BIOS Reporter – Volume 8, No.4 – October 1984

This must be an editorial in two parts. First, to conclude our remarks on the Report of the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission.

What we had to say in our last issue was chiefly of a complementary nature – though we avoided the question of whether the precise proposals went far enough. This time, we will appear less satisfied with what the Commission has to propose. One matter which must concern us is the failure of the Commission to specify that experts advising the various DAC’s on particular topics (organs, bells, monuments, and so on) should be full members of the DAC. We know of too many instances in which the well-considered advice of a diocesan organ adviser has been set at nought by the committee, without the adviser being (able to be) present to argue his case. It is not unreasonable for an adviser to expect to be permitted to explain himself to the DAC before a decision is made on a matter concerning which his advice has been sought, and it is not, frankly, unreasonable for the organ adviser to expect to be a full member of the DAC. Most, if not all, members of a DAC will have sufficient experience to be able to offer a view on – for example – liturgical reordering; few will have the necessary minimum knowledge to offer a useful opinion on the technicalities of organ building. They need their organ adviser among them…