such person from others involved in the matter under review. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal">One problematic aspect of this is that the decision on whether  a panel member is “competent” must, of necessity,  be taken <i>before the inquiry begins. </i>This is particularly important, for if the leader of the panel is subsequently shown to be incompetent, there is often no remedy within the system. This is the consequence of SO 1126 (2) – for in any case in which  the complaint was referred to the connexional Complaints Panel <i>by the complainant</i> rather than the local complaints officer, <u>there is no appeal possible</u></font><font face="Gungsuh"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style""><a name="_ftnref3" title href="#_ftn3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">[3]</span></span></a></span><font face="Arial Black">. </p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">If the complainant considers that a panel member is incompetent, there is <u>nowhere in the system to lodge an appeal</u>. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Ironically, this is not so for the respondent. The respondent does not have any similar restraint The respondent therefore has an unfair advantage – which is contrary to SO 1100.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Any person who is to be judged competent to lead a complaints inquiry should have a thorough knowledge of Standing Orders – or be willing to take advice from someone with such knowledge. Such a person must also have a track record for being fair in disputes and capable of understand the system of “the balance of probabilities” -  as well as having a forensic approach to evidence.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Standing Orders currently make no reference to checking such details when a complaints panel is set up – further, there is no requirement for the complaints officer who make the choice of panel leader to appreciate the necessity for such qualifications. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">--00—</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">2. <u>The powers of the leader of an inquiry pa</u>nel – time limits. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u> <span style="text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial Black"> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u> <span style="text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial Black"> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family: Arial Black">SO 1102 (4) states </span></u></p> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal"><i> </i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>“ Except where otherwise expressly provided or where all those affected agree, all time limits specified in this Part must be strictly observed.” </i></p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">It is the duty of the complainant to present his or her case. It is the duty of the inquiry panel to weigh “the balance of probabilities”. It follows that the complainant must present the <i>entire</i> complaint, for the inquiry should aim for finality in its decisions. A <i>partial</i> case will prevent a proper balance of probabilities.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">All complaints are different and will require different lengths of preparation time. In addition to this, the complainant may have other duties, or disabilities, which make it difficult to prepare a complaint within the time limit that a different person may be able to adhere to. We all have different abilities, in argument, education and secretarial skills.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Time limits therefore depend in part on the length and detail of the complaint and the physical and mental abilities of the complainant. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">This may cause injustice elsewhere, for if there is a circumstance when, for one reason or another, a complainant needs to take an unusual amount of time to prepare a complaint, it is <i>in the interests of the respondents</i> to deny the complainant such amount of time as is necessary. This may seem unfair and contrary to SO1100 (2), yet such is quite possible by one  reading of SO 1102 (4).  </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The leader of the inquiry panel may also have reasons for curtailing the amount of time allowed to a minimum  - and may therefore not agree to the time limits that the complainant claims is necessary. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">This is an unfair situation – and yet there is no body, or arbiter to whom to refer the matter. There is nothing in Standing Orders to determine that the principles of SO1100 establish the definition of SO1102 (4). </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">--00—</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">3<u>. The powers of the leader of an inquiry panel – length of presentation</u>.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">SO 1102 (1) states that a respondent should have:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal"></font><i> <font face="Arial Black"> (</font><font face="Gungsuh"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">i) have an adequate opportunity of responding to the complaint, meeting any charge and dealing with the evidence;</span></font></i><font face="Gungsuh"></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">(ii) be treated fairly by any complaints team dealing with the complaint; and </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">(iii) receive a fair hearing from any church court which is to decide whether any charge is established.</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">These rights <i>of the respondent</i> in a complaints process rely upon the words “adequate” “treated fairly” and “fair hearing”. However, there are no definitions of such words  – and no system of arbitration in settling disputes over the use of them.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal">Worse however, there are no such specific guarantees  </font><u> <font face="Arial Black"> for the complainant</font><font face="Gungsuh"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style""><a name="_ftnref4" title href="#_ftn4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><u><span style="font-family: Arial Black">[4]</span></u></span></a></span><font face="Arial Black">.</font></font></u><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Arial Black"></p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">It may be assumed by the connexional panel leader that the complainant has stated his or her entire case before the panel of inquiry is formed. Thus the leader of the panel may decide to determine how much time is fair, what length of complaint is adequate to the task etc, <i>before</i> receiving any further evidence.  