APPEAL OF THE DISMISSAL BY THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF A TITLE IV CASE

APPEAL OF THE DISMISSAL BY THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF A TITLE IV CASE REGARDING BISHOP IN CHARGE PIERRE WHALON OF THE CONVOCATION OF EPISCOPAL CHURCHES IN EUROPE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF BISHOPS BY ERIK CAMPANO MEMBER, ST. MARK S PARISH, NEW CANAAN, CONNECTICUT MARCH 9, 2012

With this letter I hereby appeal the Presiding Bishops decision not to object to a recommended dismissal by the Bishop for the Office of Pastoral Development of the case regarding Bishop in charge Pierre Whalon of the Convocation of Europe. I received this decision by email on February 10, 2012. BACKGROUND OF THIS CASE: On November 22, 2011, I contacted Bishop Whalon, explaining that I wanted to report a case of possible clergy misconduct in the Convocation. The case involved Rev. Virginia Lisbeth Ginger Strickland, a Deacon whom he was planning to ordain a Priest on December 11, 2011, and to whom he was politically bound: she had given his supporting speech less than a month earlier to be Bishop of New York. Bishop Whalon delayed Rev. Strickland s case past the ordination, and indeed for months afterwards. He repeatedly violated Title IV intake procedure. This sowed immense disorder. Eventually, under Title I, Canon 15, Sec. 10, the Presiding Bishop s office claimed jurisdiction over Rev. Strickland. Nonetheless, proper intake was never done on the possible misconduct, and Bishop Whalon appeared to continue to find ways to try to influence a case in which his impartiality could reasonably be questioned. CURRENT STATUS OF THIS CASE: Bishop Clayton Matthews of the Office of Pastoral Development has dismissed my complaint against Bishop Whalon on grounds that what I experienced was institutional confusion. REASONS FOR THE APPEAL: My last substantial intake conversation with Bishop Matthews on the Bishop Whalon case was done on December 15. Since then much more evidence has arrived that the delay and failed intake in Rev. Strickland s case was certainly stoked by Bishop Whalon s actions and may have been orchestrated by him and, was more than simple, diffuse institutional confusion. Because so much new evidence for this appeal has come to light facts which the Pastoral Development Office could not take into account in its decision this case is a classic one in which an appeal to the President of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops under the new Title IV is particularly germane.

Central to the story is the fact that Bishop Whalon has complained for years to the General Convention that he does not have disciplinary jurisdiction over the European Convocation. Rather, as he himself has stated, Title I, Canon 15, Sec. 10 of the Canons seems to indicate that the Presiding Bishop s office has that jurisdiction. However, on November 22, 2011, when I brought to him a possible misconduct case in which he had a personal and perhaps political stake, he did not do what he himself said the Canons require: forward it directly to Bishop Matthews, the Intake Officer for the Presiding Bishop s office. Rather, Bishop Whalon started raising issues of jurisdiction, which delayed processing, for months, on the rather serious matter of possible Title IV violations by someone he was planning to ordain a Priest in three weeks. I am not an expert on the Canons and I cannot say precisely which ones were violated in which way. I can only provide evidence. I will present a chronology of events, and in it, I will provide evidence that Bishop Whalon: misstated who had jurisdiction over the case of Rev. Strickland didn t forward that case promptly to an Intake Officer didn t recuse himself immediately from that case, although he had a personal or political stake in it ignored my requests for a private, informal, constructive resolution relied on a non Episcopal church without a Sexual Misconduct policy (the American Church in Paris) to investigate possible misconduct by one of his Deacons colluded with that church in the production of a summary judgment of Rev. Strickland's innocence" ordained a person to the Priesthood who was facing serious Title IV allegations ignored a parishioner s objection (mine) to that ordination unnecessarily debated jurisdiction over Rev. Strickland's case with the Diocese of New York to delay intake past her ordination continued to debate jurisdiction for months with the Presiding Bishop s office, further delaying processing on the case appointed an interim Intake Officer uncanonically influenced the work of an Intake Officer on the case was negligent in properly forming or monitoring a Candidate for ordination in pastor parishioner boundaries There is written email evidence backing up most of the facts I present here. At this stage in intake, the truth of the facts presented in this document is meant to be assumed. If they would constitute an

