Yate Parish Governance Review Feb 2025
Below is the full text of the Archdeacon's Governance Review, which Yate PCC accepted on 10th February 2025. You can also download it via the PDF file.
1. The Parish of Yate is unique within the Diocese of Bristol, in being a single parish with four constituent churches, each of which has a DCC. Teams of this nature were fairly common in the CofE a few decades ago, but there is significant variation in their constitution and the way it is put into practice. In particular, the relation between PCC oversight and DCC operational activity needs to be clear for teams and benefices to work effectively and be confident in having effective oversight.
2. Over the decades ways of doing things evolve in parishes. Short cuts can be taken, or extra processes added to address presenting issues. The result can be a culture and way of operating which ends up being different to the legal requirements. One of the reasons for this Governance Review is increasing awareness that some past actions were not correct and have required significant work to put right.
3. When governance is unclear or complex, it can draw energy away from the church’s mission. It is therefore vital that governance enables effective oversight while being as simple and transparent as possible.
4. Furthermore, as we look to recruit a new Rector, it is vital that that person comes to a parish which is functioning smoothly and transparently. We need to do as much as we can to build upon existing good governance, address any issues, and strive for excellence. The ministry of the next Rector must not be dominated by addressing log-jams in process or ironing out historic irregularities.
5. The tone of this Review is forward looking. It is intended to be constructive, not critical. I am grateful to all those who spoke with me or shared documents. I do not seek to apportion blame, rather my terms of reference are to seek to understand the history, and the governance as it now stands and to make recommendations for the future. These recommendations are the responsibility of the PCC (and to some extent the DCC, sub-committees and Ministry Team) to implement. I offer my support, and that of my colleagues in the Diocesan Support Services, in your journey of transformation.
6. The review involved:
a. Analysis of the last two years of PCC, Standing Committee and DCC minutes; accounts, statistics for mission and demographic data; parish website and policies; faculty applications; QQ and triennial reports; Team Constitution.
b. Meeting with the PCC, Finance Committee and subsequent correspondence with the Treasurer.
c. Meeting with the Book-keeper, covering financial processes and St. Mary’s reordering project.
d. Meeting with the Parish Administrator.
e. Conversations with ministry team, Area Dean and Mission Area members.
f. Conversations (phone, zoom, email) with some of the churchwardens.
g. An invitation through parish media for congregation members to submit views.
7. Much excellent work has already been done on governance, including:
a. Over recent years, production of the PCC and DCC handbook and significant steps to bring about a healthy and collaborative culture, which are clearly bearing fruit.
b. A supportive and outward-looking Mission Area, which enables Yate and Fromeside to work together in ministry and outreach.
c. Regularising St. Mary’s Youth Centre, its charitable status and activities. The Centre is now run by the PCC with the St. Mary’s Educational Trust fulfilling its intended purpose of receiving monies for the school.
d. Progressing towards an agreement with the Diocesan Board of Finance for the use of Tudor Cottage.
e. Rental of the St Nix Youth Centre to the local council, thereby simplifying DCC responsibilities and improving finances.
f. The website has been updated and is easy to navigate (although the ‘Services this week’ tab needs to be maintained or should be dropped).
g. A new Staff and Volunteers Committee has begun to review Safeguarding and other policies.
This progress is encouraging and makes a real difference. The people I spoke to also spoke warmly of their local churches, and positively about being part of the team parish. The ministry of ordained and lay leaders was appreciated. Particularly at a local level, I encountered the view that governance was not burdensome to individual churches, and that culture was mostly healthy. I heard that people have begun volunteering skills recently, and at the last Christmas Tree Festival more people from the wider community were involved. It was recognised that there has conflict within the parish at times, and that this may make people reticent to express their views, however it was also said that this is improving. Like most Church of England parishes, concern was raised about aging volunteers and balancing the finances. There is a desire to grow younger.
