LEGAL sanction, including the potential of disqualification from holding office, is obligatory to deal with bullying by lay officer-holders, a motion set to be debated by General Synod this month argues.
The private members’ motion, brought by the Archdeacon of Blackburn, the Ven. Mark Ireland, asks the Synod to recognise “the intense pastoral problems and unfairness that arise while clergy might be subject to penalties for bullying that include prohibition and removal from office but there is no such thing as a technique of disqualifying a churchwarden, PCC member, or other lay officer who’s guilty of bullying from holding office”.
It asks the Archbishops’ Council to “bring forward legislative proposals which might enable a churchwarden, PCC member, or other lay officer who was found to have conducted him-or herself in such a way to be disqualified from holding office”.
At the meeting of Synod in July 2022, during a debate on replacing the Church Discipline Measure, Archdeacon Ireland warned of a lacuna within the law regarding lay church officers. Churchwardens and others who bullied priests could use the CDM to harass their victims, but were proof against any comparable disciplinary measure (News, 15 July). Some parishes had a status for “breaking clergy”, and their vacancies became not possible to fill.
He writes within the paper accompanying his PMM that he has since been “inundated with distressing correspondence from clergy and clergy spouses who’ve been subjected to bullying and harassment”. There were also “many disturbing examples of lay officers bullying other lay members of the congregation”. There were some parishes, he said, that bishops were “reluctant to recommend to prospective applicants, knowing that a series of previous incumbents have been hounded out of office”.
While noting that bullying is “not defined by law”, he writes that it “could also be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious, or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power, through means intended to undermine, humiliate, or injure the recipient”. The lives of clergy and lay persons are “scarred by bullying behaviour in church which might not be tolerated in other contexts”.
The motion is scheduled to be heard on the Sunday of the February meeting, the day after one other motion, which comes from the diocese of Chelmsford. This requests that the Archbishops’ Council conduct a review to contemplate the potential of drawing up a code of conduct for PCC members and lay volunteers. The review would also consider the potential of a disciplinary process for removal from the PCC within the case of non-adherence.
An accompanying paper by the Revd Dr Sara Batts-Neale, covers similar ground to that of Archdeacon Ireland, referring to “the imbalance of accountability in relationships where lay volunteers face no significant consequences for persistent departures from acceptable standards of behaviour”. It warns that PCC meetings can develop into “psychologically unsafe environments for all participants, lay and ordained. The imperative to forgiveness can sometimes normalise bad behaviour when it’s seen to be consequence free.”
The paper provides an insight into the extent to which behaviour in some parishes has deteriorated, observing that a PCC meeting “shouldn’t be a psychologically damaging or physically threatening environment for any participant. Aggressive behaviour in meetings (slamming fists on tables and continually interrupting when others speak) or outside meetings (emailing repeatedly, and when blocked on email, printing and delivering copies of a message).”
In one parish cited for example, a PCC member refused to share the keys to the cabinet that stored all of the resources for kids’s work. “Thus, whilst the dispute was ongoing, no children’s work was capable of occur”.
In one other instance, a PCC had voted to exclude specific issues in the broader parish during its meeting, but one member “repeatedly attempted to force a discussion by bringing it as AOB, including contacting the diocesan bishop to request them to require the PCC to place the item on the agenda.”
It goes on: “If a PCC member is acting in a way that results in police intervention for harassment of a churchwarden, but no mechanism exists for the PCC member to be removed, current rules force the churchwarden to satisfy their harasser regularly. Likewise, when a PCC member makes vexatious complaints about others —who’re the required to either resign, or proceed working with that individual — an unsafe situation is created.”
It continues: “PCC members who persistently refuse to undertake safeguarding training — putting themselves and others in danger — are capable of proceed to function a trustee.” It described how “repeatedly poor behaviours sidetrack meetings, waste the time and energy of all participants, and detract from the church’s ability to share the gospel and nurture disciples”.
Anticipating objections to the proposal, it states that “an efficient and proportionate code of conduct” wouldn’t create an “environment where the minister can shut down disagreement and effectively silence criticism. That is just not a healthy environment for good decision-making. Collective decision-making requires that disagreement is aired and thought of thoughtfully and prayerfully. PCC members must find a way to ask for more information on proposals, for instance, with a purpose to find a way to act in best interests.”
The code would “recognise the difference between a one-off disagreement or conflict over a selected matter, which can occur sometimes, and repeated patterns of damaging behaviour”.
