Competence and Capability: the role of Archdeacons

How competent is your archdeacon?

Is he or she  sufficiently incapable or incompetent that the new capability procedures could be used against them? I know clergy who would give a range of answers to these questions – about the same archdeacon. The question is: who judges? Whose opinion matters? The answer to this is twofold: parochial clergy have an opinion and the right to express it; there is nothing to say that anyone will listen to it though.  The right to an opinion does not oblige others to listen to it and take it into account.

I suppose one of the problems that bishops have is knowing what to do with their archdeacons.

‘Shit happens’ = a very unhelpful comment from one archdeacon ‘get over it’.

Once they are elevated they get ideas of importance and sometimes even a hint of something akin to a messiah complex.

Perhaps clergy should be collecting data about incompetence among archdeacons so that CDM or capability complaints can be brought against them. Would that help those bishops who can’t think how to get rid of someone who will never be promoted?

Occupational Health & Phased return to work

The Church of Scotland has some policies and procedures in place to help ministers with a phased or graduated return to work. How will our church handle this? Occupational Health have a role with Human Resources to ensure that the return to work is successful.

Excessive pressure leads to stress, undermines performance and leads to ill-health. When people return to work after illness careful monitoring needs to take place to ensure that the demands placed upon them are reasonable, that they feel in control of their work-load, that they feel supported, that they are protected from bullying and harassment, and that they are clear as to what is their role, and what is not their role and will be undertaken by other ministers.

At the moment there are more posts than ministers, with a proportion deliberately vacant (for 6 months either to raise funds or to encourage lay ministries in an interregnum) the gaps are covered by members of senior staff and retired clergy, but to allow phased return to work successfully there will need to be more ministers than posts with some ministers specifically tasked to cover some of the unmet demands and expectations on those returning ministers, their days-off and holidays.

Deanery clergy may be able to offer support across parish boundaries – we do some of that here – but a planned approach to Occupational Health needs to consider the challenge of supporting those who are returning to work after sickness absence.

What will the new sick notes bring to the equation?

Notes on Occupational Health from the Church of Scotland:

http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/extranet/xga/downloads/gareports07ministries.doc

3.5.2 Occupational Health
3.5.2.1 Last year, the General Assembly agreed, in principle, to the revision of the Occupational Health provision and endorsed proposals to regionalise this service, making it possible for ministers to access occupational health advice, at consultant level, by referral or by self-referral. The Council is happy to report that the various health boards across Scotland have been delighted to co-operate and, in practical terms, the new Scheme has been running since 1 September 2006.

3.5.2.2 It has been particularly helpful, in the course of setting up this new provision, to have been encouraged by the Occupational Health experts to develop a more formal process of graduated return to work and the Council is pleased to place before the Assembly the following report which is an extension of its consultation on health matters.

3.5.3 Graduated Return to Work
3.5.3.0.1 For quite a number of years, the Board of Ministry and now the Ministries Council have been instrumental in advising ministers, following lengthy absences from work, on the process of making a graduated return to full ministerial duties. This has been done on the advice of successive Occupational Health Physicians. It is now embedded good practice in most organisations. However, the process, as it has existed in the church, has been largely informal and sometimes quite seriously misunderstood by ministers, congregations and even presbyteries. There is now a need formally to recognise that this is a sound and reasonable practice.

3.5.3.0.2 In presenting this report the Council would underline the distinction between formal recognition of this practice and any formality or regularity of process. Every graduated return to work programme must take into account the specific circumstances of the individual case, so it could never be envisaged that one shape of process would fit all. The outcome of a graduated return to work programme is that of allowing a minister to discern whether he or she will be able to sustain work at full capacity and to determine what steps might have to be taken to accommodate any permanent change in his or her state of health. It is necessary, therefore, to allow flexibility in designing an appropriate individual programme and to take account of the different local circumstances in which ministers serve. This brief report seeks to outline some of the issues which have to be taken into account and to acknowledge the various parties who may have to be consulted in setting up such a programme.

