*Meeting for Sufferings Appeal Review Group final report*

QF&P provides for an process of appeal to MfS with respect to
decisions of an Area Meeting and disputes between Area Meeting.
Experience with this process has been less than wholly positive, and
MfS commissioned a review.  The Review Group reported with
recommendations for a narrowed and simplified process, including a
preference for a "conflict transformation" approach (as opposed to
"conflict resolution") and an explicit place for mediation before
things get to Sufferings.

We approved these recommendations, and specific changes to QF&P will
be forthcoming.

We called Area Meetings' attention to the recommendation in QF&P that
they should have a "conciliation group".

There as some questioning of the value of the phrases "conflict
resolution" _or_ "conflict transformation" _or_ any other language
which raises expectations of success which cannot be met or fear of
coercion.

In this context Friends are reminded that Quaker Life can provide help
and guidance to Meetings which are taken by surprise/taken aback by
apparently irresolvable internal conflict, and that asking for help
_early_ is essential to avoid exacerbating aspects of a situation
through ignorance.

The Review Group also suggested that beyond the narrow matter of an
appeals procedure, the larger question of how we deal with conflict as
a Society, as Meetings and as individuals needs to be considered.

In this context we were reminded that difficulties around Membership
often arise from "lack of familiarity with Quaker ... processes" and
that accordingly care for a Ministry of Teaching in our meetings is
necessary to help promote this familiarity.

*Report of BYM Sustainability Group Review Group*

The Review Group reminded us of the Canterbury Commitment:

  http://www.quaker.org.uk/documents/minute-36-leaflet-2011

The Sustainability Group was established by Sufferings to lead/guide
BYM in taking the Commitment forward.

The situation is complex, the SG has achieved much, but also struggled
much.  The RG recommended laying the SG down, probably soon after the
next Sustainability Gathering, in favour of mandating coordination
between the different areas at the Central level which can and do
support sustainability.  Concern was expressed by myself and others
that giving responsibility for overseeing this coordination to
Sufferings without any detail on how this to be carried out leaves a
very significant gap and risks simply recreating the SG under another
name.  Actually deciding to lay the SG down without a clear picture of
what's going to take it place seems premature, and was in the end not
supported by MfS, which _did_ support the recommendation for "a
specially convened meeting/meetings of the clerks of BYMSG, QPSWCC,
ESP sub-committee, QLCC, QSC, BYM Trustees, the Board of Friends House
Hospitality, MfS and all members of Management Meeting," after which
we will need to come back to the question of the future for SG and/or
the form of its replacement.

The need for a clearer articulation of the largely unspoken spiritual
basis for the Commitment was raised.

The oft-remarked tension resurfaced between a feeling on the part of
many that we ought to put sustainability at the centre of our efforts
and a recognition that many others don't seem to be interested in
doing so.

  Some quotes from the floor:

  "It's not surprising that we struggle, and blame each other, and get
   stuck." (Laurie Michaelis)

  "This is the biggest thing we've ever tried to deal with." (Laurie Michaelis)

  "Giving responsibility but no authority to working groups [such as
   SG] is Kafkaesque, not Quakerly" (Lis Burch)

  "How do we connect a BYM Concern with [the priorities and funding
   choices] of the centrally-managed work]." (Lis Burch)

  "What is it that has caused us to try to do this and fail 5 times?"
   (Peter Morris)

[Testimonies C'tee to Sufferings in 2007?]

*Restoring Integrity to the Public Sphere*

We were asked to consider a concern from an AM on this topic, which
asked whether BYM should be a "public champion of truth"?

We've had a testimony to truth since the 17th century, but the more
recent, complex, history to our recent engagement with this issue
begins in 1990 with a concern which created a "Truth and Integrity in
Public Affairs" programme.  This was laid down in 2004.

We agreed to ask for input on this from Area Meetings, regarding both
difficulties experienced and actions being taken.

*Trustees Report*

There's a _lot_ of work that Trustees do for us, it's quite amazing.

There's two points of particular interest:

The first is expressed in a single 3-line paragraph in the middle of a
10-page report:

  "We agree that trustees, with the support of Management Meeting,
   should prepare a multi-year strategic plan. This should be done in
   careful consultation with committees and Meeting for Sufferings."

This is explained as

  "We acknowledge that there is a lack of an overall strategic
   framework below the very high level Our Faith in the Future and
   above the operational plan, which makes prioritising difficult and
   which we now need to address."

The second was a reflection about diversity:

  "[Trustees] are diverse in gender and geographical spread, do not
   know on sexuality, and are not diverse on ethnicity."

  "In terms of age, we are better than many Quaker committees and
   half of us are in paid employment, but we do need younger Friends.
   We recognise that time constraints can be a problem for younger
   Friends who have less flexibility in their work schedules and often
   have family commitments.

  "At present only 15 of the 400 places in the BYM committee
   structure are occupied by under-35s."

  "We need to be radical as BYM trustees and experiment. Young
   Friends will bring themselves and bright thinking to being a
   trustee and learn in the process.  We can and will adjust our
   meeting schedules to accommodate individual trustees."

Although filling jobs is hard enough without adding additional
constraints, it's worth reminding ourselves that AMs have been asked
to look to their own structures in this regard and report back to the
centre, and at AM in November we agreed to consider this.  As MfS
intends to take this up later in the year we should not delay too much
longer in doing so if our input is to be available in time.