Offense, this case should be referred forward, per the Canons. A double arrow (==>) precedes: 1) new evidence (that is, evidence Bishop Matthews may not have taken into account when he rendered his decision), and 2) questions that the Disciplinary Board should further investigate. * * * * * CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 2006: ==> Rev. Strickland graduates from Yale Divinity School and starts working as youth pastor at the interdenominational American Church in Paris (ACP), France. She then begins the ordination process in the Convocation. July 2009: ==> At the General Convention, Bishop Whalon complains that he does not have enough disciplinary jurisdiction over the Convocation. He says that the Presiding Bishop s office is in charge of discipline in Europe, and proposes that the Committee on Canons recommend changing that fact. Bishop Pierre Whalon, of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe, explained his reasons for proposing A123. The problem which A123 seeks to address was created by the fact that Episcopal clergy serve in congregations that are outside existing Anglican provinces, and have no local bishop exercising oversight other than the Presiding Bishop, or in some sense the Bishop of their canonical residence (which may well be thousands of miles away). Also, the Presiding Bishop does not have an ecclesiastical court in the way that a diocesan bishop does. Bishop Whalon said the Convocation cannot create its own disciplinary canons, because it is not a diocese. (Minutes, Committee on Canons (Committee No. 5) At the 76th General Convention Anaheim, California July 7 16, 2009) (Courtesy

of the Archives of the Episcopal Church) Bishop Whalon s proposal is ultimately tabled. Sept 2010: I start attending ACP at least weekly and volunteering for youth group functions. Sept 2010 April 13, 2010: ==> Rev. Strickland is conferring with her superior at ACP, Pastor XYZ (Presbyterian), about whether or not it would be proper to date me. Pastor XYZ, reportedly, gives Rev. Strickland the green light. Other ACP staff also know of Rev. Strickland s crush on me and how she may have been using church functions as a pretense to date me. April 13 August 6, 2011: Rev. Strickland and my sexual relationship occurs during this time. Rev. Strickland is ordained a deacon on June 4. August 9, 2011: After months of insomnia, which starts the night Rev. Strickland and I become sexual, I make a suicidal gesture and am hospitalized in New York. Sept 10, 2011: Rev. Strickland arrives in New York and starts working as Assistant Rector at the Church of the Incarnation. [CORRECTION: STRICKLAND ARRIVED IN NEW YORK SOME DAYS AFTER THIS DATE AND WAS INSTALLED AT INCARNATION ON SEPT. 25, 2011] Nov 1, 2011: My last contact with Rev. Strickland. My mood and cognition stabilize after months of severe depression. Nov 1 Nov 16, 2011: ==> I become aware of the possibility of clergy misconduct and research the topic at Union Theological Seminary, attached to my university, Columbia, in New York. Nov 16: I email Gregg Foster, President of the American and Foreign Christian Union, which funds and oversees ACP, telling him that I would like a conversation about poor boundary judgments between Rev. Strickland and me.

Nov 20: ==> Mr. Foster replies that he can offer no help in the matter. Why did Bishop Whalon allow Rev. Strickland to work for a religious organization whose President does not refer forward potential Sexual Misconduct cases? Nov 21: I email XYZ, Vice President of the American Church in Paris layperson s Council, with the same request. No immediate response. Nov 22, 2011: ==> After much searching online, I find the European Sexual Misconduct policy. It is not linked from the Convocation s own website. Why not? Shouldn t a document so fundamental to the safety of parishioners be easily accessible? I then email Bishop Whalon, telling him that I wished to report a possible case of sexual exploitation in the Convocation. He requests a letter with an outline of the case. Is this a violation of intake procedure? Per the new Title IV, wasn t Bishop Whalon supposed to immediately refer the matter to the Intake Officer whom he considers to have jurisdiction over the Convocation: Bishop Matthews? Nov 23, 2011: ==> I email Bishop Whalon asking what standards the Convocation uses to evaluate Sexual Misconduct cases: Obviously it's a sensitive matter, so I just want to make sure that I clearly understand all aspects of the diocese's policy before I present even an outline. I have a copy of the European diocese's "Guidelines and Procedures for Response to Sexual Misconduct". Does your diocese also have a more fleshed out version of its sexual misconduct policy that is, with comments, like the one published by the New York Diocese (entitled "Policies and Procedures for Responding to Sexual Misconduct in the Episcopal Diocese of New York")?