8. It was particularly encouraging to hear about the growing culture of openness and accountability at St Nix DCC. I've included some instances of good practice and innovation as examples of what a healthy culture can look like:
a. DCC agendas are published on the church noticeboard in advance. Church members are invited to suggest matters for discussion.
b. Each DCC member has an allocated area of responsibility, which is publicised in the church.
c. ‘When a decision is made, we all own it.’
d. A clear distinction is made between DCC and Ministry Team decisions (eg how to share the peace).
e. Routine minor decisions are shared by email amongst DCC members so a decision can be made quickly yet collaboratively.
f. Decisions have targets linked to them, for when they will be done and how. These are available for anyone to see.
9. Governance, oversight and accountability
a. The PCCs and DCCs meet regularly and keep minutes. Key topics like Health and Safety, and Safeguarding are standing items. There is evidence of good discussion and a range of points of view. The PCC has a good set of policies, including a PCC and DCC handbook to explain and codify governance.
b. However it has been acknowledged to me that there have been occasional situations where appropriate oversight has not been observed. For instance, in July 2023 the PCC minutes record that there was not enough money for the audiovisual installation in St. Mary’s. In October 2023 the decision was made to apply for List B permission and a Gift Day was held which did not raise enough money. In January 2024 it was reported that installation was about to begin, and the Finance Committee of February 2024 reported that a deposit of over £7000 had already been paid. I understand that a payment had been made to cover the deposit despite the funds not being available to cover the full cost and without authorisation from the PCC or Standing Committee. The Bookkeeper did not carry out this transaction, it was done by the Finance Officer of St. Mary’s at the time, who thereby also disregarded the limits of authorised delegated spending. The PCC and DCC handbook sets out governance procedures which must be adhered to. Further requirements should be added: for payment of sums that would require a Finance Committee or PCC decision, a copy of that decision should be required to authorise payment; dual authorisation should be required for all payments in excess of £500.
c. Another example is that an application was begun on 15th December 2023 for a Temporary Minor Reordering Licence (TMRO) to install a platform for the sound desk in St. Mary’s. In response to DAC requests, further details were uploaded on the 9th January and 12th February 2024. The DCC minutes record that the installation of the audiovisual system was going to take place in the week beginning the 12th February 2024, and that the platform had to be in place before that. However, TMRO permission was only given on the 19th February. It is clear that a local decision had been made that the platform would be built regardless of whether permission had been given. As it turned out, the contractor’s illness meant that work eventually took place in April. Similarly, I understand that a previous Archdeacon gave verbal permission for two screens to be installed in St. Mary’s on a temporary basis to try them out. There are now several screens installed in the church. While portable (i.e. on wheels) Audio Visual equipment may be installed under List A5(4)k, this should not be done as a permanent arrangement nor without consideration for the visual impact. Furthermore, some of the installations are bolted to the floor or around pillars, which requires a Faculty (or at minimum a List B AMO to facilitate live streaming). The legally required permissions under faculty jurisdiction must be sought and received before any work to the fabric of a church or churchyard is carried out. St Mary’s DCC should review the number and layout of the screens and, via the PCC, seek appropriate permission.
d. I would not have known from the PCC or DCC minutes that St. Mary’s Yate is on the English Heritage ‘At Risk’ Register. On the Register, St Mary’s is described as a ‘major parish church, Grade 1 listed, in poor condition and suffering from slow decay’. The PCC and DCC minutes show that over two years valuable regular maintenance work was done, and some vital roof repairs were completed. Eco Church was progressed. A churchwarden and the architect were working hard on plans for reordering, heating upgrades, and applying for grants. Other urgent roof work remains outstanding. I understand that there are many demands upon few volunteers in running listed buildings, and that competing priorities make focussed action difficult. Evidenced by column inches however, the priority seems to have been the audiovisual work. Leadership of the Parish and churches should focus on identifying and progressing key priorities in a strategic manner. Leadership should enable the PCC and DCCs to work as teams in channelling their shared efforts and addressing those priorities together.
e. I recommend that the building work at St. Mary’s focusses on making the roof watertight, and that the reordering refocusses, for the time being, on the relatively achievable provision of an accessible loo. I am willing to meet with St. Mary’s DCC in particular to support them in identifying and ordering priorities, especially in relation to the building.
