|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Wycliffe Hall in trouble
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
I'm pleased to hear that. It doesn't seem right for everyon to just "give in" if there really are issues that need debating/uncovering/truth gotten to.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
It was announced in Wycliffe this morning that the Goddards are taking out a grievance and that Elaine Storkey is taking her case to a tribunal.
It is now compulsory to take out a grievance in many cases at least 28 days before bringing a claim before an Employment Tribunal. I think we know that Elaine Storkey has already brought her grievance, hence she is entitled to go to Tribunal. I am guessing that the Goddards will proceed to Tribunal if Wycliffe Hall does not strike a fair deal with them first.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
People who go to law in a dispute eg medical malpractice or unfair dismissal often do so to get justice rather than compensation. People who sue hospitals are often quoted as saying 'If only someone had apologised we would have dropped it.'
I would imagine there's probably nothing Elaine Storkey would like better at this point than get on with her life and try to forget all about Wycliffe Hall, but if she believes there's been an injustice she's right to pursue it IMO.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
would imagine there's probably nothing Elaine Storkey would like better at this point than get on with her life and try to forget all about Wycliffe Hall, but if she believes there's been an injustice she's right to pursue it IMO.
Exactly. All too often there is temptation/pressure in Christian circles not to use the legal redress open to us in our society because of various verses of scripture about not taking one's brother to law and a sense that as Christians we ought to be `above' law. But in a case where the treatment people have received appears to have neither been Christian or in accordance with employment law and best practice, it is right that the injuried party should taken this up through the relevant channels. Christians should be hiding behind verses about not taking one's brother to law to get away with appaling treatment of other people!
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Christians should be hiding behind verses about not taking one's brother to law to get away with appaling treatment of other people!
I think you meant to say "Christians should not ..."
If so, I couldn't agree more. What is scandalous is the behaviour that makes people go to court, not the fact that Christians end up taking people to court.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
Well, it's going to tribunal.
Thank heavens - the 'truth' should out and we'll finally get 'closure' on this topic (and perhaps this thread!).
In the end I think it's the outcome that Wycliffe needs. If RT (and the council) have been naughty then the sooner they're gone the better - but if they're are exhonorated then the college can finally put this behind them and get on.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Now will it actually go to an Employment Tribunal, or is that just a negotiating tactic to get more compensation?
Unless she is also alleging sex discrimination then the most she could get is about £60k, so would probably settle for £50k and no legal costs. The college would probably cough up to avoid the disclosure. If it goes to ET, then everything comes out, +Jones's "private" emails to the Principal, etc. etc.
TBF, it may be less about the compensation and more to do with the fact she feels she's been shafted and has a good case.
Tubbs
It is not the main point of an Employment Tribunal to deal with her feeling she has been treated in an unfair/unChristian way. It is a low-cost means of allowing ordinary workers to access compensation for unlawful treatment, who would be unable to afford civil courts.
There is a maximum amount that an Employment Tribunal can award (except in cases of sex, race, union rep, disability discrimination). If an employer offers that amount in advance of the tribunal then the tribunal usually gets called off.
My money is on the Bishop of Liverpool persuading the Council to offer the cash at the last moment before the tribunal.
If she is going for sex discrimination, then it all gets very interesting!
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
It is not the main point of an Employment Tribunal to deal with her feeling she has been treated in an unfair/unChristian way. It is a low-cost means of allowing ordinary workers to access compensation for unlawful treatment, who would be unable to afford civil courts.
There is a maximum amount that an Employment Tribunal can award (except in cases of sex, race, union rep, disability discrimination). If an employer offers that amount in advance of the tribunal then the tribunal usually gets called off.
There is an appeal case called Wilkinson v Telephone Information Services which says that, even if you have been offered the maximum award, if the employer hasn't openly admitted the unfairness of the dismissal, you are perfectly entitled to pursue them through the Tribunal to get that established on its own.
So it doesn't have to be about money. It can be about public recognition of the injustice done.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Christians should be hiding behind verses about not taking one's brother to law to get away with appaling treatment of other people!
I think you meant to say "Christians should not ..."
If so, I couldn't agree more. What is scandalous is the behaviour that makes people go to court, not the fact that Christians end up taking people to court.
Ooops! I did indeed omit the all important not from my sentence!
