Meeting for Sufferings: AM/BYM relationships
Relationships cannot be imposed, ‘we need to foster and nurture them together’
Last December, BYM trustees asked MfS whether it would be useful to have a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between BYM and Area Meeting (AM) trustees. MfS welcomed the idea, and asked trustees to keep them informed of progress. Chris Willmore, BYM trustee, now offered that with a report. She wasn’t here to provide information, she said, but to ‘ask for help’. Relationships cannot be imposed, she went on, ‘we need to foster and nurture them together.’ Trustees were at the listening stage, but wanted to take longer than usual this time, to get it right. They would be holding several workshops for conversation, and wanted to hear from AM trustees on how they could be helped with issues such as safeguarding and risk. MfS was where ‘we all come together’, said Chris, to share insights about what the relationship between AMs and BYM should be. Today wasn’t the time for discussion, but she urged people to stay in touch and get involved.
One Friend, an AM trustee with responsibility for safeguarding, gave a warm welcome to this approach. She wanted to get to grips with how it could work, and to hear from other AMs about their processes.
Another wondered whether other Quaker bodies should be included in the conversation. This was given short shrift: the Friend had asked for this several times, but it was important to get the AM relationships sorted first. The range of these other bodies was very wide, and that would be too much to process. Chris Willmore agreed. They would get to Quaker Recognised Bodies eventually, she said, but wanted to deal with AMs first. Another trustee noted that some AMs were in the process of simplifying their structures, and weren’t yet clear about their own identity. It might be worth setting a schedule. The plan was to get an MoU before the end of the year, said Chris, but the process might not be finished ‘for a couple of years’.
Comments
“Relationships cannot be imposed” is indeed the case, yet in my experience all too often a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ (MOU) is imposed as part of a top-down management hierarchy.
Better to see an MOU as a check-list to answer the question coming from the bottom: ‘is our dynamic, free and equal, relationship covering everything that is needed?’ A check-list can act as a foundation on which to firmly stand, the better to see clearly. However, so much of our modern culture fails the relationship and simply uses the check-list as a ‘tick box’ exercise.
I find it very grounding to use this as an example: ‘Following a recipe is not cooking’.
By GordonF on 16th April 2021 - 11:21
Please login to add a comment