Bishop Whalon responds: we follow the same rules and definitions as the Diocese of New York, since they are contained in Title IV of the church's canon law (dealing with clergy discipline. [sic] Bishop Whalon is saying here that if the New York standards are violated, then that constitutes Title IV Sexual Misconduct. Later, when he finds out the case is about Rev. Strickland, he will directly contradict this statement. This is extremely important because from this point on, I was assuming that if Rev. Strickland broke the New York standards, then her case was subject to Title IV disciplinary proceedings. (She did, in fact, almost certainly break these standards several times and Bishop Whalon was also negligent in enforcing these standards. Knowing that, it was in his best interest later to contradict this statement.) Nov 24, 2011: I ask Bishop Whalon if the Convocation has an Intake Officer. No response. Nov 25, 2011: I phone Bishop Whalon s secretary and ask for the name of the Intake Officer. She cannot find it. ==> Bishop Whalon is bound by the Convocation s Constitution, Canon 11 Section 2 (8), to publish the name of the Intake Officer. If the secretary cannot find it, it is not published. Nov 26, 2011: Bishop Whalon responds, writing: I note that you have called around looking for our Intake Officer, including asking my secretary. Right now, we are in between official Intake Officers. I submit a letter to Bishop Whalon saying that I believed Rev. Strickland may have violated the European Sexual Misconduct policy and hence, indirectly, Title IV, but that it wasn t just

her fault. Rather, I say, it was an institutional problem that it was due to failures of oversight at the American Church in Paris and in the Convocation. Hence I wanted a private, informal, constructive conversation to discuss what happened and try to prevent such a thing from happening again. Bishop Whalon never responds to this email. Why not? Why did Bishop Whalon, faced with a possible case of Sexual Misconduct involving someone he was planning to ordain in two weeks, not immediately pick up the phone and ask me what happened? Why did he never grant me, the parishioner, a simple conversation which could have led to a constructive resolution, and avoided a long and painful disciplinary process? Nov 30, 2011: ==> Not having heard from Bishop Whalon, I approach the Intake Officer of the New York Diocese, Canon John Osgood. He says that New York has jurisdiction over Rev. Strickland. I offer him a conversation rather than a written case, but he says he prefers a written complaint. Why did Canon Osgood claim New York s jurisdiction over Rev. Strickland, when I told him she had been ordained in Europe? And why did he, too, ask for a formal complaint, bypassing the possibility of a constructive, informal resolution? Dec 1, 2011: I submit case to Canon Osgood. Dec 2, 2011: ==> Canon Osgood acknowledges receipt and says we will get back to you in due course. (I do not hear from the New York Diocese until after the ordination.) Dec 4, 2011: I share more very private information with Bishop Whalon about Rev. Strickland and my relationship. I also forward him a copy of the case. I do not give him permission to share the case with Rev. Strickland. Dec 5, 2011: XYZ finally responds, saying that the American Church in Paris has conducted an internal investigation led by Senior Pastor XYZ (Presbyterian), and there was no evidence of inappropriate behaviour on Ginger Strickland s part. I respond to Ms. XYZ that Pastor XYZ would not know, because he was not witness to any

misconduct. Any reasonable investigators, I say, would have asked me what happened before reaching a decision. ==> ACP officials permanently cut off all contact with me. A few hours later, Bishop Whalon writes back, suggesting that (without my permission) he may have shared my written case with Rev. Strickland. Why did he not clarify with me first whether I was in agreement with this possible breach of confidentiality? Bishop Whalon adds: The behavior that you allege took place happened while Ginger Strickland served as a youth pastor, a lay employee of the American Church in Paris, before she was ordained. It is up to her church employer at the time to ascertain the facts and make a judgment. Neither the Convocation nor the Diocese of New York has direct jurisdiction over the settling of your claim. Of course, there would be consequences for Rev. Strickland should they find any evidence of what you allege. What have you heard from the ACP? This is the last email Bishop Whalon ever sent me. This email contained three main problems: First, much of the alleged misconduct occurred after Rev. Strickland was ordained. Second, Bishop Whalon contradicted his earlier statement about disciplinary procedure. Here he implied that Rev. Strickland was not subject to Convocation Sexual Misconduct policy because she was an employee of a non Episcopal institution, and she was (during some of this time) only an official Candidate for ordination. But the New York standards and the Convocation s Sexual Misconduct policy both apply to all Candidates for Clergy in any workplace with pastoral responsibility, which in this case would be ACP. If Rev. Strickland is to be held to the New York standards and the written policy of the European Convocation, and, as Bishop Whalon said, they are contained in Title IV, then the Convocation or some Episcopal body which enforces Title IV in fact, the Presiding Bishop s office did have jurisdiction over the case. But Bishop Whalon is silent about this. Third, Bishop Whalon s email lays responsibility for the investigation on the American Church of Paris. The American