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
There might be something here about helping some misguided people to understand that they have done something wrong - isn't that called sin - and if they realise they might be moved to repent, to refrain from sinful activity in future, to lead a new and joyful life ...
No, sorry, that applies to sex, but not to money or to power.
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
It is not the main point of an Employment Tribunal to deal with her feeling she has been treated in an unfair/unChristian way. It is a low-cost means of allowing ordinary workers to access compensation for unlawful treatment, who would be unable to afford civil courts.
There is a maximum amount that an Employment Tribunal can award (except in cases of sex, race, union rep, disability discrimination). If an employer offers that amount in advance of the tribunal then the tribunal usually gets called off.
There is an appeal case called Wilkinson v Telephone Information Services which says that, even if you have been offered the maximum award, if the employer hasn't openly admitted the unfairness of the dismissal, you are perfectly entitled to pursue them through the Tribunal to get that established on its own.
So it doesn't have to be about money. It can be about public recognition of the injustice done.
Indeed, I said usually. For most people the money is enough at that level, not just for its own sake, but because an offer of that level is usually sufficient to indicate to the wider world that the employer was not entirely comfortable with their case!
If Wycliffe Hall's council members and lawyers are confident they have acted fairly and lawfully then it would be completely wrong to offer ex-staff £50k+ for silence. Therefore any significant financial offer by them even without admission is an admission of sorts.
What would make it very interesting is if she gets a sex discrimination angle on it because of the influence of the VP and others.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
innocent(ish)
Shipmate
# 12691
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
What would make it very interesting is if she gets a sex discrimination angle on it because of the influence of the VP and others.
Whilst I think it's possible to argue for the Biblical nature of headship, and against the ordination of women, doing so in a secular context without all the theological nuances sounding like sexism would be very difficult.
The VP's written position on such matters may not help Wycliffe defend a sex-discrimination case, but didn't the first event that started this whole sorry state of affairs happen before he was appointed?
[ 10. November 2007, 13:36: Message edited by: innocent(ish) ]
--------------------
"Christianity has become part of the furniture ... like a grand piano nobody plays any longer.I want the dust to be taken off and people to play music." Archbishop John Sentamu
Posts: 109 | From: Rochester | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
For most people the money is enough at that level, not just for its own sake, but because an offer of that level is usually sufficient to indicate to the wider world that the employer was not entirely comfortable with their case!
True of course, but I suspect that the decision to go to Tribunal is precisely because Elaine Storkey believes the legality of the actions is much more important than the money.
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
If Wycliffe Hall's council members and lawyers are confident they have acted fairly and lawfully then it would be completely wrong to offer ex-staff £50k+ for silence. Therefore any significant financial offer by them even without admission is an admission of sorts.
So far as I am aware, they have provided no public explanation which would persuade any external observer that the dismissal decisions are lawful. Whatever their reasons for this reticence, the IT provides an opportunity, not of their choosing, to give an explanation. Clearly any negotiations to achieve amicable severance terms have failed. And there is nothing in Elaine Storkey's public history (going back over 25 years now) to suggest she is intransigent. One can only conclude that she at least is not convinced by any explanations given more privately. And therefore there are some issues of principle here for an IT to rule over.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The reason Andy Angel isn't coming to Wycliffe is found apparently here quote:
he and his family had great difficulties in finding appropriate housing in Oxford and appropriate school places for the children. These were his stated reasons for having to make the decision not to take up his post at Wycliffe
I can't beleive the bit about schools. I can see there may be problems in finding housing but it doesn't quite ring true.
There is an Emmanuel Christian School floating round here somewhere...should fit nicely with the New Wycliffe ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
There is an Emmanuel Christian School floating round here somewhere...should fit nicely with the New Wycliffe
In Armenia?
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
No. Deo gratis. I think Armenia has enough problems ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
Amazing that, out of the 43 written questions to General Synod, no fewer than 11 related directly or indirectly to the troubles at Wycliffe Hall. They came from 7 different members, representing 6 dioceses.
Questions and answers available here
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cadfael
Shipmate
# 11066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
Amazing that, out of the 43 written questions to General Synod, no fewer than 11 related directly or indirectly to the troubles at Wycliffe Hall. They came from 7 different members, representing 6 dioceses.
Questions and answers available here
Indeed - it was also interesting to note that there had been some sort of informal 'mini-inquiry', but that nothing is being released about who was involved and what was found.
