St Luke's Church Eccleshill - Articles from "The Link"

Ministerial Review & Training

During October I’ll be attending a “Revision Committee” of the General Synod in London, and I thought I ought to answer for why I’m away from the parish.

The Church of England is trying to sort out its employment practices and make clergy’s terms of service fairer. At the moment, vicars have a “freehold” job until they retire and can’t be dismissed, whereas Priests-in-Charge are on 5-year contracts with no employment protection. That’s wrong, and the playing-field should be level.

Most people also agree that clergy should have to provide a basic level of service. So just like in any other job, their performance should be appraised and they should have in-service training. If they don’t do their job very well they ought to be helped to do better. And if after this help they still fail to improve the Church ought to be able to remove them. (At present clergy can be removed for immorality, but not for incompetence.)

So the new proposals are to put everyone on “Common Tenure” - and I think that’s a good thing. But here’s the rub. Vicars (like me) who already have a freehold can’t legally have it removed from them. We can opt into the new arrangements but we can’t be forced into them. Why should clergy opt into something with less security than they have now?

I believe there are many clergy who would opt in because they believe in the principle that clergy ought to be answerable for their standards of work. But they can only be expected to opt in if the new system really does give them a fair appraisal and an in-service training package which is worth having. And that’s where I have my doubts. You only have to ask other professions: teachers, doctors and so on, to hear some stories of the way that their “reviews” are arbitrary, poorly conducted, biased and irrelevant, and tell more about the reviewer’s prejudices than the worker’s performance.

So I have made a number of suggestions for changes to the proposals, and I therefore get the chance to go to London and argue my case before the “Revision Committee”. I’ll be asking for a proper scheme, rather than a series of one-off reviews. I’ll be asking for the scheme to be overseen by a committee, instead of individual bishops being able to do their own thing at their own whim. I’ll be asking for the compulsory elements of the training to be related to what the review throws up as the weaknesses of the clergy. I’ll be asking that bishops who conduct reviews will themselves be subject to review. I don’t know if I’ll get anywhere, but that’s what I’ll be off trying to do.

John Hartley

	*St Luke's Church, Eccleshill - The Link* magazine** The Link is published monthly at 40p (Senior Citizens 35p), and we deliver free within the parish and post copies (at the reader's expense) to those who request it. Please contact us if you would like a free copy for a trial period. October 2007, Page 8.
Home Page. Index of articles: by subject, by date. In this issue: (October 2007) Mr. Rich, Zechariah, Question, Song, Ministry Review. Other articles on church organisation.	Ministerial Review & Training During October I’ll be attending a “Revision Committee” of the General Synod in London, and I thought I ought to answer for why I’m away from the parish. The Church of England is trying to sort out its employment practices and make clergy’s terms of service fairer. At the moment, vicars have a “freehold” job until they retire and can’t be dismissed, whereas Priests-in-Charge are on 5-year contracts with no employment protection. That’s wrong, and the playing-field should be level. Most people also agree that clergy should have to provide a basic level of service. So just like in any other job, their performance should be appraised and they should have in-service training. If they don’t do their job very well they ought to be helped to do better. And if after this help they still fail to improve the Church ought to be able to remove them. (At present clergy can be removed for immorality, but not for incompetence.) So the new proposals are to put everyone on “Common Tenure” - and I think that’s a good thing. But here’s the rub. Vicars (like me) who already have a freehold can’t legally have it removed from them. We can opt into the new arrangements but we can’t be forced into them. Why should clergy opt into something with less security than they have now? I believe there are many clergy who would opt in because they believe in the principle that clergy ought to be answerable for their standards of work. But they can only be expected to opt in if the new system really does give them a fair appraisal and an in-service training package which is worth having. And that’s where I have my doubts. You only have to ask other professions: teachers, doctors and so on, to hear some stories of the way that their “reviews” are arbitrary, poorly conducted, biased and irrelevant, and tell more about the reviewer’s prejudices than the worker’s performance. So I have made a number of suggestions for changes to the proposals, and I therefore get the chance to go to London and argue my case before the “Revision Committee”. I’ll be asking for a proper scheme, rather than a series of one-off reviews. I’ll be asking for the scheme to be overseen by a committee, instead of individual bishops being able to do their own thing at their own whim. I’ll be asking for the compulsory elements of the training to be related to what the review throws up as the weaknesses of the clergy. I’ll be asking that bishops who conduct reviews will themselves be subject to review. I don’t know if I’ll get anywhere, but that’s what I’ll be off trying to do. John Hartley
Top of page.	This web page was last updated on 10th November 2007.