<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1250">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>I have been interested to read the various comments on
Cornhill, and agree with many of them.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>In the last few years, I have had experiences with the
Church of England which have convinced me beyond all doubt that, although it
contains many decent people, as an organisation it really is extremely
unpleasant. Although the matter in question was nothing to do with the subject
of this list, it is interesting that many of the same sort of issues crop up
here as they do in the Cornhill debate, and the earlier debate on appointment
of bells advisers to various parts of the CofE. The common theme is
accountability and openness – or rather, the lack of both.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>In these enlightened times, most organisations have
transparent policies on how they address issues and what can be expected of
them. Not so the CofE. The cause of my dispute with them was the way they
handled a complaint of bullying which I made to the Diocesan authorities (the
vicar of the church concerned having done absolutely nothing about the issue
despite being made well aware of it). The CofE has no policies on handling
complaints of bullying (or disability discrimination, for that matter) and
relies of bluff and bluster, and empty phrases such as “pastoral
resolution” of problems. In the case of my dispute, the Archdeacon told
me that I shouldn’t assume he had done nothing (I did, and do assume just
that as all the evidence pretty strongly points to this), but that he cannot
tell me what he did or what the outcome was because it is ‘confidential’.
Quite how the outcome could be confidential to the point that the complainant
cannot be told of it escapes me – given that the whole point is to
resolve their complaint and most organisations have a clear policy which states
that the complainant will be told of the outcome. I refused to accept this,
with the result that the Archdeacon resorted to intimidation tactics. This has
lead to a permanent stand-off. I wrote to the Archbishop four times asking, quite
reasonably I thought, why the CofE has no policies on issues of bullying and
disability discrimination. He tried to fob me off and didn’t answer
regarding disability discrimination. There is apparently no policy on bullying
because “it would be impossible to ensure that each parish followed an
anti-bullying policy”. Funnily enough, other organisations manage to have
procedures in place and although the structure of the CofE would create
problems I don’t believe they are insurmountable and that nothing could
be done. As it is, all we have is the Clergy Discipline Measure which is
extremely difficult to invoke, and specifically isn’t for minor issues –
which, it says, should be resolved informally. In typical CofE style, this
woolly phrase isn’t amplified and there is no guidance on what should be
done if informal attempts at resolution fail. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>What has this to do with bell conservation, you may think.
Well, I think there are interesting parallels to be drawn between this and the
way the CofE has responded to criticisms of its appointment procedure for
advisers – the response often seems to be almost astonishment and
indignation that anybody could have the audacity to question the CofE’s
actions. Direct questions such as ‘can I see your policies on this issue’,
be it bullying, appointment of bells advisers or many other things, are met
with evasion. The bottom line seems to be that the position the CofE finds most
comfortable is on the fence, and lack of written policies enables them to make
up the rules to suit the individual circumstances. In addition, there is a
culture of secrecy in the organisation, and I have found that even getting a straight
answer about whether there are policies on any given issues is extremely
difficult – in the course of my dispute, I had to find and read any possibly
relevant policies myself (how did we manage before the internet!) and then challenge
them with not having an applicable policy.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>We shall see in due course what happens regarding Cornhill,
but the ‘sit on the fence’ position is likely to be ‘do
nothing’ and personally I think that would be a shame; for the donor who has
generously offered to pay for the new bells, for those who have put much work
into the project already, for the founders who would be denied a chance to
produce a first-class modern ring, and for the church. Regarding the comment
about the identities of the complainants not being relevant, I would argue that
in some cases it is relevant. For instance, it has been noted that Chris Cooper
is one of the objectors. Mr Cooper makes no secret of the fact that he is an
enthusiast for the retention of the old in most things relating to bells and
ringing, which is of course a view he is entitled to but I hope it is clear to
the Chancellor that this is not a commonly-held standpoint and most of us
wouldn’t take the concept of retention to anything like the same extent.
I strongly believe that matters should be in the public domain; modern secular
planning control procedures are transparent and as the faculty system is
supposed to be equivalent to this the same should apply.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Like Chris Pickford, I am somewhat concerned to read that
the Chancellor has approached an “expert”. The question of course
arises as to who this expert is, and what experience they have to advise on
matters such as this – the same argument, incidentally, as can be applied
to the most recent appointments to the CCC Bells Committee.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>I think the main point of what I am saying is that a large
part of the underlying problem is lack of accountability and transparency, and a
lack of procedures in many areas, leading to messy situations. In the Cornhill case,
it is easy to see that the Chancellor could quite possibly be placed in a
difficult position, bombarded with contradictory opinions from both sides and
with perhaps no way of distinguishing expert from “expert”. We know
who knows what they are talking about, but non bell specialists may not and in
that respect we lack a common voice as there is no formally-constituted group
dedicated to the study of bells. Perhaps it is time to think about forming such
a group in order to have a common voice to bring pressure on the CofE and other
involved parties to adopt more open and accountable practices?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>David<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>No virus found in this outgoing message.<BR>
Checked by AVG Free Edition.<BR>
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1212 - Release Date: 06/01/2008 22:55<BR>
</FONT> </P>