“The function of the PCC includes complete co-operation with
the incumbent” says a helpful Parish
website for anyone who is interested.
At the same time, all members are primarily responsible as individual trustees
under the prevailing charity law. Are we
acting as individuals or as a corporate body and are these two in conflict? Well, it all depends on what you understand by “co-operate”.
The first definition means “to work together for the same end”. When more than one person is needed to achieve a task, e.g. a pitstop as seen in F1, then they are all co-operating. If one of the pitcrew notices a problem, it is his [or, if you prefer NASCAR, her!] duty to flag it up before releasing the car otherwise the wheels might fall off and the mission fails...
The first definition means “to work together for the same end”. When more than one person is needed to achieve a task, e.g. a pitstop as seen in F1, then they are all co-operating. If one of the pitcrew notices a problem, it is his [or, if you prefer NASCAR, her!] duty to flag it up before releasing the car otherwise the wheels might fall off and the mission fails...
In this case, the black flag signalled the disqualification because someone failed in their individual responsibility: the whole team suffers, because they are in breach of the governing law. Similarly, individual trustees of charities must not neglect their personal responsibilities.
As we approach Pentecost, think what Paul may have said (in 1 Cor 12:12-31): "there is one pitcrew, but many team members ...and we can't all be the lollipop man, otherwise who is going to operate the jack?"
The other meaning of co-operation seems to have more to do
with coercion: the Google
dictionary uses the example: "his captor threatened to kill him if he
didn't cooperate". This model is
not recommended for a PCC!