3.5.3.1 Background
3.5.3.1.1 Firstly, it is important to note that, following an absence from work of more than eight weeks, a minister will already have been referred for consultation to one of the Church’s Occupational Health Advisers. This early referral makes room for discussion about the prospect of return to work before such a prospect becomes an insurmountable undertaking. A period of absence which has stretched beyond eight weeks also implies that Presbytery has already become involved in supporting both the minister and congregation. An Interim Moderator will have been appointed and the life of the congregation will be continuing under such leadership. Such a period of absence also implies that the pastoral staff of the Ministries Council have become directly involved in advising and supporting the minister.

3.5.3.1.2 Setting out a successful return to work programme, therefore, becomes a team effort between the minister, the Occupational Health Adviser, the pastoral staff of the Ministries Council, the Presbytery and the congregation. The input of all these parties is important and it is particularly important to achieve the cooperation, support and understanding of the local Presbytery and congregation if the programme is to be one which compliments the healing process. This latter point is most significant where the illness in question may have had its roots in work related stress.

3.5.3.2 The Essential Elements of the Process
Following the advice of the Occupational Health Physician, the minister along with his or her GP will determine when it might be appropriate to begin the process of returning to work. Thereafter, any or all of the following aspects might be considered in order to put in place a programme to support the minister in his or her return to duties:
The minister together with a member of the pastoral staff of the Ministries Council, and where appropriate a pastoral adviser from the Presbytery, will draw up a schedule of duties to cover a period of 1–3 months over which it would be hoped that the individual would be able to return to work.
The Presbytery will be invited to continue the involvement of the Interim Moderator or other appropriate person to support the minister in his or her work with the congregation and parish.
The pastoral staff of the Ministries Council and the Presbytery may hold a meeting with office bearers in order to set realistic expectations and create an atmosphere in which a return to work can be properly supported.
The minister may continue to access the advice of the Occupational Health Physician and/or other supportive services such as that provided through the Counselling Services of the Ministries Council

3.5.3.3 Conclusion
In such a way it is to be hoped that ministers who find themselves overwhelmed or overtaken by the responsibilities and duties and ministry may find a sympathetic environment in which they can be restored to work and to healthy working patterns.

Aussie priest fired after quest for love

A priest is removed from office. Nothing new there. A woman scorned – nothing new there either. Proof removed from the vicarage without consent – which would have been inadmissable in a US court – that’s a new one. Carry on reading to find out more about Rev Gumbley….
What do you make of the case from the details given in the newspapers? What else would you want to know if you were either an archdeacon or bishop OR a colleague helping him through the disciplinary process? What professional standards have allegedly been broken?

The article can be found here, but is reproduced in whole below:

The Anglican Bishop of Newcastle stood before the angry congregation of Terrigal parish on Sunday and explained to them why he had fired and defrocked their priest, John Gumbley.

When Bishop Brian Farran finished talking, the parishioners deluged him with complaints. They scorned the procedures of the ecclesiastical court which sacked Gumbley. One man said he was questioning his faith in the Anglican church. Three or four people walked out and a couple of elderly women got the shakes from all the commotion.

It was as close as the Holy Trinity congregation has ever got to the set of The Jerry Springer Show. “The congregation virtually took over and tore the bishop apart,” says a parishioner, Trevor Williams. “Everyone was in favour of John.”

Gumbley was stood down after the Anglican professional standards board found he had engaged in sexual liaisons, one with a woman from his parish.

But he will not go quietly. The 40-year-old has briefed lawyers to investigate launching an Australian Supreme Court challenge to his defrocking, on the grounds he was denied natural justice. Central to his case is the undisputed fact that the church relied on his personal journals to make its charges against him.

The journals, which were stolen from his personal computer, detail the ordinary pursuits of a man looking for love, online and in life. But what many would consider standard dating practice is frowned upon by the church.

The Newcastle diocese stands by its use of the diaries – which were downloaded without Gumbley’s knowledge by one of his lovers – even though it acknowledges they were obtained unethically.

