- 76 -
Capital values came in as being a prima facie distinction between
parishes - the supposition being that the wealthier parishes would
tend to own more property - and insured values added in the belief
that those were more easily ascertainable. However the discussion
group, whilst deciding that all were easily available, rejected all as
failing to distinguish and not being appropriate.
4.2.1.7
Potential income as at present assessed
√ √ √ √
This also generated discussion - possibly because it was something
with which the participants were familiar - the principal points in
favour being its target-setting and educational values, and against,
its failure to reflect the pattern of giving within a congregation.
4.2.1.8
Parish budget for the next financial year
√ √ ? ?
A point which again failed to yield consensus. There was an
expressed desire that parishes should be encouraged - possibly even
required - to budget ahead, but doubts as to whether they would
(at present parish budgets appear to be the exception rather than the
rule). In the absence of such budgets the point must be academic, but
it nevertheless merits discussion as being a direction in which
diocesan policy making may choose to move.
4.2.2
Non-financial criteria
4.2.2.1
Establishment of clergy ministering in
the parish
√ √ √ √
4.2.2.2
Establishment of other pastoral staff
in the parish
√ √ √ √
The original phraseology for this had been 'clergy employed' but
the word 'employed' was disliked and the word 'establishment' substi-
tuted. This change also adequately handles vacancies - since these
