St Luke's Church Eccleshill, Bradford, UK

Calverley Deanery Pastoral Plan

Here is the text of the letter sent on 21st December 2005 to PCCs and Synod members:

Calverley Deanery Mission Strategy

Dear Colleague,

The Deanery Standing Committee met on 19th December to consider all the responses from PCCs to the request of 27th October (paragraph (c) of the motion) for other options for us to consider.

Thank you very much to all those who responded.

In total there could have been about thirteen options for all the PCCs to consider, and more if we had also counted the “partial suggestions” (that’s to say, suggestions which specified clusters of some parishes but didn’t cover the whole deanery).

We are sure you will agree that this would have been too many to ask every PCC to consider them all! So we have selected four options from the suggestions.

We think they are different enough from each other to be distinctive, and they fairly encompass the range of suggestions which were put to us. The original “Option C” had received hardly any support, so we are dropping it and adding two others:

Option A (as before)
Calverley, Idle, Thorpe Edge, Greengates	(3 stipends)
Wrose, Eccleshill, Bolton	(2.5 stipends)
St Augustine, St Clement, Thornbury, Woodhall	(3 stipends)
Pudsey, Farsley	(2 stipends)
Tong, Laisterdyke	(1.5 stipends)
Option B (as before)
Calverley, Idle, Thorpe Edge, Greengates, Wrose	(4 stipends)
Eccleshill, Bolton, St Augustine, St Clement, Thornbury	(4 stipends)
Pudsey, Farsley, Woodhall, Tong, Laisterdyke	(4 stipends)
Option C (new)
Calverley, Idle, Thorpe Edge, Greengates, Wrose, Eccleshill	(5 stipends)
Bolton, St Augustine, St Clement, Thornbury, Woodhall	(4 stipends)
Pudsey, Farsley, Tong, Laisterdyke	(3 stipends)
Option D (new)
Calverley, Idle, Thorpe Edge, Greengates	(3 stipends)
Wrose, Eccleshill, Bolton, St Augustine, St Clement	(4 stipends)
Pudsey, Farsley, Tong, Laisterdyke, Thornbury, Woodhall	(5 stipends)

In accordance with paragraph (d) of the motion agreed at the last Deanery Synod, we ask you to do the following at your PCC before the next Deanery Synod meeting (13th February):

i) consider whether there are any options your PCC absolutely could not countenance,
ii) decide what your ‘order of preference’ is for these four options, as if you were filling in a single transferable vote slip. We’ve provided one for each parish with this letter,
iii) let me have your answers to these two questions no later than 10th February 2006. Any parishes who do not respond by that date will be assumed to be expressing no opinion,
iv) make sure your Deanery Synod representatives are briefed properly for the meeting.

At the Deanery Synod meeting we will present the “result” of the 15 parishes voting by STV. This will graphically demonstrate the relative strength of opinion as it relates to the option. However, please note that this will not be a legally binding process, as it falls outside the rules of business for Deanery Synod.

At the Deanery Synod meeting we will also inform members of any PCC feelings that they absolutely could not countenance any of the options. Obviously it is our hope that the chosen option will be one which everyone could work with, but again please note that members will not be legally bound to observe these feelings of unease, as again this would fall outside the rules of business for Deanery Synod.

We are not asking the Cathedral to take part in this process, as they are not affected by the result.

The Standing Committee (in line with paragraphs e and f of the Synod motion) will then propose the motion “This Deanery Synod chooses Option X as the basis of the Deanery Pastoral Plan, and asks the deanery clergy, PCCs and diocesan senior staff to work towards it”, where the “X” in this motion is the one which has “won” the election.

There will be a debate, and at the end of it there will be a vote.

As you know, Deanery Synod Representatives each have one vote, and they are not “delegates” and cannot be instructed on which way to vote. However we hope that the results of the poll of parishes will be a good indication of the common mind of the Deanery. Although it is not possible for us, or you, to mandate Deanery Synod members to vote in any way, we hope that PCC’s will agree with us that it would be entirely reasonable to expect them to vote in line with the process described above.

The reason for this somewhat cumbersome process is that a regular Synodical debate and vote would not necessarily show the viewpoint of the wider PCC members and congregations of the Deanery. There is also an inherent problem with different parishes having different numbers of reps, ex-officio members etc.

I hope this letter is clear – please ask me to explain it if it isn’t.

A reminder that the Synod will meet on Monday February 13th at St Christopher's Holme Wood.

With many thanks and all best wishes in Christ,

Yours sincerely,

JOHN HARTLEY.

There is also a two-sides-of-A4 sheet containing this text, in Microsoft Word - if you would like a copy, please ask us for one.