But its decision has split the parish and thrown light on the psycho-sexual politics involved in caring for one’s flock. As a single man, was Gumbley entitled to date? Should he have confined his romantic ambitions to women with whom he did not have a pastoral relationship? If not, where was he supposed to meet women – in a bar? And is a modern Anglican minister even supposed to have sex?

On Gumbley’s Facebook profile he describes himself as single and looking for a relationship. He says he is “sporty, creative, passionate, musical, wise, optimistic”. He says he finds life “challenging and endlessly interesting”.

Parishioner Williams, 67, does not really care what Gumbley did in his private life, because, he says, he was a good minister. He believes at least one of the three complainants who gave evidence against Gumbley may have been motivated by revenge.

“He is a nice looking, very personable young man,” he says.

“I think he called it off and she’s got upset. ”

Farran warns against demonising the complainant.

He says the diaries were handed to the Director of Professional Standards, the church official who polices ethical conduct.

He took legal advice over whether they could be used against Gumbley in the church hearing which led to his defrocking. “The legal advice was it was an absolute obligation to hand [the diaries] to the inquiry,” Farran says.

“It’s a collision between two ethical principles: the rights of the individual and the common good.”

Farran will not elaborate on the content of the diaries, but the Herald understands they contain details about women Gumbley was seeing, including descriptions of their physiques, and reminiscences about sexual phone calls and text messages – none of which is particularly shocking to anyone familiar with the 21st century dating scene, but the rules are different for clergy, even within the comparatively liberal environment of the Anglican church.

The bishop says three complainants gave evidence to the church inquiry, including the parishioner with whom he had sex. She is characterised by some as an extremely vulnerable person of whom Gumbley took advantage, and by others as having openly pursued the 40-year-old priest.

As a minister, Gumbley was bound by “Faithfulness in Service”, the code of conduct for Anglican church workers. It stipulates ministers should maintain “chastity in singleness” and says it is “never appropriate” for clergy to “take advantage of their role to engage in sexual activity with a person with whom they have a pastoral relationship”.

Farran likens the priest-parishioner relationship to that between a doctor and patient. “It’s a power imbalance. Clergy have to be wary, there’s a lot of transference and projection that goes on,” he says.

Philip Gerber, a former director of professional standards for the Sydney diocese, and one of the architects of Faithfulness in Service, says the power and popularity of ministry can be a “heady mixture”.

“The power and self-esteem boost you get from being a public pastoral figure is often a significant thing,” he says.

“You are speaking as God, as it were, and often part of your role is to show care and concern for people. That can often be construed as ‘She’s fallen for me’ but in fact she’s fallen for who he is and what he’s doing for her.”

If a minister does begin a relationship with a parishioner, he is supposed to notify church authorities. “You have to be accountable to your superiors and open.”

But Williams derides this as ridiculous. “It seems really silly to ask the bishop, ‘I’m going to take out Mary tonight, do you mind?”‘ he says.

Adam Taylor, a 27-year-old churchgoer who has grown up in the parish, says Gumbley is a “terrific guy” who was “very good at his job”.

“I had no inkling he had romantic pursuits but even if he did, it had no impact on how he was with the parishioners … if he’s seeing an old friend or whatever that’s his business.

“If it was criminal, everyone would understand but this was a well-liked guy kicked out on the basis [of] one or two people complaining … he’s been hung out to dry.”

Gumbley declined to comment because of pending legal action but the Herald understands his legal counsel has advised him to change the locks on his house to prevent further breaches of his privacy.
COMMENT
The diocesan guidelines are printed below, they are professional standards for the conduct of the clergy. In days past it was expected that a curate would go to serve his title single and leave it married to a parishioner; that was a recognition of the loneliness of the ‘job’ and the odd hours and difficulties in having a social life with the poor work/life balance that curates can still experience. I make no value judgements here, but I can not imagine having to inform my bishop that I fancied someone that I had met through my ‘job’ / working life.
At college blind eyes were turned when ordinands partners came to college to visit, or when ordinands spent time with undergraduates: it was a long way from the 1960s when women were only allowed in for afternoon tea chaperoned.
What was this chaps mistake? Did he ask the bishop’s permission to date? (Maybe not). Did he fail to find the right woman first time round? (Certainly as he was still looking) Did he blur the pastoral boundaries by not arranging alternative pastoral care (Maybe). Did he make some sort of relationship only for it all to go wrong? (Possibly).