Church in Paris investigation was incomplete. So Bishop Whalon was essentially delegating authority for investigating a Sexual Misconduct complaint out to a non Episcopal institution which did not do an adequate job. The fact that the American Church in Paris and Bishop Whalon replied on the same day, more than two weeks after I originally approached Bishop Whalon, raises the possibility that these two coordinated their responses. A disciplinary board should investigate the following question: did Bishop Whalon and the American Church in Paris communicate with each other during these two weeks? Did they decide that the American Church in Paris would render a summary judgment of no misconduct, and then Bishop Whalon would, uncanonically, defer to that judgment? Was this collusion? Finally, I would like to add that personally I was not seeking consequences for Rev. Strickland. I wanted a private, informal, constructive conversation to see what we could learn from the trauma of the past months, to prevent it from happening again. I then email the Business Administrator of the American Church in Paris, XYZ, asking for the Sexual Misconduct policy of the American Church in Paris. Dec 6, 2011: XYZ replies: We have no sexual misconduct policy per se. For pastoral staff we defer to the denominational authorities by which they have received their ordination. ==> Bishop Whalon, in other words, relied on a Sexual Misconduct investigation by an institution which has no Sexual Misconduct policy, to examine allegations against someone that he was planning to ordain a Priest in five days. Why did he not have the Presiding Bishop s office undertake this investigation, as he said the Canons instruct? I ask Canon Osgood about status of intake. He does not respond. I ask Bishop Whalon for the name of the Convocation's Intake Officer. No response to this or any of my emails afterwards. By not responding to the request for the name of the Convocation s Intake Officer, Bishop Whalon again violated the Canons, which require him to publish that name. I send the case to the Rectors of three European Episcopal

churches in three different countries in Frankfurt, Rome, and Geneva asking them to forward it to the Intake Officer. None of them respond. All of them were canonically bound to forward information concerning an Offense to an Intake Officer. Why did none of them respond? Did Bishop Whalon instruct a freeze out, to delay intake pending the ordination? I.e., was this improper influence? Dec 7, 2011: ==> I write to Bishop Whalon, asking him what is going on, on your side of things? No response. I then write a letter to Bishop Matthews and the Presiding Bishop pointing out that Bishop Whalon has violated the Canons during intake. That afternoon, I write Bishop Whalon with a formal objection to Rev. Strickland s ordination on grounds that she violated the Canons. He never responds. Why did Bishop Whalon not respond to an objection to ordination? During an ordination ceremony, Bishops normally ask if anyone objects. What precisely is the purpose of that question? Dec 8, 2011: Rev. J. Douglas Ousley, Rector at the Church of the Incarnation, phones me and says (almost verbatim) the following: Mr. Campano, I am going to give you a message and then hang up. Ginger is in a lot of trouble. You are not to contact her again. I am hanging up. Rev. Ousley never responds to any more communication from me. This is very disappointing, as my goal was not to get Rev. Strickland in trouble, but to have a discussion with someone about how to prevent a similar tragedy to ours from occurring in the Convocation. What trouble" was Rev. Strickland now in? Why did Rev. Ousley never respond to any more enquiries from me, given that he was not a Respondent in this case? What communication had occurred between him and Bishop Whalon, who had also earlier threatened unspecified consequences for Rev. Strickland, when I asked for a private, informal, constructive resolution? Dec 9, 2011:

==> Bishop Matthews contacts me, saying that he would like a conversation about my case against Bishop Whalon. Dec 10, 2011: ==> Rev. XYZ, of the Church of the Ascension in Munich, Germany, writes to me, introducing himself as the Intake Officer for the Convocation, and saying he d like to speak with me about the case against Rev. Strickland. The earliest conversation that he can schedule is on ordination morning, December 11, at 9 AM (the ordination starts at 11). Given that Bishop Matthews ultimately determined that canonically, the Presiding Bishop s office has jurisdiction over Convocation discipline, is it even legal for the Convocation to have its own Intake Officer? It is certainly deceptive to me: it implies that the case fell under the Convocation s jurisdiction. If Bishop Whalon was following his, and the Presiding Bishop s, understanding of the Canons, then the Intake Officer who he should have asked to call me, three weeks earlier, was Bishop Matthews. Dec 11, 2011: Ordination morning: ==> Rev. XYZ phones me 45 minutes late, at 9:45, and speaks with me until about 11:15 just after the ordination begins. Then he cuts off the conversation even though I am not finished telling the story of what happened between me and Rev. Strickland. We never discuss what transpired between me and Rev. Strickland after she was ordained a Deacon on June 4. Rev. XYZ says that he will get back to me on December 14, after the meeting of the Convocation s Disciplinary Board on December 13. That is the only intake conversation I ever have with Rev. XYZ, or any Convocation official. Hence: my first conversation with any official about the content of the misconduct occurs during Rev. Strickland s ordination. Why? Did Rev. XYZ (or did Bishop Whalon have Rev. XYZ) intentionally call during the ordination, to deter me from objecting in person? Because of the fact underlined above, it is impossible to believe that the Convocation or the Diocese of New York took seriously the case before Rev. Strickland s ordination, as Bishop Matthews believed after first intake. Simply put, you cannot take seriously a Title IV complaint until you have spoken with the Complainant.

Why did the Diocese of New York and Convocation, then, later claim to Bishop Matthews they took the case seriously? Was it to make Bishop Matthews believe that proper intake had been done on the matter and it was settled in December? I later asked Bishop Matthews this. He said that the evidence he had that New York and Europe took this case seriously was that there were discussions involving the Bishops and the Chancellor of New York, and so forth. Dec 13, 2011: ==> Bishop Matthews phones me and takes in my case against Bishop Whalon. We discuss Rev. Strickland, although not in great detail. That is the final intake conversation I have ever had with anyone about either case. Bishop Matthews says that he would like to deal with the matter in the New Year. Canon Osgood informs me that the case was referred to the Convocation. Bishop Matthews has said that there was no confusion in the Diocese of New York about who handled jurisdiction in this case that for New York, it was always clearly the Convocation, where Rev. Strickland is canonically resident. Why, then, did it take two weeks until after the ordination for New York to forward the complaint to Europe? I later asked Canon Osgood this question and he replied that during those two weeks, the Bishops of New York and Europe were deciding who had jurisdiction. I then asked Canon Osgood why the ordination wasn t delayed until the jurisdiction question was settled and proper intake could be done. He never responded to this question. Why did the Convocation and New York Diocese debate jurisdiction for two weeks before the ordination? Shouldn t Bishop Whalon have known from the start that his Clergy are subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Presiding Bishop s office? If he was arguing this with the Diocese of New York, then he was either grossly unaware of his own Convocation s policy or trying to delay processing until after the ordination. But Bishop Whalon did already know this. He testified so at the 2009 General Convention. Bishop Whalon used confusion about jurisdiction over Rev. Strickland s case in order to delay intake until after her ordination. He was motivated to this: Bishop Whalon had (and has) a personal and perhaps political stake in Rev. Strickland