Although anyone with a legitimate interest (staff, student or even a journalist in this area) would have a pretty good case to get hold of that data through a Freedom of Information request - wouldn't they?
Also, I can't understand what 'bringing forward' means in relation to the general inspection, since it seems that they are just going to have it at the usual time??
Posts: 576 | From: North by North West | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magistra
Apprentice
# 13066
|
Posted
There seems to have been a very conscious decision NOT to hold an inquiry into the specific grievances related to Richard Turnbull's leadership. A general inspection won't address in any direct way the recent allegations about unlawful dismissals and unethical behaviour, and seems a woefully inadequate response to the unfolding crisis. Giving the college 'the chance to respond to the PPH review' is terribly gracious, but doesn't answer the question about wrongdoing that has ALREADY BEEN DONE.
Why did they change their minds about this, and will the consequence be that when (/if) the tribunal finds for Storkey, MinDiv will come out looking complicit in the whole sorry business?
Posts: 37 | From: Oxford | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magistra:
Why did they change their minds about this, and will the consequence be that when (/if) the tribunal finds for Storkey, MinDiv will come out looking complicit in the whole sorry business?
I suspect they are playing for time, so that any Tribunal decision is out before they have to commit themselves to a judgment of their own. This is a bit like the handling of the Bishop of Hereford's fiasco - the Tribunal was left to point the finger, and the Church authorities just slipstreamed. It's a pretty weak and irresponsible strategy, though, if that's what it is.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Though, to be fair this may be like the way an inquest will be adjourned when criminal proceedings are in train. The 'lesser' process waits so as not to prejudge/prejudice the outcome of the 'greater' process. In this context grievance procedures and EAT will trump any enquiry by MinDiv who do not have standing as a party directly involved.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Though, to be fair this may be like the way an inquest will be adjourned when criminal proceedings are in train. The 'lesser' process waits so as not to prejudge/prejudice the outcome of the 'greater' process. In this context grievance procedures and EAT will trump any enquiry by MinDiv who do not have standing as a party directly involved.
That is very fair - but I suspect a little too fair! I agree that it would probably be wise for MinDiv to wait for the outcome of the EAT and grievance procedures - not least because it would make them look daft if they exonerated WH, only to find that subsequent proceedings went the other way, or vice versa.
BUT
To wait another 12 months before having a general inspection is feeble in the extreme. It gives a distinct message of attempting to brush this unpleasant pile of dog poo under the carpet. The right thing to do would have been to say that as soon as current legal procedures have been completed, an independent investigation will be made. Such a simple statement would have achieved a number of positive outcomes:
a) It would have made it clear that the matter was not being ignored. Whether you side with Elaine Storkey or Richard Turnbull, it is undeniable that there has been considerable unrest and controversy and this cannot simply be wished away. The only way to deal with this is to address it properly. An inspection is not the answer - there are specific allegations and they need to be addressed properly for the good of all concerned.
b) It would have made it clear that there would be no attempt to prejudge the legal procedures already in place but also that the matter was regarded as important.
c) It would assure all parties that there would be a proper procedure to resolve this matter. I would have thought that WH & Richard Turnbull would have wanted this as much as Elaine Storkey et al. At the moment, WH is clearly suffering from an awful press. If I were RT, I would want the chance to have the C of E give WH a completely clean bill of health, rather than having another 12 months of this drip drip drip of bad news.
The Bishop of Norwich's answers to the GS questions are bad news for all concerned. They resolve nothing. To be honest, given the powerful voices already lined up on both sides of this argument, I can't see how the Bishop expects to get away with these non-answers. My guess is that he will get creamed at the next session of GS.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
koheleth
Shipmate
# 3327
|
Posted
Having first joined Wycliffe Hall as a student in 1952, and supported it with my prayers and sometimes my substance ever since, I have followed its recent history with bewilderment and sorrow.
I have little idea what is really going on, but the prospect of the Hall being involved in employment litigation alarms me. Surely there is a better way.
I am reminded of the occasion in 1999 when the Dean of Westminster dismissed his much-respected Organist, Martin Neary. Neary appealed to the Queen, who was formally the Ordinary of the Abbey, a position analogous to that of the Visitor of Wycliffe Hall, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Queen, through the Lord Chancellor, asked an eminent lawyer to investigate and submit a report. In the report Martin Neary was vindicated, apart from some trivial indiscretions, and the Dean was severely criticised for his handling of the affair (and in my opinion should have resigned).
