Lawyer to Chair of DCNY Standing Committee

October 10, 2005

The Rev. Kathryn Eden
Chair, Diocesan Review Committee
310 Montgomery Street, Suite 200
Syracuse, NY 13202-2093

Dear Rev. Eden:

I am in receipt of your letter notifying me of the “decision” of the Diocesan Review Committee sustaining the extension of the Inhibition extended by Bishop Adams in his letter of August 22, 2005. Your letter does not articulate what evidence the Committee did or did not consider in reaching its decision. At the original hearing pertaining to the Temporary Inhibition, you and the Committee pointedly indicated you were not prepared to hear evidence and did not wish to have us argue the facts as outlined in the Inhibition, but were only interested in having us discuss the issue of whether or not the Inhibition, if accepted as true, stated sufficient facts to justify the Inhibition.

Your decision with respect to the original Inhibition expressly stated that “the Temporary Inhibition is modified to the extent that in the event the Temporary Inhibition is to be extended beyond its stated terms, such extension shall be based on an updated restatement of the grounds under Canon IV.1(2)(a).” No such “updated restatement of the grounds” was provided.

As we told you at the Diocesan Review Committee meeting on September 29, 2005, the only thing which we received from the Bishop relating to the extension was the terse letter dated August 22, 2005. At this most recent hearing, when we got the impression that you might be changing the ground rules, we requested an adjournment and opportunity to be heard if you were now prepared to listen to evidence, We also asked that the letter from the leadership at St. Paul’s Church which you received be
considered as part of the evidence.

I presume from your decision of September 29, 2005 that you have denied our request to be heard on the merits and you have not considered as part of the record the letter which was forwarded to you by the St. Paul’s Church Wardens and Vestry speaking to the allegations contained in the Bishop’s original outline of his basis for the Inhibition.

You indicate in the last paragraph of your letter that “sufficient good cause” had been presented by the Bishop. In fact, nothing was presented by the Bishop as far as Father Bollinger and I knew. I would appreciate if you could identify for us anything which you considered which represented a basis for good cause with respect to the extension. The original Inhibition, standing by itself, would not provide such good

The Rev. Kathryn Eden
October 10, 2005
Page 2

cause or satisfy your previously stated requirement for an extension. Moreover, Bishop Adams did not in his August 22, 2005 communication indicate that he had good cause for the extension or what he was basing the extension on. Your Committee is in place as part of the Canonical check and balance process designed to prevent abuses by a Bishop under these circumstances. It appears that you viewed your role as that of a “rubber stamp.”

I will look forward to hearing from you in response to these inquiries at your earliest opportunity.

Very truly yours,

LEVENE, GOULDIN & THOMPSON, LLP
By: David M. Gouldin

DMG/cam

cc: c/o Church of the Resurrection
120 West Fifth Street
Oswego, NY 13126

Paul J. Curtin, Jr., Esq.

bcc: Rev. David Bollinger
Raymond J. Dague, Esq.