|
THE NEED FOR GUIDELINES.
This article examines just one standing
order in an effort to demonstrate that ordinary church members can become
overwhelmed by the complexity of the current Standing Orders. It suggests that
a body should be set up by Conference that is accountable to both Conference and
all church members for the interpretation of the Standing Orders.
In 2001 the Methodist Church introduced a
completely new process for dealing with complaints and made significant changes
to the procedure for dealing with disciplinary charges. Great time and care was
invested in conceiving, drafting and implementing new Standing Orders. Those who
invested that effort genuinely believed and hoped that the new procedures would
enable someone wishing to make a complaint to do so confident that the Church
was willing to listen and respond sensitively and that anyone against whom a
complaint was made could be equally confident in the Church’s willingness to
deal with them fairly.
A senior Family court judge, His Honour
Clifford Bellamy, was asked to provide a guide to the new Standing Orders. He
was aided by notable Methodists - His Honour Judge Peter Ross Revd Jim Booth,
Chair of the Liverpool District, Robert Gaitskell QC., barrister Jennifer
Jones, Susan Howdle, Elizabeth Ovey and the Revd David Gamble.
Collectively, the knowledge and
understanding of Methodist law and polity of this group was vast. A second
edition of their exhaustive work was issued in 2008.
The current leading officers of the
Methodist Church now ignore the wise words of Bellamy and his committee.
Rev Alan Bolton, who was, until recently,
the head of the complaints system, stated in November 2017 that “Bellamy is
out of date”. Professor Chris Kitchin, then a prominent member of the
complaints inquiry panel committee, said “The last edition of the Bellamy
Guide was published in 2008 and the world has moved on since then.” He
added: ‘It must always be remembered that Bellamy is only a guide to the
Standing Orders, not a substitute for them.”
Why does the Church ignore the exhaustive
work done on its behalf by such eminent members? After eight years in the
making, how could Bellamy’s Guide become obsolete in as many years?
One answer to this might be that the
Standing Orders are so difficult to understand that only a lawyer, with the time
to read the entire document and absorb it, may be able to make use of them.
One example is SO 1155
This is called “ Complaints about the
Process”
It begins with clause (1)
(i) ‘the aggrieved person’ means a person
who has been involved in the complaints and discipline process in any way who
makes repeated complaints to the relevant connexional Team member about the
manner in which the process has been carried out or about any related matter;
The problems begin here – for it suggests
that someone who has a complaint about the process that was used in a complaint
must have made repeated complaints in order to qualify in using this standing
order.
Further, who exactly is “the relevant
connexional team member”? What makes any one of the team members more
relevant to any of the others?
And indeed, if the complaint is about the
procedure or process being used by the team, what is the point of complaining to
a member of that team using SO 1155? Surely the judgement on fair process must
come from someone who is not a member of the team that is being accused of
acting unfairly?
Clause 2 adds to the limitations of the
standing order:
2) Subject to clause (3) below, if the
relevant connexional Team member is unable to resolve the aggrieved person’s
complaints, he or she may refer the aggrieved person to the connexional
Reconciliation Group and the subsequent provisions of this Standing Order will
apply.
Briefly skipping to clause 3, we see that
:
“(3) Clause (2) above does not apply if
the complaints are made during the course of the complaints and discipline
process and could be raised on an appeal.”
There are two problems with this – what
if the irregular procedure is not discovered by the aggrieved person until
after the procedure has finished – perhaps in the panel’s final report?
Further, appeals in the complaints system
are very limited. For example if the local complaints officer refuses to pass a
complaint on to the national level, the complainant automatically loses his or
her right of appeal by sending the complaint to that level him or herself.
Further a connexional panel of inquiry
may simply end its report by stating that there is no appeal against the
conclusions. Does that mean that SO 1155 cannot be used?
To return briefly to clause (2) – it
would seem that SO 1155 allows a complainant to refer the dispute to the
Connexional Reconciliation Group. But such an approach may not be available if
the complainant has not submitted repeated complaints to a person designated
“the relevant team member” who might simply claim that there can be no appeal.
Alternately, the “relevant Team member” might admit that there is cause for
complaint and allow the issue to go to the connexional Reconciliation group. But
by doing so, that team member is surely admitting that a mistake may have
occurred.
If such is the case, should the relevant
team member not bring this to the attention of the connexional panel conducting
the inquiry and come to a final decision on the matter?
Why would one need to take the matter
higher?
The next three clauses outline the
process to be used by the Connexional Reconciliation Group – a process which
largely follws the normal complaints process. But it starts to go somewhat
astray when we reach clause (7 iii) for this states, in part, that the
connexional reconciliation group should :
“to explore with the aggrieved person
whether there is any means of resolving his or her concerns, including achieving
resolution by a form of reconciliation with a person or persons involved in the
complaints and discipline process;”
A complaint against a process may take
many forms, but generally such disputes come down to differences in the
interpretation of a Standing Order, or different views on the balance of one
standing order against another. The question will always be – whose view of the
standing orders is the correct one? That is what the connexional reconciliation
group must decide in most cases of complaint against process. It may be that
they see the reasoning behind both the views of the complainant and the view of
the connexional panel of inquiry. But ultimately it for the reconciliation group
to decide which side was correct.