f. The PCCs and DCCs should review activities against the principle of 'subsidiarity': what works best at each level. For instance, Risk Assessments may best be held at DCC level as each church building is different. Duplication of discussion should be reduced across DCC, Standing Committee and PCC.
g. The Diocesan Transforming Church. Together strategy includes plans for Operational Hubs to resource parish ministry, in particular by developing best practice in bulk buying, HR, payroll, safeguarding and other policies etc. The Parish Treasurer has excellent ideas for how this could be beneficial. The PCC should seek to be involved in an Operational Hub pilot when this is rolled out.
10. Finance
a. Parish Share is allocated according to a formula which was created in the mid-1990s. It results in significant disparities, e.g. St. James giving a little more than St. Peter’s despite having three times the income. Much has changed since the introduction of the formula. The Parish Share formula for the four churches should be revised, with consideration given to individual requests from the Diocese or a Parish based request at Parish level – see next point.
b. The financial structure is complicated and took several conversations before I was able to grasp it. I am not surprised that some PCC members have told me they do not understand the finances, which means they are not able to give effective oversight. In essence:
i. The Parish is the legal unit and holds a bank account, through which the vast majority of receipts and payments pass.
ii. Each Church has a holding account which was set up as a charity account and thereby eliminate fees on cheques and cash deposits.
iii. Each DCC agrees a budget with the PCC for the year.
iv. The Book-keeper allocates income and expenses to each church, on the assumption that giving is made to a particular church rather than the PCC as a whole.
v. The Book-keeper keeps track of expenditure against income and updates the churches on their performance against their budget.
vi. The Book-keeper also keeps record of the level of various funds. Some are held within a CBF deposit account, some are held within the current account. Some funds are restricted, others merely designated.
vii. If a particular church’s expenditure exceeds its income, it may draw from one of its funds to make up the balance.
c. It is argued that the advantages of this system are:
i. Financial and budgetary discipline.
ii. As each church’s finances can be tracked, people have a sense of giving to ‘their’ church. However, it should be noted that the majority of expenditure goes on central costs like Parish Share and ministry expenses.
iii. Light demands on DCC Finance Officers.
d. However, there are also substantial questions about the sustainability and appropriateness of this approach :
i. People in governance roles struggle to articulate how the finances work and cannot therefore give effective oversight.
ii. It gives a misleading impression of the locus of authority, risking disempowering the PCC from their oversight responsibility.
iii. It potentially builds conflict into the system, with Parish Share at risk of becoming a balancing figure in each DCC’s budget.
iv. Based on the Parish.October 2024 spreadsheet, 3 of the 4 churches are making transfers into their own CBF funds, out of the parish account. It is not clear to me that the current system is producing the desired accountability.
v. The Book-keeper’s work is demanding and time-consuming.
vi. Much of that work is not formally required as the records of income and expenditure produced for each church do not reflect the legal or actual situation, which is that most monies are held in common. The Book-keeper role could be made much more manageable by focussing on processing fees and other key tasks.
vii. In the system the Book-keeper is a vital role, which gives a single point of failure. There is no succession plan for the Book-keeper.
e. The PCC should consider alternatives to the existing financial structure. Some possibilities include:
i. Option 1. Switching most income and expenditure to individual DCC level accounts. These would make it clear what the income and expenditure of each church is, and clarify accountability. Parish Share would be allocated by the Diocese to each DCC. DCCs would then give to the PCC to cover shared costs such as admin, youth work and ministerial expenses. The principle of subsidiarity would be clearly embodied. The disadvantages would be less integration, substantial work in setting up the new system, and significantly more work for DCC Treasurers who would become responsible for the incomings and outgoings of each church.
