Meeting for Sufferings: Setting priorities
An Area Meeting raised the question of Meeting for Sufferings' role
Is Meeting for Sufferings fulfilling its role in setting priorities for the centrally managed work, or has it abdicated that task to trustees and other bodies?
That was the question, first raised in a minute from Kingston & Wandsworth Area Meeting (KWAM) in January, which finally came before Sufferings on Saturday 3 June.
The minute questioned whether Sufferings was properly carrying out its responsibilities, as set out in Quaker faith & practice (Qf&p) chapter 7, in relation to setting priorities for the centrally managed work in its long-term plan, and also in fostering communications throughout the Yearly Meeting.
Explaining the delay in bringing this matter to Sufferings, the clerk said Sufferings had considered the issues at its February Meeting, and a decision had been taken by the arrangements group that, rather than place the minute before the Meeting, the clerk would write to KWAM to outline the steps being taken to ensure the body better addresses its responsibilities.
The clerk reminded Friends that priorities can be set by visioning at the central level but also that ‘concerns come to Sufferings and we consider them. We may ask our central committees for advice about them, or we may have a minute from a central committee.’ Priorities are then gradually discerned, she said, and that discernment is ongoing.
KWAM was not satisfied with the response, although it minuted appreciation of the work being done to improve communications. It asked that the matter of setting priorities be brought before Sufferings for a full discussion. The clerk of Sufferings, the recording clerk and the deputy recording clerk then met with the clerk of KWAM. There was an offer to come and speak to KWAM, which was welcomed, but a third minute from the Area Meeting urged Sufferings to ‘grasp the nettle and fulfil its governance responsibilities by re-establishing its proactive work in setting, reviewing and reporting on overall priorities from time to time on behalf of members throughout Britain.’ Thus the matter was finally laid before Sufferings.
Graham Torr, speaking on behalf of KWAM, said: ‘The nub of this is Quaker faith & practice.’ He noted that Qf&p states that Meeting for Sufferings will have a long-term plan and use that to set priorities for the centrally managed work. ‘The thinking in the Area Meeting is that Meeting for Sufferings, in the absence of its own home-grown self-developed plan, has become a more passive or reactive group, and priority-setting has moved away from Meeting for Sufferings and towards somewhere around trustees and management meeting. And the worry, therefore, is that if Quakers and Local and Area Meetings feel more distance from what is being done centrally this will lead to a disconnect.’ He said it is important that Friends stay engaged and feel they have influence over central work.
One former trustee reacted strongly. ‘Those early years of being trustees were never easy… I had hoped by now we would have moved on,’ he said. ‘The last thing on earth I want to do is come to Sufferings and be involved in convoluted discussions about what our priorities are when we already have central committees and other bodies which are capable of addressing that issue.’
He warned against becoming stuck in outdated ways of working and being limited by words that may no longer be relevant, concluding: ‘I think we have confidence in our trustees and in our structures as they are and as they are working.’
A Friend from KWAM stressed that they were not criticising trustees, but rather reminding Sufferings of its obligations as set out in Qf&p to decide on priorities for the centrally managed work.
Other Friends echoed the concerns raised by KWAM. ‘I’m a little bit confused about who should be doing what and how that happens,’ one said. ‘We are the representatives of Area and Local Meetings. It is us that bring the concerns, so I do feel and hope that Sufferings can continue to act on those concerns and set some priorities for the work.’
Another Friend raised a concern about the willingness of Friends to contribute financially to the central work if they don’t feel they have had any input in setting priorities.
The role of Sufferings in testing priorities that might come from other bodies is also important, said another Friend. ‘Perhaps it is time to rewrite chapter 7’, he added.
Meeting for Sufferings minuted that it ‘had not reached clarity about the way forward. We have heard about the limitations of words in Quaker faith & practice chapter 7. Organisations develop over time and organically. We acknowledge that if some Friends feel marginalised, these feelings ought to be addressed.’ Meeting for Sufferings asked its arrangements group to explore how to bring this matter back to it.
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.