THE General Synod voted by a big majority on Saturday in favour of a motion from Chelmsford diocesan synod requesting a review to contemplate drawing up a code of conduct for PCC members and lay volunteers. This would come with consideration of a disciplinary process for the removal of PCC members who showed “persistent departures from acceptable standards of behaviour”.
Currently, there aren’t any significant consequences for poor behaviour on PCCs: an imbalance of accountability which may render PCC meetings as “psychologically unsafe environments for all participants, lay and ordained,” the background paper from Chelmsford says. The imperative to forgive can sometimes normalise bad behaviour, it suggests.
The motion was proposed by two churchwardens in a rural deanery who found themselves unable to remove a PCC member. “It is essential to notice that the motivation for this motion got here not from clergy, but lay members wanting to look after their benefice, and for his or her incumbent,” it says.
“Collective decision-making doesn’t work in an environment where one individual consistently dominates the discussion or threatens consequences if their preferred consequence is voted down.”
The paper, which sets out the legal and ecclesiastical context for in search of a review, the impact on mission, continues: “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” — besides detracting from safeguarding.
“Guidance on acceptable conduct which transparently translated the fruits of the spirit right into a working document would begin to supply a security net for all involved within the service of Christ,” it suggests.
A response from the Secretary General, William Nye, advises that the problems raised “is not going to be straightforward to deal with. . . Such a review would need to form a view as to what appetite there may be amongst PCCs for an enforceable Code of Conduct.”
Introducing the talk, the Revd Dr Sara Batts-Neale (Chelmsford) said that, when a PCC met, it was holy ground. It was “not a couple of one-off lack of temper, a one-parish incident, a one clash of personalities”, she said. “Sometimes, when things go incorrect, they go incorrect badly. . . Too many individuals are getting hurt. Good individuals are leaving the Church.” Harassers shared meeting space with those whom they were harassing.
The motion was intended to “encourage healthy cultures”, she said, acknowledging that a review would take time, but didn’t need to be began from scratch: “The constructing blocks are already there.”
Fiona MacMillan (London) was concerned for many who, like herself, were neuro-divergent, whose manner of communication is likely to be open to misinterpretation. A recent study had found that 91 per cent of individuals with autism had been been accused of being aggressive or bullying, she said.
Prudence Dailey (Oxford) said: “It isn’t all the time clear who’s the bully. . . We should be mindful that whatever bar we’d put in place isn’t any lower than the equivalent bar for clergy.”
Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) sought to amend the motion by putting the onus on individual PCCs to set standards of behaviour and discipline for his or her members. “Do we actually need to ask the Archbishops’ Council for a review once we know what the issue is?”
Caroline Herbert (Norwich) feared that a review would extend into the following quinquennium. The Revd Carol Bates (Southwark) suggested that it should begin in parishes “known to be difficult”. Peter Adams (St Albans) desired to “big up” the part played by lay chairs; the Revd Christopher Blunt (Chester) favoured a model code of conduct; and the Revd Robert Thorpe (London) raised the dimension of social media.
The amendment was lost.
Clive Scowen (London) then proposed an amendment to remove the decision for a disciplinary process. “To make it legally binding and enforceable is a weapon for disaster,” he suggested. “At PCC level, where is the expertise to return from? How will fairness be achieved? Let’s not create a mechanism for enforcement which can make things ten times worse in an already divided PCC.” Registrars could be “swamped” with requests for help, he suggested.
Sandra Turner (Chelmsford) was concerned in regards to the inclusion of lay volunteers within the code of conduct; it was hard enough already to search out volunteers in rural parishes.
The Revd Christopher Johnson (Leicester), in a maiden speech, spoke of the “lawful versus the useful”, and said that parish governance had “modified beyond recognition.” Simon Friend (Exeter) reflected on the “complex web of relationships with a church, particularly in rural communities”.
The Archdeacon of Knowsley and Sefton, the Ven. Pete Spiers (Liverpool, speaking via Zoom), observed that some people had resorted to Zoom for PCC meetings as “a safer option to cope with disruptive behaviour”: members behaving badly could possibly be muted or transferred to the waiting room. Liverpool had already put in place a code of conduct in place that every one PCCs had been asked to adopt, based on the Nolan Principles, and others.
The amendment was lost.
Returning to the important motion unamended, Richard Brown (Chelmsford) spoke of the various layers of governance already referring to PCCs, including the Church Representation Rules and the PCC handbook. The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Rachel Treweek, drew attention to the “careful wording” of the motion: a review “to contemplate” the chances.
The motion was carried in a vote by Houses requested by Debbie Buggs (London): Bishops 30-1, with one recorded abstention; Clergy: 128-23,with 4 recorded abstentions. Laity 105-52, with eight recorded abstentions.
It read:
That this Synod request that the Archbishops’ Council perform a review to contemplate:
- the potential of drawing up a Code of Conduct for PCC members and lay volunteers,
- the problems required to place in place a disciplinary process for his or her removal from the PCC in cases where this isn’t followed,
- the resources required at national, diocesan and parish level to bring this about.