However, this initiative by such a leader is based on a false premise -  that initial grievances are complete. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Initial grievances are rarely complete. Estimating the time necessary to prepare final complaints following the initial grievance may be longer than such consideration when based on the initial grievances.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The reality is often that complainants will submit a mild form of grievance initially  - in the hope that reconciliation may take place. Sometimes, there is no other way of persuading the respondents to enter the reconciliation process. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">When all attempts of reconciliation have proved fruitless, the complainant may then take the matter to the Connexional complaints officer – and begin to write a detailed complaint. Only with the detailed complaint can an estimation of time needed for the procedure be made. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">A further complicating element in this is that the complainant will normally have received initial responses from the respondents -  and may be using those  responses to help substantiate his or her final complaint. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Thus, initial assumptions by the leader of the inquiry panel, which determine his or her approach and allocation of time for the inquiry may be completely overtaken by the depth of the final complaint. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">What seemed to be capable of being accomplished in a month, may actually need several months. Without proper and full consideration, the leader of the inquiry panel may draw up a schedule which is wholly inappropriate and unfair – yet there is no office of arbitration or appeal which the complainant might approach. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">--00--</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">4. <u>The powers of the leader of an inquiry pa</u>nel – combination of complaints. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Standing Order 1132(2) states </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">“</span><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The chair’s preliminary case management powers are to give directions:</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> (iv) that charges against more than one respondent…. be heard together.”</span></i></p> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The leader of a connexional inquiry team has complete discretion in determining whether a complainant’s several complaints should be decided by the same panel at one hearing.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">This has prejudicial possibilities. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The system of judgment being used is the balance of probabilities; that balance is often made on the probability or otherwise of whether the complainant is a truthful person. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">If the balance is decided against the complainant in the first complaint, then this is likely to prejudice any subsequent balance in other complaints. This would be on the basis that someone having probably lied in the first instance is likely to have lied in other instances. The panel may take this view no matter how persuasive the evidence to the contrary may be in those other cases. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">This is also prejudicial in that it is clearly in the panel’s interests to do so – for if they were to decide in the complainant’s favour in all instances except the first, there would be doubts about the reliability of the decision in the first instance. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">In any inquiry in which separate complaints are considered together, there will always be this problem. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Standing Orders give no guidance on consideration of evidence, be it hearsay, eye-witness, or documented. When several complaints are considered together, even when the complainant presents documentary evidence, his or her credibility may be been undermined by a decision in an earlier complaint. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">In simple terms, “mud sticks”.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Note further that SO 1132 (2)  refers to the “preliminary case management powers”  - in other words, the decision on how to proceed with several complaints combined – or not – is taken <i>before the work of the inquiry gets underway.  </i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">This is invariably before the panel can assess the extra evidence they may need to make a balance of probabilities. It is also invariably before the panel can assess the nature of such extra evidence. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal">Further, Standing Orders </font> <font face="Gungsuh"> <span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style""> <a name="_ftnref5" title href="#_ftn5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">[5]</span></span></a></span><font face="Arial Black"> allow for further investigation. Such may produce evidence that highlights significant differences between several complaints that are treated by one panel at one hearing. </p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Such a situation may lead to confusion. What if, for example, there were charges by a complainant against three separate ministers;  would it be reasonable to continue with one hearing when the substance of the complaints  was <i>each different to all the rest, with different evidence and different witnesses?</i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">And exactly what does “heard together” mean? Does it mean that the <i>submission </i>by the complainant must cover <i>all the charges</i> together, no matter  how many they may be,  – in  one <i>single</i> submission so that the panel can hear them together? This appears to be left to the discretion of the panel leader.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Arrangements for inquiry hearings may be made for one single day when more than one day is ultimately required – because several cases are being heard together. Such is the nature of busy people that there will inevitably be a desire to finish all such complaints within the space of one hearing – and the panel leader may use SO 1132 (2) in order to force such a curtailment through. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">However, inquiry panels have discretion to take any extra time that may be necessary. Standing Order 1133 (9) (a) states:<br> <br>  </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">“The chair of the committee at his or her sole discretion may adjourn a hearing from time to time for a period not exceeding one month, unless the grounds of the application for the adjournment are such that, if an adjournment is granted, it should be for a longer period. The date and time when the hearing is to be resumed must always be stated.