THE Representative Body (RB) of the Church in Wales has come under fire for the statement that it issued on 1 July in response to the situation at Bangor Cathedral.
Critics suggested that the motion had been beyond the RB’s remit, and had given the then Archbishop of Wales and Bishop of Bangor, the Rt Revd Andrew John, little option but to retire with immediate effect (News, 28 June).
On 23 June, Archbishop John issued an unqualified apology for his part within the failings at Bangor Cathedral. Two reports commissioned by the Archbishop had recorded concerns about “weak financial controls” and “inappropriate behaviours” (News, 27 June).
The following day, the situation at Bangor was discussed by the RB, and a temporary note was issued: “After extensive and detailed discussions, the meeting has been adjourned, and an announcement might be issued in the end.”
Archbishop John announced his retirement three days later.
On 1 July, the RB issued its promised statement, comprising the complete text of the motion that its members had carried. This described the revelations of “safeguarding failures, blurred boundaries, inappropriate conduct, weak control environment and lack of transparency in management at Bangor Cathedral” as “deeply troubling.”
It concluded with a call for “change in leadership, procedures and governance within the Diocese of Bangor”.
A central advice directed the senior leaders of the diocese, the diocesan board of finance, and the cathedral Chapter to “co-operate with a Representative Body established leadership taskforce, accountable to the Trustees of the RB, to work with the officers of the Diocese of Bangor to supply more capability and drive structural change.
“Such a taskforce might be given the authority to deliver and implement the system changes required to create a sustainable infrastructure for the long run.”
Archbishop John spoke in regards to the RB meeting — at which he was present — in an interview with the BBC after his retirement (News, 11 July).
“Being present on the meeting, and [to] have people kind of calling on your resignation was like being in a nightmare,” he said. “I do know the individuals who were in that meeting.
“I don’t think I had a probability to elucidate the changes we’ve made, and the way complicated things are, but, having heard from them, I don’t wish to be an issue for them either. I believe it’s a superb decision for the long run.”
Church in WalesThe Governing Body meets last week
At the Governing Body meeting this week, there was evident anger in regards to the perceived handling of the situation. Professor Medwin Hughes, who chairs the RB, described the 24 June meeting as “very, very difficult. . . I hear the pain, I hear the priority, and I hear the grief that was related to what happened within the context of Bangor,” he told the Governing Body.
“I’m mindful that some would ask the query, Why on earth was the RB undertaking this activity? I’m confident that what we did, although painful, extremely painful, was right within the context of our stewardship as trustees of this separate legal entity. Our first duty needs to be to comply with charity law to act appropriately, with stewardship to administer resources, and to interact with risk and to supply support — and that last word is essential, ‘support’.
“We grieve with [the diocese and cathedral] in very, very difficult issues, and the recommendations that were considered and passed by the Representative Body set out not only a variety of procedures and structures to contemplate due processes, but additionally supporting structures for the long run in order that we will help the diocese and likewise the cathedral. . . We had a legal duty to contemplate and to interact in an appropriate manner.”
The motion before the meeting was simply to simply accept the RB report. But an amendment put by Canon Richard Wood (Bangor) added the proviso, “subject to an instruction to the Standing Committee to reflect jointly and critically with the Representative Body upon the June meeting of the RB, regarding how the statement published sequent to that meeting, issued without consultation with the Governing Body nor its Standing Committee, nor any engagement with the disciplinary procedures of the Church in Wales, was in a position to effect the immediate retirement of the Archbishop”.
Canon Wood called into query “the style wherein they [the RB] drafted and published their statement. The Standing Committee weren’t consulted before the statement was made. There was silence. Two had absented themselves as being from Bangor.
“It seems there was a desire to talk in response to headlines within the media. . . A call for change of leadership could only be interpreted as a call to go away that office. That is a cultural norm in society — we’d like not be sure by such.” The Archbishop or anyone else liable for leadership and governance should, after all, be held to account, he said, “however the Representative Body shouldn’t be the Church in Wales. It shouldn’t be the arbiter of discipline or the arbiter of ministry.”
The Revd Dr Kevin Ellis (Bangor) had “no qualms with decisions made inside the Representative Body, but, as a priest in Bangor, the unintended consequence of the RB’s motion was to disregard the undeniable fact that within the diocese of Bangor, despite the things which have been uncovered, still people come to Christ. All that, in that moment, appeared to be lost. It is worthy of further reflection.”
Legislation should be aligned with mission and ministry, the Archdeacon of St Davids, the Ven. Paul Mackness (St Davids), suggested. “To put all blame in a single place shouldn’t be the Christian response. Regardless of the choice, we’d like to reflect deeply about this. The relationship we’ve got as Governing Body and Representative Body needs reflecting on, in order that we all know where full responsibility lies.”
Heather Payne (Llandaff), who had been on the meeting, reflected on whether “the mission was driving the cash or the cash driving the mission. . . It felt a bit like rubber-stamping. We have structures which have been constructed and agreed; for we’re separate from the Governing Body. As trustees, the RB has an obligation of acting in accordance with the Nolan principles of public life, with the resources we’ve got at our disposal.”
It had been an “extremely difficult meeting”, which had done “only what we had the ability and responsibility to do as trustees”. While “all the time able to learn”, she didn’t feel that the amendment was worthy of support.
The amendment was carried by 61-20, with 4 recorded abstentions. The vote on the amended motion was carried by a good larger majority, 82-3, with 4 recorded abstentions. Professor Hughes welcomed that consequence.
 of the Church in Wales has come under fire for the statement that it issued on 1 July in response to...){kind=link}