Standing Order 1112 assets that
connexional reconciliation groups must have persons with expertise law,
accountancy, harassment and disability issues, marriage guidance, medicine and
theology.
Considering such a variety of expertise,
it may be a misnomer to call the Groups “reconciliation” groups. Considering
that the original complaint was about process, rather than matters of
accountancy, harassment and marriage break-ups and such, in many cases there
will no mediation, or any form of reconciliation, taking place – simply a
consideration (probably by a lawyer) and an explanation of the reasoning behind
the reconciliation group’s preference for one view against the other.
The overall role of the reconciliation
groups in this is exemplified by the following clause (iv) which states that it
is the duty of the reconciliation group:
“ to make any recommendations for the
improvement of the process which the team thinks appropriate.”
- though to whom such recommendations are
sent is not clear.
Clause (9) of this Standing Order is most
unclear, but it is essentially the punishment that the Church might give to the
complainant in this matter. It reads:
“(9) If the aggrieved person’s concerns have not been resolved and he or she is
not willing to agree not to pursue them further, the relevant connexional Team
member must refer the matter to a person falling within Standing Order 231(3)for consideration whether the aggrieved person should be declared to be a
persistent complainant.”
….
The relevant connexional Team member must
further inform the aggrieved person that if he or she wishes to make
representations to the referee, those representations must be sent in writing to
the relevant connexional Team member within 14 days from the day on which the
aggrieved person is so informed."
This would appear to mean that if the
complainant about process gets no satisfaction from the Connexional
Reconciliation Group, he or she must go back to the inquiry panel,
contact the “relevant team member” (whoever that may be) and request that the
matter go to a “referee” – and that this must be done within a fortnight of the
Group’s decision on the matter.
It was the panel of inquiry that
acted in the manner which the complainant is disputing. And their view of the
matter has just been supported by the Connexional Reconciliation Group. And the
reference to a referee is not to decide who is right in the dispute – but to
decide whether or not the complainant is a “persistent complainant”. In other
words, the complainant is asking the relevant team member to activate the
punishment for the crime of complaining!
The words ‘the referee’ mean
someone chosen ( by whom?) from a panel of persons from which members may from
time to time be chosen connexional Appeal Committees - persons selected for
their qualifications or experience to chair Discipline and Appeal Committees and
identified as such in the resolution of appointment. In other words, these
people come from exactly the same group as the members of the connexional panel
of inquiry!
So ultimately
everything may rest on the importance or influence of the “relevant team member”
in the group of which he or she is a member.
Clause 14 of the standing order makes it
very clear that the decision of the referee is final:
“No appeal lies against a decision that
an aggrieved person is a persistent complainant.”
That, of course means that if the process,
by which the complainant was judged, was ill-considered, and unjustly not in line with
standing orders, there is no possibility of appeal against it under SO 1155.
So in summary and in plain words, if you
are unhappy with the process that is applied to a complaint you have, you must
first have complained to the inquiry panel several times, then persuaded one of
them to admit that there might be a problem with the panel’s interpretation of
proper procedure – and then go to a reconciliation group. There you will enter
into reconciliation; it will not be any kind of tribunal. It means essentially
that they will try to persuade you to give way and come to terms with the views
of the three inquiry panel members. If you do not agree to a compromise and
reconciliation, you may be sent to a “referee” (who plays for the other side)
and may find yourself judged to be a “persistent complainant”.
At which point they can ignore any future
complaints.
The executives in Methodist Church House
will consider that the above analysis of Standing Order 1155 is incorrect. And
in truth, it is only one reading of the order. There may be others. Further, at
no point in this analysis is each individual action considered in the light of
SO 1100 with its demand that “justice, openness and honesty” is a pre-requisite
in all such matters.
But the fact that such an interpretation
is possible is enough to damn the Standing Order. It is not adequate for a
“Complaint again Process” which is what it purports to be. The independent body
that such matters are referred to is the Connexional Reconciliation Group. The
primary aim by this group is reconciliation – i.e. an agreement on
interpretation between the Inquiry panel and the complainant - when in fact
both sides might be wrong in their interpretation of the relevant standing
orders.
What is significantly missing from the
entire wording is any authoritative body which will decide on behalf of
Conference exactly what the Standing Orders mean.
Overall, there would appear to be very
little defence for the complainant and his or her rights in the matter.
With such difficulties in the correct
understanding of the Standing Orders, it is perhaps surprising that the
Methodist Church now ignores the exhaustive work done on its behalf by person
such as Judge Clifford Bellamy. This paper covers just one standing order, his
guide covered all of them – and took him and his committee some eight years to
compile.
Nowadays, the need for members of the
Church to understand the rules by which is organised seems less attractive to
its leaders.
|
