Friday, 1 July 2016

Crown Nominations Commission - a Report for General Synod

The central members of the Crown Nominations Commission have prepared this report on their work: GS Misc 1147. Amongst the topics covered are

  • interviews, which the members find to be “essential to their work”,
  • legal issues, ie the CNC is bound by the House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests, and
  • training, which will now be extended from the central members to the diocesan representatives.

One thing that is not mentioned in the report is the use of substitutes when central members are unable to attend, and the effect this has on the work of the CNC. A question was asked about this in November 2014 (reproduced below the fold) and the answer revealed that substitutes are quite common. What it does not say is that several substitutes can be used for a particular vacancy. For instance it appears from Annex A to the question that at the CNC for St Edmundsbury and Ipswich in 2014 there were substitutes for four of the six central members. It is also common for one of the archbishops to send a substitute, as did the Archbishop of York in this case.

Question at General Synod 17 November 2014

2. Mr Adrian Greenwood (Southwark) asked the Chair of the Crown Nominations Commission:
(a) What procedures are followed when one or more of the ‘central six’ members (elected by General Synod) of the CNC are not able to attend meetings concerning a particular vacancy;
(b) how are ‘substitutes’ identified and who chooses them;
(c) since the start of the current quinquennium, on how many occasions have individual members of the ‘central six’ not been able to be present and have therefore been replaced by a ‘substitute’; and
(d) are attendance records kept and can they be published?

The Archbishop of York replied: When one of the six central members cannot be present, Standing Order SO122 provides for the Chair of the House concerned to nominate a member of the same House as a deputy at the meetings of the Commission for the particular vacancy. I understand that they endeavour to replace the absent member on a ‘like for like’ basis as far as it is possible. Since November 2010 the Commission has considered 18 vacancies (including Southwell and Nottingham) of which nine have had substitutes for one or more central members. Records are kept for the membership of the Commission and I will arrange for these to be put up on the notice board. (See Annex A at the end of this document). It may be that you need to make reference to this document. We have been particularly busy at the moment. Again, we are really trying to work hard and get through because a lot of vacancies appear at one time and the timetable sometimes makes it very difficult for the central members to be there at all the Crown Nomination Commission meetings that the Standing Order allows for substitutes. But the list is going to be put on the notice board so that you can see who has actually been attending those meetings.

[Annex A can be found on pages 147-153 of this document.]

Posted by Peter Owen on Friday, 1 July 2016 at 11:16am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: General Synod
Comments

GS Misc 1147 is to be welcomed, not least as it is a rare example of the CNC demonstrating some accountability. However, its content is somewhat anodyne, as might have been expected. While it strongly endorses the use of interviews as part of the discernment process, it does not attempt to show how the CNC makes the critical decision as to whom to interview. The first Oxford CNC clearly invited, say, four candidates and none commanded the required two-thirds majority of CNC members (not CNC members voting). That is a waste of people's time and lives. I have put a question down on this at the forthcoming Group of Sessions at York this weekend. The related TA comment on deputising central members is also interesting. My short experience as a central member between 2005-07 revealed no deputies, except that ++Sentamu did not want to be party to choosing his successor at Birmingham, which was reasonable. However, the Presidents do have a critical influence on the process and I am unclear as to why both seem to have absented themselves on a number of recent occasions. Urgent personal reasons might have been a factor. As to other central members not showing up, there has clearly been an issue with the sheer volume of vacant sees and with each taking the best part of three days it is a major commitment of time. However, central members are the 'glue' in the system, have a better understanding of the needs of the wider Church and get used to working together. They also have a far better understanding and knowledge of potential candidates, some of whom are obviously considered for more than one see. For there to have been four members deputising at the St Eds & Ips CNC, widely regarded as having been a problem CNC (at least by reference to some questions thereafter at General Synod), might have been a contributory factor.

Posted by: Anthony Archer on Monday, 4 July 2016 at 5:22pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.