</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">(b) More than one adjournment may be granted in any case.”</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal">We should note that <u>the rights of the complainant and the respondent are completely ignored by these Standing Orders</u> – and of course in many cases there would be no right of appeal</font><font face="Gungsuh"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style""><a name="_ftnref6" title href="#_ftn6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">[6]</span></span></a></span><font face="Arial Black"> for the complainant against any leader’s decision on such a matter.</p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Underlying all this is the fact that, while allowing complaints to be heard together, there is no limit mentioned as to how many might be reasonably combined in order to be heard together. Nor is there any definition of how many variations in the complaints might be accepted within such z conflation of complaints. How alike must complaints be to be heard together? </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">--00--</span></p> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family: Arial Black">5. The right of appeal.</span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">S.O. 1126 (2) states:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">“<i>No appeal may be brought against a decision that a complaint should be dismissed if the complaint was referred to the connexional Complaints Panel by the complainant rather than the local complaints officer.”</i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">However, SO 1100 (vii) states:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">“there should be a means of correcting any errors which may be made”</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">And  SO 1103 states:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">“1103 (6) No action may be taken on a complaint against a person carrying out the responsibilities of a local complaints officer”  </span></i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">unless:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">…“the Secretary of the Conference….. has agreed in writing that the complaint may be made."</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">This is a complicated way of saying <i>“If two people, not particularly qualified in assessing complaints , think that the complainant should not have any right of appeal, they that is how it should be</i>”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">This is not a fair way of dealing with a complaint when we consider SO 1100 (2). It further interferes with the rights of the individual by placing the ban on the right to appeal <i>within</i> the complaints system – when it should be outside the complaint procedures. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Any appeal about decisions <i>within </i>the procedure must be taken by a body <i>outside</i> the procedure – i.e. another authoritative body of the church   </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Right of appeal is separate to the judicial process of the complaints procedures</span></u><span style="font-family: Arial Black">. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">SO 1103 points to the role of the Local Complaints officer.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The duties of the local complaints officer are detailed in SO1121. This officer is in charge of the “first formal complaint stage”.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">The first responsibility is to contact both sides in the dispute, then attempt to define the complaint precisely and then settle the complaint informally. The two persons involved must be made aware of the role and responsibilities of those involved - and of the local complaints officer</span><font face="Arial Black"><span style="font-family: FranklinGothic-Book">. </span></font><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The officer must ensure that the proper formalities have been explained and followed. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">Thus the local complaints officer simply ensures <i>openness</i> – and that things are done in accordance with Standing Orders. He or she has no discretion – until it comes to the question of reconciliation. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">The  local complaints officer must try to reconcile the complainant and the respondent – until he or she decides that reconciliation is not possible.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">At this point, there is a further decision to make – whether or not to refer the matter to the Connexional Complaints Panel.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">This decision is based on the file of paperwork that the officer has collected. There will be a document of complaint from the complainant – and a response from the respondent. These documents will  describe  events about which the complaint has been made, along with the opinions of each party concerning those events.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">The  complaints officer must decide  whether these documents are serious enough to merit engaging the Connexional complaints panel -  which is a costly exercise. So a part of this decision is necessarily the question of cost.  </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">Beyond such burocratic considerations, what the local complaints officer is effectively doing is considering whether <u> there is a prima facie case of wrongdoing on the part of the respondent.  </u></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><u> <span style="text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial Black"> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">In short – he decides whether there is a case to answer.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">The local complaints officer is not chosen on the same basis as a leader of a complaints inquiry team is chosen. The question of competency is not applied to the officer’s <i>ability to be a judge</i> – but rather on his or her ability to perform secretarial duties and to persuade people to settle and argument informally and find reconciliation.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">It is therefore wrong to demand that the local Complaints officer make <i>an initial judicial decision</i> on the case – a prima facie assessment. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">In fact, it is the duty of the connexional complaints team to consider whether or not there is a prima facie case for the complaint to be considered. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">To have the local complaints officer do the same task is to taint the case. Taking such a decision at such an early stage may even constitute coercion to drop the matter. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">There is also, inevitably, a danger that the first assessment will prejudice the consideration of the second.  After all, a local complaints officer has, presumably, common sense – so if he or she thought the case not strong enough to go further, then surely the connexional panel should think so too.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">There is good reason for the connexional panel to wish to support the view of the local complaints officer – for if the local complaints officer has reached a view that the case should not go forward, then in line with S.O. 1126 (2),   the connexional panel will not suffer the ignominy of having its decision examined later by some appeal panel. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">No judicial body is happy to see its decisions questioned.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">In short the system outlined in  SO 1126 (2) means that, in general,  probably the most <u>inexperienced person</u> in the entire process determines whether the right of appeal should be taken away from the complainant. This cannot be right – nor can it be in keeping with SO 1100 (vii) <i>“there should be a means of correcting any errors which may be made”.</i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The problem of the report by the Local Complaints officer is further muddied by a total lack of direction in Standing Orders as what should be considered by the officer and put in his report to the connexional complaint team. Not being an officer with overt judicial duties, he or she may put into this report personal opinions. Worse, he or she may use evidence concerning the complainant and respondent that is not part of the complaint or response. Such extraneous matter may prejudice the later inquiry. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">This latter problem is particularly likely when it comes to assessing the possibilities of reconciliation. If one party is apparently “bloody-minded” about reconciliation, this consideration may be reflected in the documentation sent on the inquiry panel. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">--00--</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family: Arial Black">6. Openness and Confidentiality in the Complaints Procedure.</span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">This is perhaps the most important point in this document, for the rules on confidentiality readily allow “cover-ups” to take place. The reputation of the Methodist Church is often at stake in such circumstances.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">SO 1100 (2) states that the Church requires:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">“justice, openness and honesty, and to the need for each of us to accept responsibility for our own acts.”</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">This conflicts with the Standing Order on confidentiality in complaints procedures. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">SO 1104 (7) :</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">“The complainant and the respondent and any person who has brought a complaint under previous Standing Orders relating to complaints and discipline or had such a complaint made against him or her must observe at all times the confidentiality of those proceedings. The provisions of Standing Order 1157 apply if there is any breach of this obligation.”</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The key words are perhaps “at all times”. Do they mean <i>“at all times during the complaints process” </i>– or do they mean <i>“at all times until the end of time”? </i> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Or do they apply to a period of five years as is mentioned in clause 11 of 1104, which indicates the “life” of a document?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">“Any person retaining a record or copy of a record under the provisions of this Part must retain the record or copy in conditions which are appropriate having regard to the confidentiality of the document and after the expiration of five years  from the date of the document should normally destroy it or send it to the Secretary of the Conference for safe custody with the other records relating to the complaint in question.”</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">The words “”having regard to the confidentiality of the document” indicates that such documents are confidential – not only for five years, but  any period during which the document is in the keeping of the Secretary of the Conference.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Clause 11 refers, of course, only to <u>documents</u>. There is elsewhere restriction on verbal exchanges repeating the content of such documents; conversations between complaints and respondents are generally confidential. However, here again, the Standing Orders present problems. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">SO 1111(7):</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">“Conversations between members of a district Complaints Support Group acting in that capacity and a complainant or respondent are confidential, but confidentiality does not extend to admissions or to the disclosure of material evidence” </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The problem here lies with the definition of the word “admission”.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">An admission is an acknowledgement of the truth or validity of something. For the purposes of the complaints procedure, it need not necessarily relate to facts that lie at the very heart of the complaint. An admission may relate to some peripheral fact. Admissions can be explicit or implicit, unambiguous or ambiguous, genuine or false.</span><font face="Arial Black"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">It follows from this that, should there be <i>conversations</i> between a complainant, a respondent,  and a district complaints group, and should one of these parties tell a local complaints officer – or indeed perhaps a connexional panel leader – that one of the parties made a comment which was an implicit admission, then such a claim that there has been an implicit admission is <u>not confidential</u>.  Indeed the content of that implicit admission would not be confidential either.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">If this implicit admission is not confidential, then it may be repeated publicly. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The corollary of this is that should the complainant in a dispute reveal such an implicit admission, it being  in the written response from the respondent and passed to a member of the District complaints group, then <u>this too would not be confidential</u>.  