not being found guilty of a Title IV violation. Less than a month before her ordination, she gave his supporting speech in the election to be Bishop of New York. Hence his impartiality from the very start of the case could reasonably be questioned, and would have motivated his attempts to delay, or suppress, any finding that Rev. Strickland violated Title IV. Bishop Whalon was bound to distance himself from this case from the beginning, because of his questionable impartiality. Any activity of his in this case after November 26, when he first learned it was about Rev. Strickland, was a Title IV violation. So a disciplinary board should investigate: was what Bishop Matthews characterizes as institutional confusion in fact deliberately manufactured by Bishop Whalon in violation of Title IV? Dec 15, 2011: ==> Rev. XYZ says that there was no Disciplinary Board meeting on December 13 because Bishop Whalon was unable to call into the conference call from where he was in New York City. He says that We are waiting to learn the date of the rescheduled meeting. Rev. XYZ never informed me of that date. If Bishop Whalon was dealing with such a serious matter possible Title IV violations by someone he just ordained a Priest then why didn t he make adequate provisions to ensure he could have a timely Disciplinary Board meeting on the matter? Dec 23, 2011: ==> I email Bishop Whalon, asking him which parts of Title IV apply to the Convocation, what it means to publish the name of the Intake Officer, and to confirm that Rev. XYZ is, indeed, the Intake Officer. He does not reply. Dec 31, 2011: ==> The Church of the Incarnation announces that Rev. Strickland is hosting a public discussion in January on the ethics of dating and marriage. Why would the church have her speak publicly on this issue when she has a pending Sexual Misconduct case against her? I ask Rev. Ousley this; he does not respond. I ask him to reconsider the appropriateness of the topic. He does not respond. Did Bishop Whalon approve of this topic?

Jan 2, 2012: ==> I educate myself about the content of Title IV, and I become aware that Rev. Strickland may have directly violated Title IV, in addition to the European Sexual Misconduct policy. I email Rev. XYZ, asking whether I can submit evidence for the direct Title IV violations. He does not reply. I say that I have new evidence to add to a Title IV case. Is Rev. XYZ obligated to take that in? Jan 6, 2012: ==> I ask Canon Osgood for pastoral support. Jan 7, 2012: ==> Rev. XYZ apologizes for the delay in his Intake Report. He says he will email it to me next week. (He does not.) Jan 10, 2012: ==> Canon Osgood, on behalf of the New York diocese, refuses pastoral support. He does not answer an email asking why not. Why would New York refuse me even pastoral support? At this point, the Diocese has admitted that the matter is out of the its hands. Would giving me pastoral support somehow suggest that my claims had some validity? Did the Diocese still have an impartial interest in not wanting Rev. Strickland to have any appearance of having violated Title IV? What communications were going on between Bishop Whalon and the Diocese of New York at this point? Jan 14, 2012: ==> I ask Rev. XYZ the status of the report. No answer. Jan 19, 2012: ==> I ask Rev. XYZ for any information at all about the status of the report. No answer. Jan 20, 2012:

==> Bishop Matthews explains to me that the Convocation does not have jurisdiction over Rev. Strickland and that her case will be handled by the Presiding Bishop s office, pursuant to Title I, Canon 15, Sec. 10. Explaining why there has been such a delay in processing the case, Bishop Matthews says that the Presiding Bishop s office has been trying to untangle Bishop Whalon i.e., get him to have Rev. XYZ turn over an intake report on the case. Bishop Whalon does not want to do this, Bishop Matthews says, because he wants the Convocation to be a Diocese. Jan 23, 2012: ==> Rev. XYZ produces an interim Intake Report which recommends dismissal. Its main argument is that Rev. Strickland could not have committed Sexual Misconduct, because she was not a Member of the Clergy in ignorance of the New York standards which Bishop Whalon claimed apply. It makes no mention of Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy or Rev. Strickland s failure to self report. Much of Rev. XYZ s report includes information irrelevant to the question of Sexual Misconduct for example, about whether Rev. Strickland and I had genital sex or not other factually false information such as when my insomnia began and is missing relevant information such as my suicide attempt. It seems more of a statement which attempts to establish Rev. Strickland s good reputation, and discredit my mental health, than a factual intake report. It is also highly uncanonical because it does not include as much specificity as possible. (Title IV, Canon 6, Sec. 4) I immediately appeal this report to Bishop Matthews and the President of the Convocation s Disciplinary Board, Rev. ABC, in Brussels. Jan 25, 2012: ==> Rev. XYZ replies: My Intake Report is not ripe for appeal unless and until the Bishop in Charge, the Rt. Rev. Pierre Whalon, accepts my intention to dismiss. [Jan 25] Rev. XYZ, in other words, the Convocation s (perhaps uncanonical) Intake Officer, still does not know that