Cannot Elaine Storkey, and perhaps others, appeal to the Visitor, who would ask an eminent lawyer to investigate and submit a report? They would then gain the public vindication to which they believe they are entitled, and any shortcomings in the Hall’s governance and those responsible for it would be exposed.
I note that in his General Synod replies the Bishop of Norwich did not suggest this option for dealing with staff grievances. Can an ecclesiastical lawyer aboard ship say whether it would be available?
--------------------
See Ecclesiastes 12.11-14.
Posts: 96 | From: Psalm 40 v3 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Wycliffe is an independent institution. It's not beholden to anyone except its Council. (And the Charity Commission in relation to its charitable status). (Which is why all such institutions should have robust and proper disciplinary and grievance procedures in place).
The only intervention that Min Div could make would be in relation to be it being recognised as an institution that is fit to train ordinands in the CofE and therefore being recognised as such by the House of Bishops. There's no evidence, as has been said before on this thread, that the ordinands it produces are anything other than of the highest quality. Staff relationships don't always impact on an institution as a whole!
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by koheleth:
In the report Martin Neary was vindicated, apart from some trivial indiscretions, and the Dean was severely criticised for his handling of the affair (and in my opinion should have resigned).
This is off topic, but your understanding is sadly mistaken. The report, by Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, did not vindicate Dr Neary but upheld his summary dismissal - in other words, it vindicated the Dean. However, because the Dean did not engage in the press campaign waged by Dr Neary, many people were left with the impression, like you, that Neary was right and the Dean was wrong whereas, in truth, the Dean was right and Neary was wrong and Lord Jauncey made no bones about that at all.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Hmmm. I thought the report said that the Dean was technically correct, but awarded him an alpha minus for natural justice. In other words, he had not behaved illegally, but could have handled what was a minor situation much better, and displayed some charity in the process.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Hmmm. I thought the report said that the Dean was technically correct, but awarded him an alpha minus for natural justice. In other words, he had not behaved illegally, but could have handled what was a minor situation much better, and displayed some charity in the process.
The Dean was criticised for an early procedural proposal, and this was seized upon in the Neary camp's PR. But Lord Jauncey did not consider that this was a minor situation, he thought that Dr Neary's secret profits etc justified his summary dismissal, which is what the Dean had decided.
Some quotes from Lord Jauncey:
quote:
I must emphasise at the outset that the Abbey's case against the Nearys was based on impropriety and not dishonesty.
...Dr Neary had no good reason for failing to inform the Abbey authorities of what he and Mrs Neary were doing. I can only conclude from all the circumstances above referred to that they both had a very narrow view of their duty to disclose information about their activities, which could be summed up as: 'We must answer direct questions which are put to us but we need not volunteer information.' This falls far short of the spirit of openness which they agreed was incumbent upon them in carrying out their duties and which the law requires of servants holding such positions as they held in the Abbey.
...the fact that Mrs Neary was charging fixing fees on the fees payable to the lay vicars, without telling them, is another matter and is further evidence of the Nearys' lack of openness.
...[Dr Neary] had no possible justification for thinking that he had been given leave to operate an independent business involving the charging of fixing fees to promoters and the retention for his or Mrs Neary's benefit of any surplus resulting from particular events.
...by using her position as music department secretary to devise, for work of which the Abbey was unaware, a method of payment neither disclosed to nor approved by the Abbey, [Mrs Neary] was making a secret profit and acting contrary to the spirit of openness which both she and Dr Neary accepted to be required in the Abbey.
...Mrs Neary was in breach of her duty of fidelity to the Abbey.
...What I have to determine is whether the conduct of Dr and Mrs Neary, as disclosed by the evidence, amounts to misconduct, and if so, whether serious or gross.
...For some three-and-a-half years, Dr and Mrs Neary ran a business whose principal income-earning assets were the lay vicars and the choristers. They derived profits from this business in the shape of fixing fees and surpluses on events involving the choir. They did not tell anybody in the Abbey what they were doing. They disclosed to no one there that they, and not the Abbey authorities, were entering into some contracts on behalf of the choir. The fact that the Abbey authorities had all the information which would have enabled them to find out about the contracts, had they been so minded, does not alter the position. Dr Neary sought an increase in salary for Mrs Neary without mentioning that she was already receiving substantial sums by way of fixing fees. Both Dr and Mrs Neary, when the existence of the separate account became known to the auditor, indicated that it was an imprest account without going on to mention its other purposes. By these activities and their silence during this long period they were in clear breach of their duty of fidelity to the Abbey. They used their position as organist and music department secretary to make secret profits over a prolonged period and they entirely failed to inform the Abbey authorities of what they were doing, notwithstanding the fact that there were ample opportunities so to do and no good reason for not doing so.