It might be published.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">This seems contrary to all intentions in the rules on confidentiality. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Closer examination of SO 1104 (7) reveals a further problem, for it refers to the :</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">“confidentiality of those proceedings”</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">SO 1104 seems to indicate a total ban - except of course, that this clause would not apply if there is “an admission”, or “an implicit admission” as mentioned in SO 1111(7).</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">To illustrate the difficulty of this, let us examine a hypothetical situation. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>A minister takes out a grievance against his local Superintendent. The Superintendent is coming to the end of his current term and there is to be a meeting of an invitation committee to discuss the further extension of the Superintendent’s employment. Under the terms of SO 040 there is the possibility that, in order to be fair to all, a circuit steward may request that a chair from another district intervene in such circumstances. However, many circuit stewards are not aware of such detail of Standing Orders – so in order that he be aware of such a possibility in Standing Orders and not to deny him or her the right to make such a request, the complainant reminds the stewards that the Superintendent in question is the subject of a grievance -with the implication that a chair from another district would be more appropriate. </i></p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Is such a reminder a breach of confidence?  Is the <i>very existence</i> of a complaint confidential?  Indeed, is the <u>existence </u>of the complaint a part of “the proceedings”?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Perhaps the <i> timing</i> of the reminder by the complainant is important. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">What if it occurs <i>before </i>the connexional panel has been formed to consider the complaint? Is this any different to the situation if the revelation occurs whilst the connexional panel is actually considering the case?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Or, considering that the respondent has already sent a copy of his or her response to the local complaints officer – and that response has been sent to the complainant, does the admission that there is a complaints procedure in progress come under SO 1111(7) as outlined above?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Does the confidentiality of the fact that there is a complaint in progress overturn the rights of a steward to be warned of his or her duties under Standing Orders?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Where is the balance between the many Standing Orders concerning confidentiality and those concerning duties of ministers and stewards?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">There is no body of arbitration within  the Church which can determine this. If the complaint has reached the connexional panel, the leader of that panel may make such a decision – but the danger is that such a decision may prejudge the issue before the panel. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">--00—</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">There may be another way to approach the problem of confidentiality in the complaints procedures. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Since the provisions of Standing Order 1157 apply if there is any breach of this obligation of confidentiality in 1104, it follows that SO 1157 may clarify the matter. </span> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">According to SO 1155, those affected by the SO are:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">“In this Standing Order, “the conducting officer” means the person who most recently became responsible, with respect to a particular complaint or charge, for exercising the functions of:</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">(i) a local complaints officer;</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">(ii) the lead member of a complaints team;</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">(iii) the chair of a discipline committee;</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">(iv) the chair of an appeal committee;</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">(v) the person presiding or intended to preside at the hearing of</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">an appeal to the Conference.”</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">It may be of significance that these <i>are all persons involved in the procedure of <u>a complaint</u>. </i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">SO 1157 goes on:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">“If a complainant is in breach of the obligation of confidentiality imposed by Standing Order 1104(7) in relation to a particular complaint or charge, the provisions of clause (3) apply.”</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Clause 3  offers us some clarity on the <u>period of time when disclosure is a breach of confidentiality:</u></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">“(3) Subject to clause (4) below, where this clause applies the conducting officer may:</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">(i) decline to provide the complainant with copies of further documents or further information in connection with the relevant complaint or charge until the complainant has provided a written acknowledgment that all documents and information already received or hereafter received in connection with that complaint or charge are confidential and a written undertaking to comply with Standing Order 1104(7) at all times;</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">(ii) decline to provide the complainant with copies of further documents or further information in connection with that complaint or charge at all;</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">(iii) determine that the complainant shall be excluded from further participation in the complaints and discipline process relating to that </span> <font face="Arial Black"> complaint or charge either altogether or as set out in the determination.”</font><font face="Gungsuh"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style"><a name="_ftnref7" title href="#_ftn7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><b><span style="font-family: Arial Black">[7]</span></b></span></a></span></font></i><font face="Gungsuh"></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">These three paragraphs in clause 3 are <u>all actions which can only take place within the period of a complaints process</u>. