Would groupings of Local Meetings ('clusters') have a formal role in decision-making and governance?
They wouldn't form a separate layer of governance, but LMs would be free to choose to act together to do anything which they could otherwise do separately. That could include sharing their discernment on membership matters (before making a recommendation to LAM), running a witness or outreach project, or making nominations to LAM.
Would local clusters be able to focus on the kinds of activities that are important to them?
Yes.
Would local meetings be able to migrate to different groupings of LMs in future?
Yes. And be part of more than one grouping if they wish.
What would happen to London Quakers Property Trust (LQPT)?
We envisage LQPT becoming part of the same charity as London AM (LAM), for several reasons. Firstly, it would mean that the Quakers of London can together take strategic decisions about our property. Secondly, the fewer charities we have in the governance structure of London Quakers, the fewer Friends we need to find to serve as trustees. And thirdly, it would mean that we can appoint Friends with relevant expertise onto the Property Committee of LAM, without them having to also carry trustee responsibilities. We need a knowledgeable group to oversee our property, but such Friends are not necessarily comfortable with serving as trustees. We would however expect one or two of the LAM Trustees to serve on this committee (and on other committees, such as finance and employment), so that the committee could take the decisions delegated to it.