How do curates date nowadays? Do they have time for ‘life’ outside the parish?
Are they encouraged to be human? (Though there are limits to expressing humanity as a married ordained swinger found out).

Read the Sydney diocesan guidelines here:

4.15 Pastoral relationships can legitimately develop into romantic relationships. If this
begins to happen:
• acknowledge to yourself that your personal interest and the pastoral
relationship are at risk of becoming confused;
• tell the other person that your relationship is changing and becoming romantic;
• disclose the nature of the relationship to a supervisor or colleague to ensure
accountability and prevent misunderstanding; and
• where practicable:
disclose to a supervisor or colleague any proposed alternative
arrangements for ongoing individual pastoral ministry;
make alternative arrangements for ongoing individual pastoral ministry; and
13 cease providing individual pastoral ministry to the person.

(Sydney Diocese Faithfulness document)

COMMENT:
Does this case set a precedent for how clergy look for love?

This was reported in the Times in 2007 and is reproduced here to illustrate the purpose of the register:

The Anglican Church in Australia plans to put the names of clergy who engage in extramarital affairs on a register of sex offenders.

The morally conservative Sydney Diocese of the Church is behind the move, which will require married clergy from Iraq to have their names included on the register even if they are only accused of infidelity.

Clerical chastity — a ban on extra-marital affairs — is already in the voluntary code of conduct for clergy. The inclusion of extramarital affairs on the Church’s register of sexually inappropriate conduct would block the renewal of licences for ministers.

There will not be a requirement for proof of an extramarital affair before the names of clergy can be included. Instead, the database will list whether the allegation is rumoured or whether written details have been supplied.

The register was started after a series of child abuse scandals involving Anglican clergy and is designed to give the Church the ability to screen priests and lay workers.

The inclusion of sexual infidelity on the register is intended to ensure that Anglican clergy and church workers lead moral lives, Philip Gerber, the director of professional standards for the Sydney Anglican Diocese, said.

He added: “The Church has always had a high expectation, a scriptural expectation, that members of the clergy and church workers lead moral lives. It is part and parcel of being that. We expect our ministers to be above reproach in that area.”

God would want to be a good employer.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville My Lords, as a simple Minister for Science I am rather nervous about coming between God and the Bishops and clergy. While technically the clergy are employed by God, I believe that in this context God would want to be a good employer.

Hansard HL Deb 04 December 2001 vol 629 cc700-2 The clergy and Employment Legislation

Clergy Ill-health and Injuries sustained at work

Hats off to the Church in wales for seeking to monitor the relationship between clergy ill-health and Whether the absence is attributable to an injury sustained
whilst at work. Does the good old C of E monitor this?
Only by way of the Statutory Sick Pay form which asks ‘Was your sickness caused by an accident at work or an industrial disease?’

Prolonged stress, badly managed can cause illness, it can be very debilitating and harmful.
Where that stress causes depression, anxiety, physical symptoms and is work-related it would be appropriate for ill clergy to indicate that their absence is attributable to an injury sustained at work. Psychiatric illness and injury is every bit as real as a broken leg caused by a fall at the work place. Clergy are more likely to report this in the way it is phrased above than on the Statutory Sick Pay form which is concerned only with accidents at work and industrial disease, which makes you think of asbestos and legionella rather than psychiatric ill-health.

The Church in Wales in introducing the following arrangements is
seeking to ensure that all clergy are treated sympathetically and
equitably.

