Associate Executive Secretary

Introduction

Thank you for allowing me to serve in this role after Pastor Jacques Venter became BUC Executive Secretary in April 2024. This term, I have focused on carrying out Executive Secretary duties for Scotland and Wales, turning policy, legislation and guidance into practical governance across the BUC and the missions. Human Resources, which was mentioned in the last Associate Executive Secretary report, stayed with the current executive secretary. As I worked, one issue kept coming up: we often lack a clear formal voted agreement on who can make decisions, who can sign documents, and when issues need to be escalated. Simply put, we do not always have a clear path from a question to a decision. If we are ever reviewed, either internally or externally, this lack of clarity could create risks, especially when quick decisions are needed. Looking ahead, we should consider what ‘clear enough’ decision-making authority would look like across the Union in relation to the Scottish and Welsh Mission, so that eaders can act with confidence, keep good records, and stay compliant in England, Wales, and Scotland.

Strategic Targets and KPIs

This term showed that the Scottish and Welsh Missions have not used simple progress measures (or KPIs) in the same way as the BUC head office. As a result, the head office has had less insight into daily activities and results in the missions than it would like. That said, our broader goal has been to strengthen decision-making in the Union by building a clearer evidence base and making governance easier to manage and defend. This includes clarifying where mission autonomy ends and BUC authority begins, making the case for a Union-wide census, and identifying professional groups within the Union who can add value. As we checked decisions against policy, charity law and denominational norms, we also noted the governance risk mentioned above, which has the potential to erode trust among the membership and create litigation risk at its most serious. Since these gaps are larger than expected, it might be important for the next administration to consider what a shared minimum set of measures and reporting for the missions could look like, and what kind of governance review would best meet current needs?

Target Assessment

Membership reports show growth, but the data is not reliable enough for confident planning. In Wales, membership increased from 692 in January 2022 to 809 in December 2024, and reached 894 by the end of 2025. Most of this growth, 60.8%, came from transfers. Baptisms made up 27.8%, and professions of faith 11.4%. Losses included 84 transfers out, 30 deaths, and 10 members dropped. These numbers raise an important question: when we talk about ‘growth’, do we mean new people joining the faith, people moving between churches, or both?

It is also difficult for the Union or the missions to connect activities to results or to see where support is most needed.

We still do not have a complete demographic picture. Wales has 270 members with unknown birth dates, and Scotland has 179 members without this information. Without age data for many members, it is harder to plan for retention, leadership succession and targeted discipleship. What practical and pastoral steps could we take to improve this over time, without putting too much pressure on local churches or members?

Achievements and Impact

This term, we focused more on improving governance and record-keeping than on starting new projects. Much effort went into understanding the relationship between the missions and the BUC. This is important, because decisions made by the Missions Executive Committee carry risks. I have aimed to give advice and guidance based on policy and legislation to protect BUC trustees and the missions connected to the unincorporated member association.

A key lesson has been the importance of formal delegated authority. Clear rules about who can make decisions are not just paperwork: they help us manage risk. During a leadership change in the Welsh Mission, it became clear how important it is to have written limits, proper sign-off steps, and discipline around major decisions. Since leadership transitions can happen at any time, should we consider what minimum sign-off rules should always be in place, so that urgent decisions can be made quickly but still follow BUC/SDAA requirements?

Challenges and Response

This term has shown a set of related challenges that affect how confidently and consistently we can govern across the Union. The main issue is not a lack of goodwill, but that in some areas our system is not clear enough for people to know the right steps without having to stop and interpret them.

First, when urgent or high-impact issues come up, not everyone understands the relationship between the missions and the BUC trustees in the same way. Scotland and Wales are missions within the BUC, but clarity is especially important for property, contracts, financial commitments, safeguarding and leadership changes. In Scotland, this is morecomplicated because of a different legal system and outside requirements. Even in Wales, where the law is the same as in England, different ways of working can cause problems if accountability and sign-off steps are not clear. Should the next administration look at how we define what is Mission level and what is Union or trustee level for these higher-risk areas, and how we explain this to committees and local leaders?

Second, we still do not have a full set of practical governance tools to turn policy into daily decision-making rules. Because of this, leaders often rely on their own judgement about what was meant, instead of following clear agreements. This leads to inconsistent practices and decisions that may not fully follow laws, regulations or policies. It can also slow down decision-making. The next administration will need to decide how to clarify approval and escalation steps for higher-risk decisions.

This is more than just an inconvenience. When pressure increases, so do the risks. There is a risk of non-compliance if routine steps, records and escalation routes are missed or handled inconsistently. There is also a risk of going beyond authority, where leaders or committees approve, commit, or sign for more than they should, or outside the budget. Role confusion can happen when officers have to act as adviser, decision-maker and risk holder because the system does not make escalation and accountability clear. Finally, there is a reputational risk, where a local problem is quickly seen as a Union problem because accountability is not clear or easy to explain. Given these risks, what is the smallest set of changes that would most improve clarity, consistency and confidence across the Union?

Recommendations

When policies were unclear, incomplete or did not provide a clear approval process, officers acted carefully. They checked decisions against charity law, regulator expectations and denominational policy, and made sure not to commit the organisation beyond its authority. In some cases, this meant slowing down decisions to make sure they were well supported and defensible. Looking ahead, we need to find ways to avoid having to be slow and careful as the default just because the process is unclear, while still keeping the same level of integrity and compliance.

This experience shows that we may be relying too much on individual judgement and goodwill, when we really need more consistent, system-level clarity. With that in mind, it would be prudent for the next administration to consider whether the Union needs a clearly written scheme of delegation – a short document that explains which decisions belong where – supported by a delegation of authority (DoA) matrix, which is a simple table showing who can approve and sign within certain limits.

A scheme of delegation could clearly state which matters are for the BUC trustees, which are for Mission officers and committees, and when an issue must be escalated because it is high-risk or high-impact. What should be included in such a scheme to make it truly useful, especially for property, contracts, safeguarding and major financial commitments?

A DoA matrix could make the scheme practical by showing who can approve, commit, and sign, and within what limits. These limits could be based on value, contract type or risk level. Should we consider how these limits would work in practice in Scotland and Wales so that the tools match real conditions and trustee accountability?

These tools are not meant to centralise or decentralise decision-making. Their purpose is to protect trustees, officers and local leaders by making things clearer, faster and more consistent, and by making sure that decisions are properly authorised, recorded and easy to explain to members and outside groups. With this in mind, a key consideration for the next administration is to review the Union-wide governance model and, if needed, develop a scheme of delegation and DoA matrix that reflects trustee accountability, the realities in Scotland and Wales and the practical needs of property and contract decisions.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Scottish and Welsh Mission officers, Jimmy Botha, Graham Allcock and Aftab Barki; the office secretaries, Hellevi Walker and Pauline Allcock; local church clerks; committee members; and everyone who helps keep our membership and reporting systems accurate. I also appreciate the teamwork across the BUC, officers, workers and pastors. Special thanks to the BUC secretarial team – Pastor Jacques Venter, Desiré Lewis and Jacqueline Johnson. Finally, thank you to my family for your support and encouragement, and to God for His patience and grace.