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">After the decision of the connexional panel is sent to the executive, the time when the complainant  could be denied <i>“copies of further documents or further information in connection with the relevant complaint</i>” is gone. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Further, it is no longer possible to “<i>determine that the complainant shall be excluded from further participation in the complaints and discipline process relating to that complaint.”</i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">All the penalties for breach of confidence apply to the period within the process itself. There are no penalties otherwise.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">From this, one may consider that the words “at all times” in SO 1104 (7) refer to <u>“at all times during the complaints process”, </u>for SO 1104 deals exclusively with the complaint procedure. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">If punishment for breaches of confidentiality during a complaints procedure only applies for the period of the duration of the complaints procedure, we should consider if there can be punishment beyond this for any breach of confidence within the complaints procedure.  </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">--00--</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">There is a more general restriction in SO 015(3A)</span><font face="Arial Black"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT"> :</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">(</font><font face="Gungsuh"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">3A) "A restriction on access of seventy five years from the date of the last entry in the relevant document shall apply to records of a confidential nature, including correspondence, papers and machine-readable records containing personal details of a sensitive nature relating to individuals in respect of complaints, disciplinary procedures, interviews, invitations, stationing, pastoral matters, case-studies and assessment files, and the responsible supervisor shall inform the depositee accordingly in writing whenever such records are deposited."</span></i></p> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT"> </span></p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">This Standing Order restricts <u>access,</u> but does not <u>define</u> what is confidential and what is not – other than records containing personal details of a sensitive nature relating to individuals in complaints and such.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">Further it appears to deal only with records in the Methodist Church archives. Persons who retain such files in their personal possession do not appear to be affected by this. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">Does this mean that access is <i>not restricted</i> when the details are not of a personal sensitive nature? </font> <font face="Gungsuh"> <span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style"> <a name="_ftnref8" title href="#_ftn8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">[8]</span></span></a></span><font face="Arial Black"> </p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">There are no details of punishments relating to any breaches of confidence of this nature, but one may presume that S.O. 040 (Failure to fulfill obligations) takes effect and disciplinary measures are considered.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">--00--</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">In order to help clarify this matter, let us look to the <i>intention </i>of the Standing Orders.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">We may only presume about the intentions – however, in doing so,  we should start with first principles. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">SO 1100 begins with two important clauses:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Principles. </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">(1) The need of the Methodist Church for a complaints and discipline process stems from the imperfect nature of human beings. The Church is a fallible community and its members on occasion behave in ways which are damaging to themselves and others and which undermine the credibility of the Church’s witness. A complaints and discipline process is one of the means by which the Church recognizes that all human beings are made in the image of God and are entitled to be treated as such, and by which it maintains its witness to the new life to which we are called through Christ.</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">(2) Through the complaints and discipline process members of the Methodist Church are accountable to the Church in matters of faith and behaviour. The Church seeks to enable healing and reconciliation to take place through that accountability whenever possible. The Church also responds to the call through Christ for justice, openness and honesty, and to the need for each of us to accept responsibility for our own acts.</span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Any action by any member of the Church, if considered to be culpable in that there appears to be a breach of Standing Orders, ( which are designed to bring <u>Order </u>to the Church and in its dealings) , such  action may be judged to be in accordance with the principles laid down in SO 1100.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">There is an argument that could be raised in such a context. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">In civil law there is the “public interest defence”. This largely goes along the lines of <i>“if the public in general is put in jeopardy by some action and that action is later exposed to the public, then the person doing the exposing is acting in the public interest.”</i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Applied to the Methodist Church, this general principle might be re-stated as “<i>if the rules stated in SO 1100 or 1104 are breached and yet the information that is subsequently disclosed exposes something detrimental  to the reputation of the Church, then any person exposing such is acting in the best interests of the Church”.</i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">In other words, if any unfairness, or any action, took place in a complaints process, then the person exposing such is acting in the best interests of the Church. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">It is clear from the above that Standing Orders concerning confidentiality in the complaints procedure are in need of clarification. An alternative way forward would be to create a body which will be capable of being called upon to judge the merits of any particular incident of alleged breach of confidence.