CELEBRANT ORGANISATIONS – PERFORMANCE REVIEWS – PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
What is happening?
What should be happening?
There are about twenty or so celebrant organisations – divided and ineffective. Some are run by “new” enthusiastic celebrants who, as yet, do not know anything.
In the past the Registrar and the Senior Public Servants have –
– engineered this division on the “divide and conquer” theory.
– have told various Attorneys-General that it is the fault of celebrants.
– made all organisations ineffective buy tactical obfuscation (“Yes, we will note that”, “Yes, we will take that on board.” “That seems worth considering” etc etc).
What should happen. – There should be one, two, or at the most three celebrant organisations. The elected representatives should be listened to and encouraged to provide constructive feedback from the coalface. This could easily be achieved as follows.
The Attorney-General (supported by his public servants) simply strongly and directly asks that celebrants come together. If this fails (and it won’t) he could require that an advisory committee (of say 10) celebrants be formed by preferential senate-like voting with whom he can consult, and then he should listen to no other organisation in an official capacity.
The original Registrar, in punitive mode, conducted these reviews from paperwork submitted. Farcically, against all established norms, no performance i.e in the conduct of a ceremony – was ever on the radar.
What should happen. – Performance Reviews of celebrants should be conducted by respectful and carefully selected peer celebrants. The primary assessment should be on the quality of the ceremony conducted – and the legal obligations in connection with the ceremony. It should be constructive, encouraging and a contribution to genuine professionalism and service to the public.
This has been a good initiative, and on balance has done a certain amount of good – BUT the appointment of trainers (non-celebrants) has been unjust and unintelligent.
What should happen. – Creeping legalism has made most celebrants, but especially those who lack a good general education, paranoid about unimportant points of law. It has contributed to ignorance and a counter-productive preoccupation on the law and procedures, instead of the main responsibility of serving the public with ceremonies which have meaning, beauty and substance..
Pingback: Celebrant Issues with Attorney-General-2014 | International College of Celebrancy (Est.1995)
Pingback: Civil Celebrant program in Australia 2015 | Dally Messenger III