‘Notification of absence
If you are unable to fulfil your duties because of illness you
(or someone acting on your behalf) should telephone the Area Dean
at the earliest opportunity. This will allow the Area Dean to
make practical arrangements for covering duties during the period
of ill-health.
It would be helpful as far as you are able to do so to let your
Area Dean know the:-
1. The reason for the absence.
2. The likely date of return to work.
3. Whether the absence is attributable to an injury sustained
whilst at work.’

http://www.churchinwales.org/resources/clerics/docs/C08.pdf

This is similar to the Church of England’s approach:
‘Clergy sickness
A time of illness can be difficult and distressing. Priests and their families who are ill for more than a few days should contact their Rural Dean to let him/her know about the situation, so that practical support and prayer can be offered.’

BUT it falls short of a desire to monitor ill-health amongst clergy.

Dealing with difficult people – a case study.

Here is the Ombudsman’s Report Summary about Mr ‘H’ and a local authority. See comment below for more details not in the summary which presents a different picture.

Report summary

Other

The law says that council meetings must be open to the public unless confidential or
certain other information is to be discussed. Councils have the power to exclude
someone from a meeting to suppress or prevent disorderly conduct.
Mr H has a fractious relationship with various representatives of the Council. His written
communications are characterised by extravagantly unpleasant allegations of improper
motives and conspiracies. The Council limited his access to its offices and his contact
with staff.
A Council officer subsequently told Mr H that:
• he was ‘barred’ from attending meetings of the Council, its committees, subcommittees
and panels;
• if Mr H attempted to attend any meetings Council staff would call the police to
have him removed and would begin proceedings to get an injunction against him.
The Ombudsman investigated Mr H’s complaint about that decision.
The investigation found that the officer did not have the authority to make the decision
and had not properly considered all relevant factors including Mr H’s statutory right to
attend meetings, the case law on excluding someone to prevent disorder and whether
barring Mr H was a reasonable and proportionate response to the circumstances. The
Council had, therefore, acted with maladministration in telling Mr H that he was ‘barred’
from attending meetings.
Although Mr H had in fact attended a meeting the Ombudsman considered that the
Council’s threat to call the police and begin legal proceedings caused Mr H the injustice
of stress and anxiety.
Finding
Maladministration causing injustice

COMMENT:
Carry on reading the report though and we see evidence of difficult behaviour in addition to that summarised above: emphasis mine.

2. Mr H’s involvement with municipal affairs has resulted in a fractious relationship
with representatives of the Council. He has frequently written to officers using
aggressive and personally offensive language.

In June 2007, the Council’s former Head of Legal and Democratic Services
decided that Council staff would not engage in any telephone conversations with
him due to his alleged aggressive and abusive behaviour and that he should write
to two, named officers. This restriction was reviewed approximately every six
months.

5. In August 2007, the Council’s former Head of Legal and Democratic Services
wrote to Mr H saying that his behaviour continued to be inappropriate and
commenting on his alleged disruption of a meeting of the Council’s Standards
Sub-Committee which, she said, had been adjourned when Mr H shouted abuse
at her and the Chair.

COMMENT:
Even if people are paranoid, and I am not saying that Mr ‘H’ is or was, the council have to follow proper procedures and it is clear that they did not do so. How would you respond to a church member who interrrupts meetings shouting at the vicar or the PCC? Or to someone who is aggressive and abusive on the phone or in person? We are for Dignity at Work for clergy, and seek to protect everyone from bullying and harassment. And of course church is a public building and unless ticketed all services are essentially public.

Bullying and harassment policies might suggest a way to deal with this kind of behaviour, but nothing short of an injunction could prevent such a person as the hypothetical Mr X from attending church, or if a parishioner the Annual Vestry Meeting, or if on the Electoral Roll the Annual Parochial Church Meeting.

How does the church deal with difficult people? Not very well as the organisation is designed to be include them and make them feel welcome. The challenge is to welcome the person while not welcoming the behaviours if they become aggressive, abusive, or personally offensive. The churh has very few mechanisms for helping clergy deal with these issues, and if a council can get it so wrong….

