|
127
|
1 *Meeting for Sufferings Appeal Review Group final report*
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
3 QF&P provides for an process of appeal to MfS with respect to
|
|
|
4 decisions of an Area Meeting and disputes between Area Meeting.
|
|
|
5 Experience with this process has been less than wholly positive, and
|
|
130
|
6 MfS commissioned a review. The Review Group reported with
|
|
127
|
7 recommendations for a narrowed and simplified process, including a
|
|
|
8 preference for a "conflict transformation" approach (as opposed to
|
|
|
9 "conflict resolution") and an explicit place for mediation before
|
|
|
10 things get to Sufferings.
|
|
|
11
|
|
129
|
12 We approved these recommendations, and specific changes to QF&P will
|
|
127
|
13 be forthcoming.
|
|
|
14
|
|
129
|
15 We called Area Meetings' attention to the recommendation in QF&P that
|
|
|
16 they should have a "conciliation group".
|
|
|
17
|
|
128
|
18 There as some questioning of the value of the phrases "conflict
|
|
|
19 resolution" _or_ "conflict transformation" _or_ any other language
|
|
|
20 which raises expectations of success which cannot be met or fear of
|
|
|
21 coercion.
|
|
|
22
|
|
127
|
23 In this context Friends are reminded that Quaker Life can provide help
|
|
|
24 and guidance to Meetings which are taken by surprise/taken aback by
|
|
128
|
25 apparently irresolvable internal conflict, and that asking for help
|
|
|
26 _early_ is essential to avoid exacerbating aspects of a situation
|
|
|
27 through ignorance.
|
|
127
|
28
|
|
130
|
29 The Review Group also suggested that beyond the narrow matter of an
|
|
128
|
30 appeals procedure, the larger question of how we deal with conflict as
|
|
|
31 a Society, as Meetings and as individuals needs to be considered.
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
33 In this context we were reminded that difficulties around Membership
|
|
|
34 often arise from "lack of familiarity with Quaker ... processes" and
|
|
|
35 that accordingly care for a Ministry of Teaching in our meetings is
|
|
127
|
36 necessary to help promote this familiarity.
|
|
130
|
37
|
|
|
38 *Report of BYM Sustainability Group Review Group*
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
40 The Review Group reminded us of the Canterbury Commitment:
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
42 http://www.quaker.org.uk/documents/minute-36-leaflet-2011
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
44 The Sustainability Group was established by Sufferings to lead/guide
|
|
|
45 BYM in taking the Commitment forward.
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
47 The situation is complex, the SG has achieved much, but also struggled
|
|
|
48 much. The RG recommended laying the SG down, probably soon after the
|
|
|
49 next Sustainability Gathering, in favour of mandating coordination
|
|
|
50 between the different areas at the Central level which can and do
|
|
|
51 support sustainability. Concern was expressed by myself and others
|
|
|
52 that giving responsibility for overseeing this coordination to
|
|
|
53 Sufferings without any detail on how this to be carried out leaves a
|
|
|
54 very significant gap and risks simply recreating the SG under another
|
|
|
55 name. Actually deciding to lay the SG down without a clear picture of
|
|
131
|
56 what's going to take it place seems premature, and was in the end not
|
|
|
57 supported by MfS, which _did_ support the recommendation for "a
|
|
|
58 specially convened meeting/meetings of the clerks of BYMSG, QPSWCC,
|
|
|
59 ESP sub-committee, QLCC, QSC, BYM Trustees, the Board of Friends House
|
|
|
60 Hospitality, MfS and all members of Management Meeting," after which
|
|
|
61 we will need to come back to the question of the future for SG and/or
|
|
|
62 the form of its replacement.
|
|
130
|
63
|
|
|
64 The need for a clearer articulation of the largely unspoken spiritual
|
|
|
65 basis for the Commitment was raised.
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
67 The oft-remarked tension resurfaced between a feeling on the part of
|
|
|
68 many that we ought to put sustainability at the centre of our efforts
|
|
131
|
69 and a recognition that many others don't seem to be interested in
|
|
130
|
70 doing so.
|
|
|
71
|
|
|
72 Some quotes from the floor:
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
74 "It's not surprising that we struggle, and blame each other, and get
|
|
|
75 stuck." (Laurie Michaelis)
|
|
|
76
|
|
131
|
77 "This is the biggest thing we've ever tried to deal with." (Laurie Michaelis)
|
|
130
|
78
|
|
|
79 "Giving responsibility but no authority to working groups [such as
|
|
131
|
80 SG] is Kafkaesque, not Quakerly" (Lis Burch)
|
|
130
|
81
|
|
|
82 "How do we connect a BYM Concern with [the priorities and funding
|
|
|
83 choices] of the centrally-managed work]." (Lis Burch)
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
85 "What is it that has caused us to try to do this and fail 5 times?"
|
|
131
|
86 (Peter Morris)
|
|
130
|
87
|
|
|
88 [Testimonies C'tee to Sufferings in 2007?]
|
|
131
|
89
|
|
|
90 *Restoring Integrity to the Public Sphere*
|
|
|
91
|
|
|
92 We were asked to consider a concern from an AM on this topic, which
|
|
|
93 asked whether BYM should be a "public champion of truth"?
|
|
|
94
|
|
|
95 We've had a testimony to truth since the 17th century, but the more
|
|
|
96 recent, complex, history to our recent engagement with this issue
|
|
|
97 begins in 1990 with a concern which created a "Truth and Integrity in
|
|
|
98 Public Affairs" programme. This was laid down in 2004.
|
|
|
99
|
|
|
100 We agreed to ask for input on this from Area Meetings, regarding both
|
|
|
101 difficulties experienced and actions being taken.
|
