THERE was never going to be much time for the penultimate item of the General Synod in York on Tuesday: the Synod Complaints Process.
It was billed as a presentation with time for questions, but accumulated time pressures over the weekend led to the business being hurried through at top speed. A refusal to adjourn led to palpable vexation and dissatisfaction.
The Business Committee had wanted the Synod to consider whether changes were needed to introduce a formal complaints process in place of the agreed existing code of conduct, last reviewed in 2017. It had “looked forward to this discussion with Synod and to taking its mind on the way forward,” concluded the background paper.
It had “consistently considered that a Christian body, operating by Christian values, ought to be able to rely on members’ faith to govern good behaviour” but had received representations that, “whilst behaviour in the Chamber continues to be (mostly) good, behaviour on social media and in the margins of Synod can be less good, and it has heard members argue for a more formal process for dealing with their complaints against other members.”
The principal sanction for bad behaviour is a letter from the Business Committee which may be made public. If the Synod were in favour of a more formalised complaints process, there would be important choices, including what the behavioural standard was, the paper says.
It asks: “Do we test against the bullying, harassment and discrimination policy or a set of values for the General Synod, and what behaviour is covered? Is it only behaviour connected with Synod or is it about the behaviour of the person — if the latter, could this scheme end up picking up complaints that might be parochial or diocesan matters.”
The Business Committee suggested rough costs of between £100,000 and £200,000 a year to deal with 20 cases — more if there were more judgements and complexity within the test.
The risks of a formal process were that a system designed to deal with a handful of cases could become overwhelmed and, as a result, prove incapable of providing rapid justice; also that, rather than dealing with bad behaviour in the Church, it could became a vehicle for increasing conflict, “sweeping up vexatious questions or the weaponization of behaviours.”
There was also a risk that it would constrain debate, as people held back from commenting in fear of complaints; that it unfairly penalised those with disabilities, especially those with neurodivergent characteristics; and that “sanctions did not change behaviours.”
The risks and issues associated with not having such a process included concern that “failure to deal with cases of bad behaviour normalises such behaviour and makes Synod less of a safe place for all Christians; that the failure to deal with cases damages the reputation of Synod in the eyes of the Church and beyond — noting that Synod is increasingly out of line with other legislatures in not having a formal complaints process.”
Introducing the item, Canon Paul Cartwright (Leeds), said that he had held a longstanding view of the Synod as “Christians who ought to be able to rely on good behaviour” — but the nature of Synod discussions went to “the core our being” and responses ranged from “acquiescence to extermination. . . Sadly, we have seen all of these experiences in this [July] session.”
A code of conduct was insufficient — “not good enough” in this age of social media, when whatever the intention, members were caused distress. There was no power to sanction that behaviour, and the chamber was “increasingly out of step” with other lawmakers, who had put formal written policies in place.
A member of the Archbishops’ Council, Alison Coulter (Winchester), spoke in favour of a more formal process. “If we fail to deal with bad behaviour it normalises bad behaviour,” she said. ”If we want a healthy culture, the way we behave matters. The way we behave will build or destroy trust. If there is no way of enforcing the code, it brings the Church into disrepute and makes Synod a less safe place.”
Synod couldn’t suspend members for unacceptable behaviour, she pointed out, and “Bad behaviour takes up time and energy and cost money.” It was for others to find answers to whether it would dampen debate, but Synod needed to “think together about how to walk together, which is what Synod is.”
The Archdeacon of Blackburn, the Ven Mark Ireland (Blackburn), spoke against a formal process. “We already have a clear code of conduct but it is not widely known. It must be made more visible,” he said. “It is built on the basis that as a Christian body, Christian values should be the basis for good behaviour.
“We have a clear foundation document in the New Testament which shows how to work well together. I don’t believe consulting the lawyers is often the best way of gaining trust. It would constrain debate and be quickly weaponised.”
He suggested raising the visibility of of the code of practice, and formally adopting the code at the beginning of each quinquennium.
The Bishop of Coventry, the Rt Revd Christopher Cocksworth, managed the briefest of questions about forms of behaviour requiring action by the police; and the Revd Arwen Folkes (Chichester) wanted to ask a question about the influence of group think, and how Anglican breadth might be defined.
Jayne Ozanne (Oxford) asked that the discussion be adjourned until November, since there was no time to hear from the Synod. But the chair, the Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin (Suffragan Bishops), said that the presentation had reached its time and could not continue. Ms Ozanne replied in evident disbelief: “I’m disgusted.”
