Thursday, 20 June 2013
Elections Review Group - part 1
The Business Committee of the General Synod set up an elections review group in 2011. This group has now reported and its proposals will be considered at next month’s meeting of Synod. There are two reports and this article deals with the first of these.
The papers sent to members are all available online. GS 1901 contains the full report of the Elections Review Group. The Business Committee has divided its response into two reports (GS 1901 and GS 1906). This post looks at only the first of these; there will be a later posting on GS 1906.
GS 1901 - The work of the Elections Review Group: First Report by the Business Committee
GS 1902 - Draft Amending Canon No.32
GS 1903 - Draft Convocations (Elections to Upper House) (Amendment) Resolution
GS 1904 - Draft Clergy Representation (Amendment) Resolution
GS 1905 - Draft Church Representation Rules (Amendment) Resolution
GS 1902-05x - Explanatory Memorandum
Amongst what the Business Committee considers to be non-controversial proposals are these two.
- Suffragan bishops will be allowed to submit nomination papers by fax, as is currently allowed for laity and clergy. [For younger readers, fax is an obsolete technology for sending low resolution scans of documents over phone lines.]
- Returning Officers will be required to post lists of candidates and election addresses online before voting papers are issued.
I will now look at the more controversial proposals, which all concern the membership of General Synod.
Allocation of seats between the two provinces
In 2010 the allocation was calculated on the basis of a 70:30 split between the Provinces of Canterbury and York, which resulted in a slight weighting in favour of York in both Houses. If there were no weighting the split would be 72:28 in both houses. Synod will be given the opportunity to remove the fixed 70:30 split.
Diocese of Europe
At present this diocese is treated as being too small to justify the normal minimum of three clergy and three lay seats in Synod, and has two of each. It now has more clergy and members of electoral rolls than some English dioceses, and Synod will be asked to give it the same minimum of three members in each house as all English dioceses.
The only other diocese with fewer than the normal minimum number of members is Sodor and Man, but the review group found no reason to change this.
Seats for Suffragan Bishops
There are currently four elected places for southern suffragans on Synod. It is proposed to increase this to five. The number of northern suffragans would remain at three. Although the main reason for the change is the desire to increase representation of minority views in the House of Bishops, there is another curious reason given. This is that if the proposals for reorganisation of dioceses in Yorkshire goes ahead, the number of diocesan bishops will be reduced by two, and the net effect would actually be a reduction in the size of the House of Bishops. To me this seems like a reason to increase the number of northern suffragans. [I should declare an interest here as I live in a northern diocese.]
There are currently six places for clergy who work in universities: one each from Oxford, Cambridge, London, other southern universities, Durham & Newcastle, other northern universities. There are a number of perceived difficulties with these places.
- It is impossible to compile accurate lists of electors (who are also the eligible candidates for election) as this relies on the co-operation (which is not always forthcoming) of university administrators over whom the Church has no control. It is thought that these problems are so serious that the validity of the elections could be subject to legal challenge.
- Some of the constituencies are very small.
- Most importantly the object of these seats is to supply theological expertise to Synod, but there is no requirement for those elected to have any particular expertise. Places are not restricted to academic theologians. Most of the theologians hold the bishop’s licence and could offer their expertise by standing for election in their diocese instead.
The Business Committee therefore proposes to abolish the university places. However, Synod rejected the same proposal in 2004 and the Business Committee recognises that this might happen again. So there are alternative proposals to substantially reform the arrangements for these places. Details are in GS 1901.
Co-option of ethnic minority individuals
The review group considered a proposal to co-opt some ethnic minority individuals to Synod because of their under-representation amongst elected members. The proposal was rejected. The view was taken that more effort should be put into encouraging members of ethnic minorities to stand for election.
Posted by Peter Owen on
Thursday, 20 June 2013 at 1:41pm BST
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Church of England
| General Synod
I was amused by the fax point. Email I could have understood...
I think it's more than a little dangerous to propose abolishing the university seats, for three reasons.
Firstly, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are peculiar jurisdictions. Among other things, that means that pastoral statements from bishops are not binding on either clergy or laity who are among the "Chancellor, Masters and Scholars" of either university. That independence from the bishops is enshrined in public law (Order in Council of 21st June 1636), and since 2005, it has been of some practical importance in creating a pair of havens where it is possible for civil partnership blessings to take place. To make clergy in the universities dependent on the possession of a bishop's licence for their ability to participate in House of Clergy elections undermines that independence by the back door.
