Our circumstances certainly met the criteria established by the Primates in their February 2005 Communiqué calling for establishment of the Panel of Reference to "supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches (that were experiencing) serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishops." We have not only experienced extreme theological disputes, but Bishop Smith has also provoked civil litigation by displacing parish control over property and assets by unlawfully seizing all property and assets of St. John's, Bristol, inhibiting and deposing its priest, installing a Priest-in-Charge without consultation with the vestry, and thereafter attempting to displace its wardens and vestry. Bishop Smith also seized the investment accounts of Christ Church in Watertown, Christ & The Epiphany Church in East Haven and Bishop Seabury Church in Groton, but returned those assets to the Parishes after civil litigation was started. Notwithstanding, we have had no contact with, or personal communication from, the Panel or the Archbishop.

Our congregations notified Bishop Smith and his Chancellor of our petition to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but he responded contemptuously. On July 27, 2005, Bishop Smith's spokeswoman said that the Panel of Reference would "have no role in the battle for alternative Episcopal oversight (AEO) in the Diocese of Connecticut."

Months of inaction and delay by the Panel of Reference, in the face of ongoing hostile civil action by Bishop Smith, coupled with the impending ecclesiastical threats of inhibition and deposition of our clergy, left us no choice but to file civil proceedings in late September 2005 in order to protect the life and health of our congregations as well as preserve the integrity of the ministries committed to our care. Our deep desire, however, has consistently been for the Panel of Reference to intervene in Connecticut and provide relief as prescribed by the Anglican Communion Primates.

Bishop Smith reported at a clergy meeting on February 8, 2006, that the Panel of Reference had notified him of their review and requested a response from him in early January 2006. We received no word from the Panel regarding its communications with Bishop Smith. Now we read in a public document that the Archbishop of Canterbury has withdrawn the Connecticut reference to the Panel "until such time as the matter of the civil cases has been resolved."

Regrettably, the Panel of Reference did not consult with us or give us an opportunity to speak to their need for a stay of pending civil litigation. Through our counsel, we have repeatedly advised the Diocese of Connecticut that we are agreeable to a referral to the Panel of Reference. Accordingly, we can only assume now that the Diocese and the remaining defendants in the civil litigation have advised the Panel that they will not agree to the Panel's request to stay the civil litigation. Once again, it appears that the Diocese of Connecticut has denied Parishes the relief and a fair hearing to which they are entitled by evading an acceptable process providing for dispute resolution. Presumably, the Diocese has concluded that it cannot persuade a disinterested mediator of the rectitude of its position.

Notwithstanding, we pray the Archbishop of Canterbury will contact us and the Diocese of Connecticut directly so that our pending applications for review will now be immediately referred to the Panel of Reference, this time with specific directions from the Archbishop of Canterbury to proceed with these applications without delay, unless, of course, it is the Diocese which declines to accept intervention by the Panel of Reference.

END