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">--00--</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">7. <u>Procedures reflecting on the system of assessment, the “balance of probabilities”.</u></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">There are many forms of evidence which may affect an assessment made on a balance of probabilities. These are the main types normally available in addition to the testimony of the participants in the complaints procedure.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <ol style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0cm" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Character witnesses who may testify to the reputation of the participants, the complainant or the respondent.</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Hearsay evidence of someone who overheard something material to the allegations, though necessarily at the time of the events in dispute.</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Eye-witnesses to the events in dispute.</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Documentary evidence, particularly if written by either party to the dispute.</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Other documentary evidence, being objective proof of certain points in dispute.</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Physical evidence (such as a black eye etc) .   </span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Many complaints relate to matters which have occurred in meetings, or church services and such -  where several persons have been present, and who are therefore eye witnesses.  </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">Many complaints are also centred on words being said by one person to another – resulting on one of these persons taking out a grievance against the other. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">In a search for truth, all witnesses who might be in the above six categories should  be considered. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">However, the rights of both respondent and complainant are unclear in the Standing Orders concerning the calling and use of such witnesses. There is only one reference to this in Standing Orders. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">SO 1131 (5 iii) states that the presenting officer: </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">“may, if he or she thinks fit, meet the complainant and any witnesses </span> <font face="Arial Black"> whom he or she may wish to call at the hearing.</font><font face="Gungsuh"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style"><a name="_ftnref9" title href="#_ftn9"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><b><span style="font-family: Arial Black">[9]</span></b></span></a></span><font face="Arial Black">”</font></font></i><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Arial Black"></p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">This clause refers only to cases in which  a complaints team  refers a matter to a Connexional Advocate for the preparation of a charge. However, it is the best guide that exists in Standing Orders on how witnesses are to be used in the complaints process.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">This clause, if applied to a panel of inquiry, allows the leader of the panel to meet any such witnesses and, presumably listen to their testimony. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">It does not necessarily allow such witnesses to be cross-examined in such meetings, nor does it allow the leader to stop the complainant calling such witnesses.  </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">On the other hand the opposite is also true. The panel leader may ban all witnesses from the hearing, even choose which witnesses the complainant or respondents might call. And cross-examination prior to deciding whether such witnesses are to appear may also take place. </span> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">The simple fact is that a procedure which frequently needs to assess a balance of probabilities between one version of hearsay evidence against another version of hearsay evidence, there are no compulsory systems in place for the use of eye witnesses.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">This invites conflict with the Standing Order on the system of judgment being used.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">1133 (8c)</span><font face="Arial Black"><span style="font-family: FranklinGothic-Book"> </span></p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">“The standard of proof required to establish a charge is the balance of probability.”</span></i><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">(It is important to remember however, that connexional c<u>omplaints panels</u> do not necessarily need to use the system of the "balance of probabilities". This is only required for hearings by a Connexional Disciple Hearing" - though most connexional complaints panels follow this rule.)</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">In assessing the balance of probabilities, there is no “red line” of law such as in the system of “reasonable doubt”.  </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">In criminal cases, such as murder, if the facts prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that the crime was committed, then the judgement will be against the accused. Such evidence will have shown that a legal line has been crossed, a law has been broken. There may be need for only a little evidence to support this. This is why criminal lawyers try to cut their case down to the essentials. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">This is not so in a balance of probabilities. When one side is weighed against the other, the more evidence that can be found to be assessed, the more likely the balance will be correctly reached.  </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">The fact that the Standing Orders of the Constitutional Practice of the Methodist Church have so little guidance on the acquisition of evidence by complaints panels means that no matter the desire for “<i>justice, o</i></span><i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">penness and honesty” </span></i><span style="font-family: Arial Black">(SO 1100), vital evidence may be missed and  the balance of probability incorrectly made. This is  because the procedure does not encourage the full acquisition of evidence that is required. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">--00--</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black">.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <font face="Arial Black"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <span style="font-family: FranklinGothic-Book"> </span></p> </font> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The above document represents only a few of the confusions and contradictions in Standing Orders. A complete overhaul of the Standing Orders may not be necessary - and  such an overhaul would no doubt produce  a set of Standing Orders just as complicated as the present ones.