ii. Option 2. Recognising the legal reality and operating as a single ‘Mission and Ministry’ account for the whole parish. Each church’s income and expenditure would continue to be processed through the PCC account, but it would no longer be allocated to each church. Budgeting would take place at parish level with each church allocated expenditure. As Parish Share, admin and ministry expenses are paid centrally already, there should be no reason why this would affect parishioners’ generosity. Parish Share would continue to be a request to the Parish from the Diocese. Local fundraising could still take place for restricted funds to pay for building repairs, organs, bells etc.
f. The parish operates several different ways to give which complicates administration. Encourage complete transition from envelope schemes etc to Parish Giving Scheme.
g. Electronic methods of payment and accounting exist but are not fully utilised. Transition to use electronic accounting and payment where possible.
h. The Finance Officers’ role description should clearly delineate their powers and functions. The Finance Officers role should be: banking money into the holding accounts and authorising expenditure in line with the Delegation of Authority in the PCC/DCC handbook. Pending the introduction of a new financial structure, the Finance Officers could also monitor DCC spend against allocated budget.
i. There are many funds allocated for particular churches. Some are restricted because they have been given by a donor for a particular purpose. Others are designated for a purpose. Each church has some funds which are held as Fabric Funds. If the PCC or DCC has made that designation, then it is incorrect to regard those funds as restricted and capable only of being spent on the fabric. Funds are only restricted when the donor (e.g. someone making a legacy or giving a donation) has specified restrictions on how the money can be used. The resulting situation complicates the accounts and reduces the money available for vital running costs. The PCC has power to designate funds, and to undesignate them. Where the purpose of a designated fund has expired, or where funds could reasonably be combined for the purpose of easier administration, or where the money in the funds could reasonably be used for a different purpose, the PCC should consider undesignation. DCCs and the PCC should not add monies from the general fund to designated funds and clear records must be kept of which monies are genuinely restricted.
11. Administration
a. The parish benefits from an excellent employed administrator who currently works out of the St. Mary’s Youth Centre. Care should be taken to ensure that the administrator is able to focus on core parish administration, with support tasks for parish groups taking second place. Please ensure the administrator has adequate heating.
b. There is no key register for St. Mary’s. This risks invalidating the insurance. Key registers should exist for each church. At St. Mary’s there are so many potential and historic key-holders that locks should be changed.
c. Many churches charge rent to external users which does not adequately reflect market conditions or cover costs. Sometimes, certain users are given concessions. With the increase in utility bills, a review of rental charges should be undertaken. Consider using Sharesy as a booking platform.
d. A previous employee has raised concerns with me about employment processes. If an employed role is taken on in future, the manager should liaise with the Diocesan HR department to ensure policies are implemented correctly.
12. Policies
a. The website contains links to a comprehensive set of policies, which are mostly good and compliant. Appendix A lists where changes need to be made, policies reviewed and new policies written. PCC should review and where necessary revise policies, and ensure they are followed.
13. Constitution
a. The Team Constitution was approved by the Bishop of Bristol in 1997. It explains that the PCC has legal functions laid upon it by Act of Parliament and Measures of General Synod. Some functions can be delegated to DCCs, but a few cannot legally be delegated. The PCC retains the right to make the final decision in any matter.
b. With the passage of time, the provisions of the Constitution would benefit from review. This is a formal process which involves consultation and approval by the Bishop’s Council. However, in the meantime a mutual informal agreement could be put in place. The following are recommended for consideration:
i. The PCC is very large, comprising 3 elected members from each church, plus all licensed clergy and lay ministers, plus all churchwardens, plus all Synod reps. This could easily be over two dozen people, which may make it hard for every person to be heard at a PCC meeting, and is likely to hinder good decision making. Consider reducing the size of the PCC and making more effective use of Sub-Committees or Working Groups.
ii. Although there is significant variation in the congregation size and electoral roll of the churches, and the population of the area they cover, nonetheless each church is allocated 3 PCC members. Consider amending the representation on the PCC of each church to be proportionate to its size.
iii. Similarly, the DCCs are very large, allowing for all lay members of the PCC (this could be 3 elected PCC members plus 2 churchwardens), plus 9 elected members of the laity, plus clergy, LLMs and a further option to co-opt. Consider reducing the size of the DCC and making more effective use of Sub-Committees or Working Groups.