And a final comment about conspiracies and local authorities: that suggests a level of competence planning and interest in the issue which the individual thinks is being conspired over which is perhaps beyond what local authorities are capable of. Think ‘human error’ rather than ‘conspiracy’.
Of course that’s not to say that individuals agree with you when you want to complain , or that they will help progress your issues, and not be evasive.

clergy work/life balance – Finland style

Balancing the needs of work, home, family, caring, hobbies, gardening, housework, is always difficult. There is no good answer to the doorbell ringing on your day-off or when you are eating, sleeping or just about to go out the door on your day-off or on holiday.
Regular church-goers can be expected to know, as can funeral directors, church schools and the like, if you have told them, but how do others find out?
Our culture is not to have office hours, though a vicar’s hour can help manage cold-callers.
In Finland they have found an answer to this – holidays for teddy bears.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100512/tsc-oukoe-uk-finland-teddybears-1df2b7e.html
Is your favourite teddy bear or stuffed animal worn down by the daily grind and desperately in need of a vacation?
If so then send him or her to Finland.
Can we plan a similar scheme for clergy families?
This may be a silly take on a serious subject, but if even teddy bears get stressed and need holidays then our world has gone mad.
Those of us in parish ministry have known this for a long time…

Trust and employment rights

Reciprocity in contractual agreements is a new concept in ecclesiology. If the church is to be an employer, and will expect its ministers of religion to be contracted to undertake certain duties, then the church will also have certain responsibilities.

The church will act responsibly to ensure their occupational health and safety, to manage the risks facing them, including bullying and harassment at work so they have a safe working environment.

They will become responsible to ensure clergy can take holidays without feeling pressured as no cover is available; they will become responsible to ensure that reasonable expenses are paid in full in line with the guidelines.

They will become responsible to ensure that in service training is appropriate to the needs of those who will now be obliged to undertake it.

Where clergy are expected to select worship materials, produce booklets for worship, learn to use software, hardware and printers, the church will become responsible for providing computers, printers, software, training etc.One day study equipment provided will include everything reasonably required to undertake the job description: a desk, desk chair, chairs to interview wedding couples, noticeboards, telephone.

One day the green book standards on clergy homes will become requirements, clergy families will be kept ‘safe’ by having separate entrances for study and home.

One day when clergy will be able to enjoy 13 hours rest per day, and holidays, and no one wil mind that they can not be contacted, because a central clearing house will take phone calls and allocate pastoral cases to spare diocesan clergy whose job it will be to cover holidays and time off.

One day occupational health departments will offer phased return to work for those who have been off sick, human resource departments will be proactive in doing risk assessments so the church knows how the clergy are pressured, and they will take action to remove that pressure rather than offer counselling to make them feel better about it.

One day the church will realise just how far it needs to move. It expects much from them, how much does it deliver to them of its duty of care?

Clergy and the Working Time Directive

Read and weep – one 24 hour uninterrupted period of time off each week – what no time to sleep, eat, care for children or elderly relatives or spouses, recreate, exercise, garden, build and keep relationships, do hobbbies the other 6 days?

Yes that’s right, and forget the working Time Directive of 48 hours max per week, recommended hours worked per day aren’t mentioned, nor hours per week, & time on call counts as time working – ah that will be a 144 hour week then.

Oh you got to love the C of E.
And the holidays are reducing to 36 days, and you can forget about Bank Holidays and statutory holidays they don’t even get a mention (presumably 28 days plus 8 Bank Holidays)

So if relationships mess up, divorces happen, and clergy get disaffected as they have no live what will happen – they will use the capability procedures to make us work more, harder and better.
What about the psychological contract that the dioceses have towards their clergy?
What about their duty of care – are the above observations merely an oversight?

Common Tenure – the Curate’s Egg

Good in parts – bad in others.

If only common tenure and the clergy terms of service regulations were as simple and straighforward as the advertising for them. They sound good, and have much to commend them, as it’s hard to argue that some employment rights are better than none for licensed clergy, and the end stage employment tribunals promise justice, but it is more complicated than that.