Secondly, and relatedly, when an ordained person in one of those two universities holds a bishop's licence, it always creates a potential conflict of interest, at least for those who take the Oath of Canonical Obedience seriously. This is because of a difference in wording between the Oath as it appears in the ordination ceremony and the oath as it is adminstered during licensing. The oath at licensing is taken to "the Lord Bishop of C and his successors", whereas the oath at ordination is taken to "my ordinary". For anyone who is among the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of one of the two universities, "my ordinary" is not a bishop, but the Chancellor of the University [*].
Thirdly, if one includes the laity, it is not at all true to say that the constituencies are "very small". The total number of people among the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge, for example, is around a quarter of a million (almost all of them in the "Masters" category by virtue of holding an MA), so if anything, the peculiar is rather under-represented by having just one seat in one house of General Synod.
[*] or, for those in the handful of colleges that are peculiars in their own right, the head of house of the college.
The constituencies for the university seats may be large, but the point the Business Committee makes is that the actual electorate is both tiny and in some cases even unknown. If the seats aren't abolished, there certainly needs to be some radical reform.
I think the position I've persuaded myself into (having not thought very much about this before last night) is that Cambridge University (and presumably, by analogy, Oxford University too) ought to have a seat in the House of Laity as well as its existing seat in the House of Clergy. In that case, the electorate would be the full quarter of a million or so people I mentioned, not just the thirty people to whom GS 1901 alludes.
Pace Feria, I am not sure that it is correct that the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the two universities are outside the jurisidiction of the Bishops of Oxford and Ely. A couple of Oxford colleges chapels are considered to still be under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Lincoln, but the rest are certainly under the ecclesiasitical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Oxford. (Rule of thumb: who consecrated the college chapel? In all cases it will probably have been the diocesan bishop)
I think that Cambridge college chaplains are licensed by the Bishop of Ely.
As for lay members of the universities, most of us are resident electors in other dioceses -- and it would be somewhat iniquitous to give us votes in two constituencies. Such things were abolished for parliamentary elections in the 1940s.
Simon: 'I am not sure that it is correct that the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the two universities are outside the jurisidiction of the Bishops of Oxford and Ely'
They are indeed - confirmation in modern times can be found in P. Barber, 1995, _Ecclesiastical Law Journal_ *3*(16):299-312. As I said, the legislation governing this is an Order in Council of 21st June 1636, the relevant clause of which is:
'on the behalf of both Universities, that though they were to be visited by the Archbishop and his successors, yet that they should not be visited by the Bishop of the diocese, or Archdeacon, but should perpetually remain free and exempt from the visitation and jurisdiction of the Bishop and Archdeacon of the places where they are.'
(the next couple of clauses place some limitations on the Archbishop's right to visit as well).
Simon: 'I think that Cambridge college chaplains are licensed by the Bishop of Ely.'
Certainly some of them are, and as I said above, it creates the potential for a conflict of interest.
'As for lay members of the universities, most of us are resident electors in other dioceses -- and it would be somewhat iniquitous to give us votes in two constituencies.'
I think "most" is a considerable exaggeration. (Apart from anything else, if "most" of the Oxford and Cambridge Masters were on the electoral rolls in the dioceses, we'd form about 20% of the total CofE lay electorate, because, as we've been discussing on another thread, the electoral rolls in the dioceses are generally so incomplete.)
Nevertheless, you're correct to say that, if the peculiar universities did get representation in the House of Laity, it would be quite wrong for the same layperson to be registered as an elector both in their peculiar university and in a diocese.
It seems rather bizarre to me to retain separate representation for Oxford and Cambridge universities and abolish it for the rest! Do we still live in the nineteenth century?
Helen: 'Do we still live in the nineteenth century?'
You've rumbled me. Yes, I am rather inclined to regard the period between 1829 and 1865 (after the emancipation of Catholics, before the removal of the Oath of Supremacy from the public consecration service for bishops) as a golden age for Church governance [although as we know, it wasn't at all a golden age for social justice, nor for popular democracy].
But on a more serious note: a special position in the electoral system for Oxford and Cambridge follows naturally from basing the electoral system on dioceses, because Oxford and Cambridge are the two universities that are, by law, outside the dioceses.
If you want a theological justification for those universities in particular to be outside the diocesan system in the first place, I guess it's rooted in the purpose of the episcopacy. To the best of my understanding, the reason we have an episcopacy is that the unbroken apostolic succession provides a "chain of trust", analogous to those used in modern digital security. The chain goes all the way back to "root certificate authorities" provided by Polycarp's generation of bishops, who were in personal communication with the authors of the New Testament. Therefore, they were in a position to confirm that the books of the New Testament really were written by the people by whom they purport to be written.
Oxford and Cambridge Universities can short-circuit the need for this "chain of trust" by their possession of ancient manuscripts. (I suppose that increasingly, as the universities and others scan their ancient manuscripts and make them available online, we're _all_ becoming able to short-circuit the need for the "chain of trust".)