...I am therefore satisfied that the Dean and Chapter were justified in summarily dismissing them.
...I shall humbly report to Her Majesty my determination that the Dean and Chapter were justified in summarily dismissing Dr and Mrs Neary.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am surprised they weren't prosecuted for embezzlement on the basis of that tbh.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
There's something to be said for a country having a constitution that can throw up names like "Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary"
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There's something to be said for a country having a constitution that can throw up names like "Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary"
Yes - that "ordinary" at the end is a real kicker, isn't it?
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by koheleth:
The Queen, through the Lord Chancellor, asked an eminent lawyer to investigate and submit a report. In the report Martin Neary was vindicated, apart from some trivial indiscretions, and the Dean was severely criticised for his handling of the affair (and in my opinion should have resigned).
Hmm, well that's your opinion, but not an entirely balanced one.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I believe we have beaten the former Dean and the former organist and his wife into the ground. This tangent started out well, but has long since ceased to have anything useful to add to a discussion of the OP.
And now, back at Wycliffe...
John Holding
Purgatory Host
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
koheleth
Shipmate
# 3327
|
Posted
I think I'm entitled to ask, without letting the tangent take off again, for an authoritative answer to the question: could Elaine Storkey appeal to the Visitor?
Posts: 96 | From: Psalm 40 v3 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Doubtful. Depends upon the visitorial powers given to the visitor under the Mem and Arts. But it's unlikely that a visitor would have any locus in matters of discipline and grievance. (Given that it is alleged that due process and a proper D&G procedure doesn't exist in said institution anyway...)
Theological Colleges tend to be extra diocesan - at St John's Nottingham, the College Council acts as the Ordinary, though we have due regard to the Diocesan Bishop, and involve him in (for example) ensuring that all Anglican staff are duly licensed. We certainly don't have a Visitor.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by koheleth:
I think I'm entitled to ask, without letting the tangent take off again, for an authoritative answer to the question: could Elaine Storkey appeal to the Visitor?
It doesn't look as if Wycliffe Hall has a Visitor. The latest Report and Accounts say a bit about governance, but it all seems to come down to the Principal and the Council.
Perhaps the founders of Wycliffe Hall thought a Visitor too ceremonial for a low church institution?
So it seems to be a case of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, sadly.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
I had understood from reports of the resignation of Clare MacInnes from the Wycliffe Hall Council that she had copied her letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as visitor.
Visitorial powers vary according to the constitution of individual organisations, but I think in some there is recourse to the visitor in appealing against decisions. But without the Wycliffe constitution to hand and a lawyer at my elbow there is no more to be said.
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
Wycliffe Hall is a registered charity, so if there's a case to answer re employment law it will be the Trustees who have to answer it I think.
Of course it might get interesting if they're deemed to have failed in their duty as trustees by allowing a situation to arise that has ended up with them incurring a financial liability and someone complains about that.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
[?some/all] Oxford Colleges have a Visitor, part of whose role is to be a point of appeal for students who are suspended or expelled. Whether the Private Halls have a similar arrangement I have not researched. neither is it clear that academic staff would have recourse to the Visitor, there being normal procedures through employment law.
http://www.ousu.org/academic-affairs/regulations/the-student-charter-and-minimum-standards
[under academic discipline, final point]
[ 19. November 2007, 21:59: Message edited by: Fool on Hill ]
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
innocent(ish)
Shipmate
# 12691
|
Posted
According to Wikipedia (it's questionable reliability notwithstanding),
quote:
In November 2007, students at Wycliffe Hall were informed that Elaine Storkey had issued proceedings before an Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal. Her case has yet to be heard.
Which we knew already.
It also says that
quote:
In November 2007, students at Wycliffe Hall were informed that Andrew Goddard had lodged an internal formal grievance. Andrew and Elisabeth Goddard remain on staff at the college but are not allowed to teach or to enter the Hall premises during normal working hours. The grievance has yet to be resolved.
but according to a press release from Fulcrum all three have been required to leave.