iv. The DCCs are supposed to meet 4 times a year, but this does not always happen. Consider what an appropriate meeting frequency should be for PCC and DCC.
c. Under Section 3 of the Churchwardens Measure 2001, a churchwarden may serve for a maximum period of 6 continuous years, and then must wait two years before seeking re-election. An APCM can decide by resolution that this section will not apply to the parish, and also subsequently revoke that resolution. I do not know if the APCM has passed such a resolution. It is difficult to find churchwardens, and several parishes in the Diocese have passed such a resolution to enable good, capable and servant-hearted people to continue in office. However, I have also seen many situations where the practice is that churchwardens step down after six years, and over time this leads to a group of people who have experience in the role. This builds greater resilience in the parish. The churchwardens in Yate are excellent and talented people and we are all deeply grateful for their service. For their benefit, and for the long term succession plans of the parish, I recommend that the APCM consider seriously if it is right to stop exempting the parish from Section 3 of the Churchwardens Measure 2001.
14. Team working and Mission Area
a. Working together as a team could bring many potential benefits of scale and complementarity. These are being realised in some areas, for instance shared administration and youth work, a coherent approach to courses. The churches should collaborate more closely and strategically to realise the potential benefits of diversity within a Team. This will involve regarding activities held in particular churches as an asset for the whole team, for instance Messy Church. Another example could be looking at Carol Services across the Benefice - if the two town churches held their services at different times it would not only be better for the Ministry Team but it could also enable them to appeal to different demographics.
b. The Mission Area with Fromeside is important in the recent history of Yate. The MA has enabled collaboration in ministry across a coherent geographical area, and led to the development of new areas of ministry. Funding associated with the MA has paid for new roles. A separate paper has reviewed the impact of the MA – it is vital to adapt the MA structures to a new phase where additional funding is no longer available. It is also important that the MA is not seen as a substitute for the collegiality, governance and strategic overview of the Deanery.
c. When I requested feedback from the wider congregation on the parish’s governance, I received seven replies. Of these four mentioned the level of staffing, particularly referring to ordained ministry, and one mentioned the paid youth worker who had recently left. The PCC may decide to recruit a replacement youth worker. Self-supporting ministers are licensed by the Bishop but the place of their ministry usually reflects where they live and/or where they worship or feel called to offer ministry – the congregations should consider how to encourage vocations from within the parish. The Diocese is committed to advertising to replace the Team Rector – the attractiveness of the post will be affected significantly by the perceived ease and effectiveness of governance.
Appendix A: Policies
15. Volunteering. Paragraph on managing Ex offenders needed.
16. Health and Safety. Include a Fire Safety policy. Fire Safety Risk Assessments will be needed for each church, with stipulations relating to various sizes and types of events.
17. Baptism. Last reviewed in 2015 and includes references to ‘St. Richard’s’. Update, including baptism liturgy.
18. Reserves. The Church of England recommends maintaining reserves equivalent to 3 months’ running costs.
19. Equalities and Diversity policy. Last reviewed in 2015. Use inclusive language, including in Scriptural quotations. Names protected characteristics, updating in line with current legislation. Encourage participation in leadership.
20. Conflict of Interest. Last reviewed 2017. A register of conflicts of interests should be kept.
21. Complaints. Make it clear that clergy and LLMs are covered by Diocesan policies, and link to the Diocesan complaints page on the website. Stage 2 needs an identified person to investigate, an understanding of different possible resolutions (e.g. mediation, apology) – suggest refer to the Diocesan flowchart for a comparison. Stage 3 – revise as a trustee cannot be independent at this stage. Suggest ‘an independent person’.
22. Health and Safety role description. Clarify how the H+S officer is to communicate their concerns and what training, oversight and support will be given to them to enable them to do this effectively and sensitively.
23. Flow Chart. This links back to the role description, so should be changed.
Christopher Bryan
Archdeacon of Malmesbury
February 2025
Yorumlar