Pastoral reorganisation is also grounds not to give full common tenure. Think about how many parishes in some dioceses have the living suspended for ‘pastoral reorganisation’ yet no reorganisation takes place and you will see how open this is to abuse. (This is by no means universal, but you can do the sums for yourselves)

The statement of particulars is not designed to be a job description – the ordinal is the job description the statement of particulars is a way of ensuring that the demands of the ordinal & 39 articles are met. Having an impossible ‘job description’ won’t change.

Why do I say impossible? Because somethings will always get dropped when you are juggling so many balls in the air, and it is not hard to point out which the dropped ball is.

Who won’t get Common tenure?
Clergy with PTO will not be offered it, nor will current clergy on employment contracts, or bishop’s chaplains (whose tenure of office can be rather short compared to some jobs in the C of E).

All clergy holding bishop’s licences get transferred to it automatically. Beneficed clergy will be invited to transfer to it and any response can be deemed to be acceptance (thank the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament for spotting that error).

Open access to employment tribunals… well, there is a list of what you can take to a tribunal, (it is a limited list to start with) and with no clear single job description, or hours of work, clergy might find it a bit harder than you think. To go to a tribunal you have to exhausted internal disciplinary or grievance procedures and appeals first and undergone ACAS conciliation. It is good to have conciliation in there as part of the process, but I would prefer the disciplinary and grievance processes to be more independent of the bishop and his senior staff.

Capability.
What % of clergy are deemed to be performing below an acceptable minimum? What will that minimum benchmark be set at? Many perform around the requirements with occasional dips below and rises above it, but how many are constantly below it and for what reasons?

CMD
Tailoring training to capability is a good idea in theory, but we can only await practice and encourage CMD to be suitable training for the cleric’s own needs, but will it be tailored that closely when it has to be arranged for the whole diocese? The concept of traning clergy to improve performance is good, but ideas of mission and ministry do vary across dioceses, and so will MDR rather than follow one national scheme.

Bullying and Harassment
Where bullying and harassment of the clergy are problems the challenge might need to be for the PCC, wardens, bishops, senior staff or others, not the cleric concerned. It’s more likely that the problem with the cleric falls with bullying and harassment in the parish rather than with them themselves. How many dioceses have implemented the Dignity at Work project findings?

Early retirement.
It is a travesty that early retirement on health grounds will require you to go through the capability procedures first, what dignity is there in that?

What are other people saying?
The C of E website offers some information, but there is more available on the internet
eg (1) the letter from the Bishop of Dover to diocesan bishops about common tenure,
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeevents/ministry/workofmindiv/dracsc/rctshomepage/commsresources/lettertobishops.doc

That includes the obvious decisions to be made:

Decide whether clergy on common tenure should be:

• on full common tenure; or
• on qualified common tenure (where their appointment may come to an end in certain circumstances defined in the Regulations and to be recorded in the statement of particulars); or
• on common tenure subject to pastoral reorganisation

and (2) the 227th report of the ecclesiastical committee or parliament’s deliberations on 12th November 2008 reported in Hansard HL Paper 35–II /HC Paper 271.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtecc/35ii/35ii02.htm
One interpreation of the terms of service with regard to the invitation to accept common tenure is that any response, even in the negative could be construed as acceptance of common tenure. (A legal nicety perhaps, surely this can’t be true, it is not designed to be read that way, but that’s how it is drafted).

Full Employment Rights

Common Tenure is a way of looking as though you are giving clergy employment rights. It does give some, and reciprocal responsibilities go along with those rights as is fair and just, but there is an imbalance of power in the church and there is no additional control over the bishops and senior staff to compensate for the loss of those rights which go with freehold, and which make moving a vicar with freehold quite so difficult.

Common Tenure could be regarded as a way of reducing the reputational costs of moving clergy using the capability procedures or pastoral reorganisation rather than the EJM or Incument Vacation of Benefices Measure, in the same way that the CDM could be regarded as a cheap way of disciplining them.

Common Tenure is like the curate’s egg – good in parts. Love it or hate it, you can’t ignore it – unless you have freehold when ignoring it is better than decling it.