The development group produced this proposal to allow some groups of LMs (AMs or other groupings) to optionally retain some of their current roles and responsibilities, delegated through an MOU with the London Area Meeting. The shape of "districts" and which meetings could form them is still being decided through a process of threshing and discernment.
The changes would build a greater degree of flexibility into the model set out in the 2023 Invitation to Commit papers.
The Districts proposal
We would still create a single London AM (LAM), merging all the charities into one, including London Quakers Property Trust.
There would still be a London-wide worshipping community which would engage in two way dialogue with the Trustee body, carry all the ultimate responsibilities of an Area Meeting (including for buildings), and bring Friends together across London for outreach, witness, learning etc.
However, in this new proposal, the LAM would be willing to formally delegate some of its functions, not only to committees but also to any current AM which decides that it wants to retain many of its current functions. This delegation would be captured in a Memorandum of Understanding.
At the point of formation of the new London AM (LAM), when all the charities merge, each present AM would therefore choose either -
- to lay itself down (leaving its constituent LMs with the ability to come together informally in clusters/informal groupings); or
- to become a District Meeting within LAM, with delegated powers.
A District Meeting would have delegated to it by LAM a defined set of responsibilities. These could include any or all of the following:
- Making membership visit arrangements and recommending to LAM that Friends be accepted into membership or that their membership be transferred or terminated
- Recommending to LAM the appointment of Elders, Pastoral Friends, Premises Committee members
- Recommending to LAM the laying down or setting up of LMs and worshipping groups
- Appointing its own clerk and assistant clerk (or making another clerking arrangement)
- Considering and responding to any issues that are sent to it by LAM, including matters being considered across BYM
- Continuing to oversee any trusts which the current AM carries responsibility for, including appointing to any relevant sub-committee
- Appointing committees, such as a children and young people's committee, or an outreach committee
- Testing a concern brought to it by one of its LMs
- Ensuring that arrangements are made for marriages
- Ensuring that arrangements are made for funerals
- Recording deaths (also to be notified to LAM), receiving minutes of record of deceased Friends' lives and arrangements for writing a testimony to the Grace of God as shown in the lives of deceased Friends (testimonies to be forwarded to LAM).
A District Meeting would be able to communicate formally by minute with its LMs and with LAM. The LAM Trustees might name one of their number to provide a two-way link with each District. The Trustees could - and should - be consulted by the District as needed.
The paper on how LAM finances might be managed sets out the option for an LM to retain its own bank account and the management of its funds. For this, it would need its own treasurer and to produce accounts for consolidation which could be audited. This option would apply equally to a District Meeting, or it could opt for its finances to be managed centrally, as set out in that paper.
Like any informal cluster/grouping, a District Meeting would of course also be able to invite speakers; organise social and witness events; start, coordinate and lay down projects supported by its LMs; suggest names for and support Quaker Prison Chaplains; arrange for mutual support and coordination among its LMs; co-ordinate local outreach; arrange for learning opportunities and consider any issues and concerns sent to it by its LMs.
The District Meeting would report on its activities to LAM at least once a year. Friends in the District Meeting would still be expected to play a full role in the LAM, including providing Friends to take on AM-level roles.
The Memorandum of Understanding would be reviewed at intervals to check that the arrangement is working well. Specific responsibilities could at this point be handed back to LAM, or if the whole arrangement is felt by Friends in the area to be no longer needed, it would be laid down.
The Development Group offers this as a possible way forward for current AMs which want to keep quite a lot of their current arrangements. But it would be entirely optional – current AMs would be equally free to decide to lay themselves down and, if they want to do anything at current AM level, use the much more fluid and informal 'clusters' as a way to bring their Local Meetings together for activities. The Development Group hopes that building this additional flexibility into the proposals will help Friends to reach unity and move forward together.
Helen Drewery
On behalf of the London Development Group