I don't quite understand how these things sit together. What exactly have they been required to leave? If they remain on staff are they still being paid pending the outcome of internal formal grievance procedures? Can anybody with a better grasp of employment law than me explain it?
A mightily confused innocent(ish) ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Christianity has become part of the furniture ... like a grand piano nobody plays any longer.I want the dust to be taken off and people to play music." Archbishop John Sentamu
Posts: 109 | From: Rochester | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
As I understand the situation, Andrew and Liz are suspended on full pay and may not enter the college premises during office hours. This is pending negotiations for severence / redundancy.
Furthermore, I understand that the Hall has (understandably) begun a charm offensive with DDOs.
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
Hope you don't mind a newbie joining you, but I've just found an article on Wycliffe in The Times (rather unfortunately in the entertainment section) Times Article
[edited due to over width page formatting]
[ 08. January 2008, 10:58: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
It would appear wycliffe has admitted unfair dismissal although not everything appears to be settled yet.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
Hope you don't mind a newbie joining you, but I've just found an article on Wycliffe in The Times (rather unfortunately in the entertainment section)
Welcome to the Ship, Heavenly Anarchist.
It's a pity that the writer of the article doesn't know the difference between an evangelical and an evangelist.
[deleted copy of long url for page formatting]
[ 08. January 2008, 11:00: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
Hope you don't mind a newbie joining you, but I've just found an article on Wycliffe in The Times (rather unfortunately in the entertainment section)
Welcome to the Ship, Heavenly Anarchist.
It's a pity that the writer of the article doesn't know the difference between an evangelical and an evangelist.
lol, yes.
[deleted copy of long url for page formatting]
[ 08. January 2008, 11:00: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The Wycliffe admission on dismissal is not really a surprise in view of what was in the public domain. The Hall Council now looks both high handed and remarkably silly in its decision to short-circuit due process on Dr Storkey's appeal. And on such an obviously visible case as well. I don't know whether or not they called for professional HR advice to aid their decision. If they did, their adviser should move to a different job in life. If they didn't, they look like a bunch of rank amateurs. Changes of membership and administration of the Hall Council now look very necessary to an outsider, but unless someone falls on his sword, there seems no means of making that happen. They are their own masters.
The discrimination issue looks very complicated legally and potentially very serious. That Dr Storkey is prepared to take the issue so far gives the clearest possible indication yet of how deeply she believes she has been wronged in this. And I'm not surprised about that either.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
Its interesting that her case (and the whole Wycliffe issue) is so explicitly founded on distinguishing between the two strands of evangelicalism. I'm wondering how significant it is for 'inter-evangelical' relations in the C of E.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
So, Wycliffe Hall now, when faced with the scrutiny of an independent Employment Judge and Tribunal, belatedly and ungraciously admits:
That Elaine Storkey was, in fact, dismissed.
That her dismissal was unfair.
That it was against the law (because unfair dismissal is against the law).
That she is entitled to a whopping £20,000 compensation on that charge alone, which will presumably come out of its charitable funds.
The episode is shameful, and Wycliffe Hall's handling of it has been shameful. It may also be instructive ro re-read some of the posts on this thread which assured us that those who said it was a matter of wrongdoing or injustice were wrong, that this was just a personality dispute, that we should all be quiet and trust Richard Turnbull and the Bishop of Liverpool, etc etc.
We all make mistakes. As Christians, we are supposed to admit them. How the current leadership of Wycliffe Hall can claim authority for the formation of Christian leaders after their tergiversations of the last year is something it would be interesting to hear explained.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
innocent(ish)
Shipmate
# 12691
|
Posted
I was under the impression that Elaine Storkey and the Goddards had been asked to leave. Does this judgement mean that something similar is likely to be happening with the Goddards as well.
This one could end up being incredibly expensive.
--------------------
"Christianity has become part of the furniture ... like a grand piano nobody plays any longer.I want the dust to be taken off and people to play music." Archbishop John Sentamu
Posts: 109 | From: Rochester | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The discrimination issue looks very complicated legally and potentially very serious.
Not least because it covers issues about the way she was treated which are not covered by the remit of the unfair dismissal claim.
[ 08. January 2008, 11:27: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
