Electronic Voting

These pictures were taken during the first ever electronic vote taken at General Synod.

OK, so how does it work?

We had to have instructions on the first day of Synod, during the Business Committee report. The chair of the Business Committee took us through some spoof motions to try out the new gadgetry.

Each Synod member has a voting handset; and a personal ‘chip’ card. This unique combination identifies each individual voter - but there is still one final stage before votes can be made - a ‘pin’ number, flashed briefly on a screen, needs to be entered into the handset before any vote can be made. This involves much audible ‘clicking’ from synod members around they chamber. (The second photo above shows the screen - just - with the very first random pin number, 1882, in the Clergy Terms of Service/Common Tenure debate.)

A practise vote was set up on Monday - a ‘vote of the whole house’ that ‘This synod ask the Business Committee to acknowledge Valentine's Day’ was passed by a significant majority of the whole Synod.

However a following motion, a ‘vote by houses’, that ‘Valentine's Day be celebrated by each bishop buying chocolates for their diocesan representatives at Synod’, was passed by both of the lower houses, but the House of Bishops voted it down. Because ‘votes by houses’ require a majority in each house to be passed, it meant that bishops were let off the hook from buying their diocesan representatives chocolate for Valentine's Day. But, woe betide any bishops who do not…!

These voting handsets also have another useful function. During long debates (that may not grab the interest of all members) some synod representatives nip off to visit the loo, or get a cup of coffee. This can mean a drop in the number of members in the chamber. Yet there needs to be a quorum of members, in each house, for Synod’s business to be conducted. Sometimes a member will ask, as a Point of Order, whether we are quorate in all houses; and then a count needs to be taken. This used to be a laborious process. With the voting handsets, it is instantly clear precisely how many from each house are present in the chamber. (And presumably, who is not…!)

Alastair GS101

On Freehold and Common Tenure

I have been a freeholder for 12 years. This means I am incumbent of a parish and have ‘freehold’ rights to the church and vicarage of my benefice, whilst I hold the office as vicar there. 

But as Jacob, one of the General Synod representatives from our diocese keeps reminding me, it is not ‘Freehold’ as is generally understood in our society. For example, if I stick up a ‘For Sale’ sign up outside either my church, or even vicarage, the ‘authorities’ will be down on me like a ton of Victorian bricks.

More of an issue, for some more than 40% of my church colleagues though, is that they do not have freehold, nor indeed any other formal security of tenure in their positions. European legislation, chasing the Government, says clergy need to have proper employment rights now. So something needs to change. A whole raft of legislation and regulations are therefore coming in to re-apply a new sort of freehold for the 21st Century. Clergy Terms of Service, Ministerial Development, Clergy Discipline, Guidelines for Professional Conduct of the clergy, Capability Procedures, and Common Tenure have variously been coming through Synod over recent years.

Holding offices is something that clergy hold in common. So the term Common Tenure has been chosen to represent this new-style of office. However, as Jacob once again reminds me, from his experience in the real world or real estate, Common Tenure is another word that the church has chosen, like Freehold, with one meaning in the church, and a slightly different one outside. Perhaps we should have chosen different terminology. But actually it does, succinctly, say what we generally want it to mean.

There is a significant issue about parsonages, which caused much heat in the debate. There were many concerns over who would ‘own’ the vicarages and rectories of the Church of England under Common Tenure, and whether or not they become an asset of the diocese, the incumbent, the parish. Up to now they have been part of what is known as property of Corporation Sole. Don’t understand that, well nor did many Synod members before the debate - ask a friendly lawyer. However, if parsonages are moved in some way to the diocese, this might mean, if a diocese gets in to financial difficulties, some parsonage properties could be sold. How best to protect against this? There is quite a lot of worry here about whether we can trust those with the appropriate authority, to do with parsonages what is best for the church as a whole. In the end Synod opted for taking out the item on parsonages completely.

I’m for Common Tenure. I think a level playing field of employment and security is vital for all clergy, and there should not be a minority of folks without proper employment protection. This means that some, like me, will eventually be invited to relinquish our Freehold for what some probably mistakenly consider the lesser protection of Common Tenure. I don’t think it is just through altruism and ostentatious self-sacrifice, that I support Common Tenure, and will hand in my Freehold. I am not sure that Freehold as is really offers those of us who old it quite the sort of security it purports to do; and indeed there are a number of things that we would be ineligible for, unless we come under Common Tenure. So, bring it on.

Alastair GS101