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The following recommendations might help:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black"> </span></p> <ol style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0cm" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">The principles set down in SO 1100, in particular those of justice openness and honesty, should be labelled as “over-arching principles” ( as in Bellamy’s Guide) which govern and qualify the definitions in  all other Standing Orders.  </span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">All complaints officers should be issued with a booklet which is prepared by a legal team on how to collect evidence for forensic use. There should be a set pattern of how complaints officers should address and proceed with cases in order to properly produce evidence on which to base a “balance of probabilities”. That system of judging should be obligatory.</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial Black">If any person, either respondent or complainant in a case refuses in any fashion to enter a reconciliation process, then his or her reasons must be written down and presented to the Complaints management who will in turn submit such documents to an independent assessor of reconciliation. Should the assessor decide that the grounds for refusal of reconciliation are insufficient, such will be reported to the leader of the panel of inquiry handling the complaint, or to the local complaints officer if the case has not progressed further than that office. </span></li> </ol> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style""> </span></p> <div style="mso-element:footnote-list"> <br clear="all"> FOOTNOTES:<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_ftn1" title href="#_ftnref1"> <span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman">[1]</span></span></a> For example, see the effect of SO1102 (4) “all time limits specified in this Part must be strictly observed.” The imposition of a time limit on all complaints, without reference to the complexity of an individual complaint, can result in unfairness and a consequent lack of justice.</div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a name="_ftn2" title href="#_ftnref2"> <span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman">[2]</span></span></a> See SO 1122 (2) where the phrase “whenever possible” and “if possible” weaken the requirements. Note too that the word “forensic” does not appear in the requirements. There is no absolute requirement:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">“1122 (2) The person appointed as lead member must, whenever possible, have undergone</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">relevant training in the last two years and must additionally, if possible, have had</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">experience under the present or a previous church complaints and discipline process. The</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">other team members must be selected having regard to their skills in matters relevant</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">to the particular complaint, the need for balance within the complaints team (including in</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">particular any need which may arise in connection with issues of gender, race or disability</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">or status within the Church) and the geographical location of all concerned.”</p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_ftn3" title href="#_ftnref3"> <span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman">[3]</span></span></a> 1126 (2) No appeal may be brought against a decision that a complaint should be dismissed</p> <p class="MsoNormal">if the complaint was referred to the connexional Complaints Panel by the complainant</p> <p class="MsoNormal">rather than the local complaints officer</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <a name="_ftn4" title href="#_ftnref4"> <span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman">[4]</span></span></a> Though note SO 035 (10) The process to be followed in preparation for, and during, the hearing of the</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">appeal shall be within the discretion of the person presiding, having taken the necessary procedural advice from the appropriate Conference officers and subject always to the overriding requirement that all persons involved should be treated fairly and receive a fair hearing.</p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn5"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"> <a name="_ftn5" title href="#_ftnref5"> <span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman">[5]</span></span></a> 1124 Full Consideration by Complaints Team. (1) As soon as possible after it becomes clear that the complaint is to be fully considered, the complaints team must agree what further steps are to be taken to investigate the complaint. They may subsequently agree that additional steps must be taken or that certain steps are no longer required.</div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn6"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a name="_ftn6" title href="#_ftnref6"> <span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman">[6]</span></span></a> See SO 1126 (2) </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn7"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a name="_ftn7" title href="#_ftnref7"> <span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman">[7]</span></span></a> Such sanctions also apply to respondents – see SO1157 (5)</div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn8"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a name="_ftn8" title href="#_ftnref8"> <span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman">[8]</span></span></a> There are of course the restrictions imposed by the Data Protection Act 1998</div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn9"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a name="_ftn9" title href="#_ftnref9"> <span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman">[9]</span></span></a> Apart from SO 1133 (6) which is not relevant here.</div> </div> <p align="center"> </p><B></div> <H2> <p align="left"> <font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"><font face="Gungsuh"></td> </tr> </table> </div> <p align="left"></p> <h2></h2> <hr> <p></p> <body> <p></p> <font face="Gungsuh" size="4">  To return to home page press back button on your browser.</font><h4></h4>  <h4></h4> <p></p> <p></p> </body> </html> </html> </body> </html>