this case is being handled by the Presiding Bishop s office. Why did Bishop Whalon never inform him of that fact? At this point, Rev. XYZ s behavior contradicts itself and canonical intake procedure so much that one can draw a few possible conclusions: 1) Bishop Whalon appointed an Intake Officer who was not qualified for the job, 2) Bishop Whalon was influencing Rev. XYZ s work, causing him to delay the report and ultimately to produce one in favor of Rev. Strickland s innocence, or 3) something else confused Rev. XYZ. I point out the numerous problems with the report and tell Bishop Matthews that before he rules on Rev. Strickland, I would like to have another intake conversation. He never responds to this request. Why not? Jan 31, 2012: ==> The Hope of Survivors, the nation s premier advocacy group for victims of adult clergy sexual exploitation, anonymously evaluates my written case. Its Board submits a letter to Bishop Matthews and the Presiding Bishop calling my case clergy sexual abuse. (Exhibit A) Feb 1, 2012: ==> Rev. Dr. Marie Fortune, Founder of the Faith Trust Institute, the nation s most prominent organization which trains clergy on misconduct prevention, anonymously evaluates my written case. The Faith Trust Institute designed Rev. Strickland s misconduct prevention training at Yale Divinity School. Rev. Strickland has herself been a public supporter of the Faith Trust Institute, via the online fundraising platform causes.com. Rev. Dr. Fortune writes a letter to Bishop Matthews and the Presiding Bishop calling Rev. Strickland s actions clergy misconduct, betrayal of pastoral trust, and violation of sexual boundaries. (Exhibit B) Feb 2, 2012: ==> Dr. XYZ, Dean of XYZ and a leading academic researcher into clergy sexual exploitation, endorses the analyses of The Hope of Survivors and the Faith Trust Institute. (Exhibit C) I do not present these letters claiming they support the case of Title IV Sexual Misconduct under the Episcopal Canons.

These organizations did not make an evaluation specific to our denomination. Rather, my point is to give a sense of the bigger picture : namely, that whatever occurred between Rev. Strickland and me, something went horribly wrong that some experts may at least have interpreted as Sexual Misconduct. Hence, this case deserved a rigorous and formal investigation early on, ideally before Rev. Strickland s ordination to the Priesthood. Feb 10, 2012: ==> Bishop Matthews recommends dismissal of both cases and the Presiding Bishop does not object. Feb 13, 2012: ==> Bishop Whalon writes an email saying that he has recused himself from Rev. Strickland s case. Convocation officials, however, cannot answer the question as to when he did this. Canonically, he should have done it on November 26, but he was still debating jurisdiction on the case with the Presiding Bishop s office well into January. Feb 15, 2011 present: ==> Rev. DEF, an Episcopal Priest serving in the Convocation, meets with me twice in New York and repeatedly over the phone. He says that Bishop Whalon sent him to speak with me to play an informal largely pastoral role. Following our conversations, Rev. DEF releases a report (Exhibit D) which makes the following recommendations: The Bishop acknowledge that, for assorted reasons, the complaint did not receive speedy attention, leading to resolution, to express regret for this, and to issue assurances that new and effective procedures are in place. The Rev d Strickland receive both ecclesiastical and professional attention concerning her approach to interpersonal relationships, a dismissive approach towards regulations regarding clergy, possible denial, and failure to recognize the individuality of reactions to failed relationships.

Clarification of the grey area concerning the point in time at which an Aspirant, a Postulant and a Candidate for Holy Orders is required to submit to the authority of the church regarding matters of appropriate behavior. (Residential seminaries have such requirements in place as a condition of acceptance.) [March 8, 2012] Rev. DEF submits this report to Rev. XYZ, with the intention that Bishop Whalon will see it. ADDENDUM: There is a whole different set of questions about whether Bishop Whalon was negligent about Rev. Strickland s formation for ordination in the question of interpersonal boundaries. Rev. Strickland s difficulties on this issue were known to our church community. In her final sermon at ACP, as a Deacon, she stated: Those of you who know me well are probably thinking right now: why is Ginger giving a sermon about boundaries? I'm hoping that I'll learn something; that if I keep talking, it will really sink in. [July 29, 2011] [CORRECTION: THIS WAS NOT HER FINAL SERMON. THIS WAS DELIVERED JUNE 26, 2011] Rev. Strickland would talk about relationships gone bad that other parishioners knew about; she has said that she dated XXX; Pastor XYZ wrote that she started politically charged sex scandals [May 17, 2011] at lunch meetings. Rev. Strickland often complained to me that she felt like she was in a fishbowl about her dating life at the church, and was distressed about how to handle it. And she did not implement the New York standards in her relationship with me or ever suggest that she knew that the Convocation had a Sexual Misconduct policy. Indeed, she joked about Sexual Misconduct training, calling it Don t Do the Pew. Meanwhile, according to Bishop Matthews, Rev. Strickland turned to Pastor XYZ at ACP for counseling on whether it would be wise to enter into a sexual relationship with me. Rev. Strickland said that