While acknowledging that clergy are “often in positions of power over church members, particularly in pastoral relationships”, it asserts that “PCC members do hold power and that should be acknowledged.
“It might not be positional power, but there may be an important deal of relational power held —especially inside small communities. In many parishes, the shortage of enthusiastic and able volunteers implies that one individual could have multiple responsibilities.
”Specific officers’ withdrawal of co-operation can have devastating effects on a parish’s ability to operate, and the willingness of other volunteers to step forward.” For an incumbent, “resignation is an option, but at the fee of getting to depart the parish completely”.
The motion originated in Braintree deanery synod, and was proposed by churchwardens moderately than clergy. They had “found themselves unable to remove a PCC member whose behaviour repeatedly fell far wanting acceptable standards”.
It suggests Matthew 18 (“If your brother or sister sins. . .”) as a biblical precedent for a church “effectively removing people from fellowship”.
The motion doesn’t require specific laws or implementation mechanisms but hopes that “progress might be made towards provision of a security net for each laity and clergy, honouring and empowering all participants within the lifetime of our churches”. It envisages a variety of possible outcomes to disciplinary process, “in extreme cases, the Bishop must have the ability to disqualify an individual from being elected to office again as a churchwarden or PCC member, or holding office as a lay officer”.
While Dr Ireland’s paper welcomes the Chelmsford motion, he warns that a code in itself can be “insufficient to cope with the difficulty of bullying. . . Without any effective legal sanction (similar to disqualification) there would remain a fundamental imbalance between the treatment of clergy, who might be faraway from office after due process, and lay officers who, at present, cannot.”
Both papers cite the inadequacy of current laws and regulation and the impasse that may arise when a lay officer can’t be removed.
Lay people might be disqualified (by the Churchwardens Measure and the Church Representation Rules) from holding office as churchwarden or being a member of a PCC in the event that they are included in a barred list; or have been convicted of an offence mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933; or in the event that they are disqualified from being a charity trustee.
The only way a churchwarden or PCC member might be faraway from office is where, in proceedings under the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure 1977, a tribunal has found that the conduct of that person has contributed to a breakdown of pastoral relations within the parish over a considerable period. This is “not thought to be being easy to make use of and only applies to cases where clergy hold office on historic freehold moderately than common tenure”, the secretary-general, William Nye, writes in an accompanying note.
Mr Nye has provided a note on each proposals, during which he sets out a few of the complexities of moving forward with the recommendations. His response to Archdeacon Ireland’s motion warns that: “Legislation is a blunt instrument and could have unintended consequences, leading to situations being inflamed and escalated, and affected people resorting to counter-claims of bullying.
“Use of a proper process must be a final resort, as any process can be time-consuming and emotionally draining for all those involved. A punitive approach is just not conducive to giving individuals opportunity to develop into aware of the effect of their behaviour, reflect on it, and learn to switch it. If the motion is passed, it could be value establishing a bunch to contemplate the choices for addressing bullying effectively, moderately than only the laws option of a discipline process akin to the Clergy Conduct Measure.”
When it involves the code of conduct, he cautions that “the problems raised won’t be straightforward to deal with”. There would have to be discussion about “who would issue such a code; who would consider and determine allegations that the code had been breached; what the available penalties can be, and who would impose them; what (if any) rights of appeal can be available; and the way the prices of providing such a system can be met”.
In a response to Dr Ireland’s proposal, he acknowledges the restrictions of existing laws and regulations. Clergy are “unlikely to utilize the formal grievance procedure, because it cannot guarantee that it can resolve the difficulty, especially as there is no such thing as a legal requirement for lay people to interact with it”, he writes. Parliament is “sometimes reluctant to agree laws affecting lay members of the Church”. While there may be evidence that bullying occurs within the Church, there may be “not agreement about how bullying is best tackled”, he writes.
It can be possible so as to add bullying as grounds for disqualification to the Church Representation Rules, he writes, but a definition would have to be agreed. It would even be obligatory to have in place “a good and transparent process (including a right of appeal) for investigating whether bullying and harassment had taken place” and “properly trained and qualified investigators to perform the method”.
He suggests that there’s a case for waiting until the Clergy Conduct Measure has come into effect and is functioning effectively before attempting to provide a comparable process for lay people. The draft Measure includes steps to guard clergy from malicious complaints, allowing for restraint orders to be applied against vexatious complainants (News, 14 July 2023).
