<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><!-- Network content -->
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Although the selection and appointment
process is a cause for concern - and it is rather crass that, ignoring the
recent comments, the CCC have chosen not to canvass or advertise more
widely for members representing a wider range of expertise and interests - it is
not the most important factor.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Robert identifies some of the key
issues:</FONT></DIV>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>What is the real role and position of
the Council - where do care, development and use fit alongside conservation in
the Council's grand scheme of things?</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Does the overall membership (at Council
and committee levels) represent the full range of interests across this
spectrum?</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>What scope for influence will members
have if they don't like the policies and principles that the Council and its
staff are following?</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>And (not really mentioned until now) how
will the Council exercise its role in respect of the faculty process? - as an
upholder of conservation, or as an independent adjudicator seeking to identify
solutions taking account of the interests of all stakeholders and
(essentially, since the Church pays the bills) what is best for the
Church</FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>But in discussing this, we must be
careful not to confuse concerns about the Council - it's role, policies and
processes - with the work of those who have served on the B&C committee in
the past. Several have done a great deal to champion the needs of ringing as
well as seeking to preserve what ought to be kept, and members with specific
responsibilities have done a lot of sterling work behind the scenes - casework,
grant allocation, revising the preservation lists and making sure bells are not
ignored when churches are closed. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>The balance in the past wasn't far wrong
- the CCC wasn't "the enemy" in the days when the battles over the Code of
Practice took place, actually, and at that time they held the middle ground
in a very polarised debate between users / developers and diehard
conservationists. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>My main concern is that the Council now
sees itself as primarily a conservation body, that its powers have increased,
that those who serve will have little influence on policy and direction, and
(now we're back to the starting point) that the appointment process looks sure
to restrict membership to those with a conservation outlook and
background.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Chris Pickford</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>