later she also turned to Pastor XYZ for support after my suicidal gesture. He would end up rendering a summary judgment that there was no misconduct after an incomplete investigation. In this pastoral context, Rev. Strickland, a young aspiring Clergyperson, made choices that ultimately led to medical trauma. Why did Bishop Whalon trust ACP so fully to provide a safe environment for Rev. Strickland? Should he continue to allow clergy candidates to work at an institution with such negligence of Sexual Misconduct policy? Did Bishop Whalon not know that the American Church in Paris had no Sexual Misconduct policy? Why did he let his ordination Aspirant, Postulant, and Candidate labor for five years as youth pastor at an institution with such lax enforcement of sexual abuse prevention guidelines? And then, when Rev. Strickland s registered sexual partner officially attempted suicide while she was preparing her ordination to the Priesthood why did Bishop Whalon never investigate what happened? Should Rev. Strickland s boundary problems have been better addressed before she took her vows? Was Bishop Whalon aware of them? And during our sexual relationship which she informed him of why wasn t Bishop Whalon more proactive in making sure that the New York standards were followed: that Rev. Strickland and I had the pastoral support and third party monitoring that were required to prevent it from spiraling into trauma? (This is further explained in the appeal regarding Rev. Strickland.) For the last six months, Rev. Strickland has been serving as Assistant Minister at the Church of the Incarnation in New York. She has been developing trust with the parishioners there, ministering to them, giving sermons, serving communion, running the youth and young adult groups, and so forth. What steps has Bishop Whalon, if any, taken to prevent her from repeating her poor judgments about pastor parishioner boundaries? And what steps has he taken to ensure that parishioners in Europe are clearly aware of the Sexual Misconduct policy and how to report a possible Offense? SUMMARY: In this document, I presented evidence that Bishop Whalon: misstated who had jurisdiction over the case of Rev. Strickland didn t forward that case promptly to an Intake Officer didn t recuse himself immediately from that case, although he had a personal or political stake in it

ignored my requests for a private, informal, constructive resolution relied on a non Episcopal church without a Sexual Misconduct policy (the American Church in Paris) to investigate possible misconduct by one of his Deacons colluded with that church in the production of a summary judgment of Rev. Strickland's innocence" ordained a person to the Priesthood who was facing serious Title IV allegations ignored a parishioner s objection (mine) to that ordination unnecessarily debated jurisdiction over Rev. Strickland's case with the Diocese of New York to delay intake past her ordination continued to debate jurisdiction for months with the Presiding Bishop s office, further delaying processing on the case appointed an interim Intake Officer uncanonically influenced the work of an Intake Officer on the case was negligent in properly forming or monitoring a Candidate for ordination in pastor parishioner boundaries This case is important for a variety of reasons. Above all, it should be investigated by a disciplinary board because, in matters of Title IV, the relationship is unclear between the Convocation and the rest of the Church. The Convocation s Constitution, its Sexual Misconduct policy, Title IV, and Bishop Whalon s own remarks and actions all apparently contradict each other. Bishop Whalon and the Presiding Bishop s office seem to disagree on jursidiction. As a result, if a lay or Clergyperson in Europe needs to report a Title IV violation, there does not seem to be a reliable intake or follow up procedure in place. This has created a situation in which Title IV violations could occur and go unnoticed. If what happened to me happened to someone more vulnerable say, an undocumented immigrant, someone who did not speak the language, mentally ill, elderly, someone dependent on the church for economic assistance, busy parents they very well may not find a way to report it at all. At this stage in intake, the truth of the facts presented in this document is meant to be assumed. If they would constitute an Offense, this case should be referred forward, per the Canons.