So here is the long awaited response to our NOM from 2012....give me strength!!! Lets completely miss the f******* point! COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – RECONCILIATION The 2012 Conference passed the following notice of motion: The Conference acknowledges the immense amount of work that has been done on the Complaints and Discipline process of the Church. As set out in Standing Orders, the need for this process stems from the imperfect nature of human beings. The principles of the Complaints and Discipline system include the statements that (v) the process should be fair; (vi) the person or body making the decision at each stage should be competent to do so; (vii) there should be a means of correcting any errors that may be made. (SO 1100(3)) Errors can be addressed to some extent through the appeal process. There is also some provision to address concerns about the process (SO 1155), and provision to express concern about individuals involved in the process (SO 1103(6)). The appeal process can also allow for re-hearing of complaints, but if errors are discovered outside of the appeals process there does not seem to be means of correcting these. So there does not appear to be ‘a means of correcting any errors that may be made.’ Within or without the appeal system there is no provision in Standing Orders for apologies to be offered by individuals or on behalf of the Church when errors have been made. If this were possible it could reduce the time and stress involved in the process and facilitate reconciliation. ‘Through the complaints and discipline process members of the Methodist Church are accountable to the Church in matters of faith and behaviour. The Church seeks to enable healing and reconciliation to take place through that accountability whenever possible. The Church also responds to the call through Christ for justice, openness and honesty, and to the need for each of us to accept responsibility for its own acts.’ SO 1100(2) Seeking a further step in the journey towards a complaints process grounded in God’s love, built on trust and understanding, and seeking reconciliation, the Conference therefore directs the Methodist Council, in consultation with the Law and Polity Committee, to ensure that a review is undertaken of the reconciliation opportunities within the Complaints and Discipline process. This should ensure that account is taken of lessons learned in the process so far and seek to ensure that: i. any errors are able to be identified and corrected at the earliest possible time in the process and ii. a range of opportunities are given for reconciliation and all parties enabled to accept responsibility for their own actions. The Conference directs that a report and any Standing Order amendments be brought to the Conference no later than 2014. Report 1. On analysis, there are a number of opportunities, at various stages, for reconciliation processes to be activated within the complaints and discipline procedures. 2. SO 1100 sets out the principles of the church’s complaints and discipline processes. One of these principles is that, ‘Through the complaints and discipline process members of the Methodist Church are accountable to the Church in matters of faith and behaviour. The Church seeks to enable healing and reconciliation to take place through that accountability whenever possible.’ SO 1100(2). SO 1100(3)(iii) requires that the possibility of reconciliation should be explored carefully in every case in which it is appropriate. By requiring every District to establish a district Reconciliation Group (SO 1111(1)(i)) assistance is provided in the process of achieving reconciliation as the Group exists to provide advice to either a recipient or a local complaints officer about the possible means of resolution. The Group itself (and Synods are permitted to have a joint Group that serves more than one District) may be able to provide expertise or it may be able to provide contacts for people or organisations which may be able to provide the relevant advice and assistance with possible means of reconciliation. 3. The Conference has never sought to provide a set a pattern for the way in which such groups are to go about their work. The manner in which a Group is to discharge its functions is a matter to be decided by the relevant District and it is important that Synods pay careful attention to this important aspect of district life. 4. Stages at which reconciliation may, or should, be considered. 4.1. A recipient of a complaint may, in the course of considering how to deal with the complaint (at the informal stage) consult the district Reconciliation Group, additionally the recipient may suggest to the parties that they may wish to considerthe possibility of seeking a mediated settlement. Of course, some complaints are inherently unsuitable for mediation. This would include complaints alleging behaviour which, if established, may constitute a criminal offence (eg abuse). 4.2. Unless the complaint is an employment complaint a Local Complaints Officer must under the provision of SO 1121(2)(iii) consult the district Reconciliation Group in order to explore the possibility of resolving the complaint by a more formal means. 4.3. A complaint referred to the connexional Complaint Panel may not be summarily dismissed without consideration of whether or not any reconciliation between the parties is or might be possible (SO 1123(5)). Responsibility rests with the lead member of a Complaints Team to decide what steps might be taken to try to achieve reconciliation. 4.4. SO 1124(7) requires a complaints team, when it is satisfied that it has taken all necessary steps to consider the complaint, to consider three particular questions, one of which is whether or not there is merit in the complaint, could the situation be helped by some form of reconciliation. SO 1124(8) and (9) sets out the detail of a possible form of reconciliation: (8) If the complaints team is of the opinion that a form of reconciliation agreed by the complainant and the respondent would help the situation, the team must consider with them whether a form of reconciliation which the team believes is suitable in all the circumstances can be agreed. A suitable form of reconciliation may, but need not, include any of the following: (i) an acceptance by the complainant and the respondent that the other person has honestly interpreted admitted facts differently; (ii) an admission of fault by any person; (iii) an acknowledgment by the complainant or the respondent of hurt inflicted on or loss suffered by the other; (iv) a commitment by the complainant or the respondent not to repeat conduct which has caused hurt or loss; (v) a commitment by the complainant or the respondent to take or not to take certain action; (vi) an offer of appropriate restitution by the respondent, where possible; (vii) an agreement by the complainant and the respondent to meet face to face; (viii) an agreement by the complainant and the respondent to participate in a formal act of forgiveness and reconciliation. (9) If the complainant and the respondent agree to a form of reconciliation but thereafter:(i) either of them fails to act in the manner then agreed; (ii) either of them becomes aware for the first time of a material fact or material facts which: (a) he or she did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known before agreeing to the form of reconciliation; and (b) might reasonably have affected his or her decision whether or not to reach agreement; or (iii) either of them becomes aware for the first time of a procedural error in the course of the complaints team’s consideration of the complaint which: (a) might reasonably have affected the complaints team’s decision that the agreed form of reconciliation was suitable; or (b) might reasonably have affected his or her decision whether or not to reach agreement then the person aggrieved by the failure (where paragraph (i) applies) or becoming aware for the first time of the fact or error (where paragraph (ii) or (iii) applies) may apply for reconsideration of the complaint under Standing Order 1126 within three weeks of becoming aware of the relevant matter. 5. Notwithstanding that the existing procedures contain adequate reconciliation opportunities already embedded within the processes there is one amendment to standing orders which would facilitate a more effective outcome. This would be to stipulate that any team appointed under SO 1155(6) to deal with complaints about the process should be chaired by someone with appropriate legal knowledge/ experience and a familiarity with standing orders, that is a person appointed under the provisions of SO 231(3). This would ensure that the range of existing opportunities was used to its full extent, and that the reconciliation process was conducted in a manner consistent with the overall scheme of standing orders. ***RESOLUTION 32/12. The Conference adopts the Report and amends standing orders as set out below: 1113 Connexional Reconciliation Group [...] (2) With the exception of persons falling within SO 231(3) N no person may be appointed a member of the connexional Reconciliation Group who holds an office or is a member of a group (other than a district Reconciliation Group) or panel appointed under this Section or under Standing Order 231.
Posted on: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 17:41:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015