COUNCIL ON APPEALS

January 7, 2026

From: Bishop Jeff Greenway, Secretary of the Assembly of Bishops

Greetings in Christ. The Assembly of Bishops has voted to send an appeal (as per BDD paragraph 922.4) regarding questions of legality which have been raised by Dr. Anthony McPhail regarding a process that was approved by the Connectional Council to remove him from membership on the General Commission on General Conference. The questions of legality raised by Dr. McPhail are below. I have lifted them out of his extensive letter of appeal requesting this action of the Assembly.

QUESTIONS OF LEGALITY FOR APPEAL

I respectfully submit the following questions of law for review by the Connectional Council on Appeals. These questions are raised not only with regard to my own case, but in service to the integrity of our shared covenant and the faithful application of the Church’s constitutional and judicial commitments. They concern matters of jurisdiction, constitutional authority, and procedural integrity that directly affect the governance of the GMC and the rights of those who serve within it.

Q1. Jurisdictional Authority

Is it jurisdictionally proper to apply provisions of an unpublished GMC Employee Handbook to investigate and impose corrective action upon a non-employee volunteer elected by the General Conference—particularly where such action effectively nullifies a decision of the General Conference and is undertaken without express authorization within the GMC’s established disciplinary or judicial framework?

Q2. Retroactive Application of Policy

Is it jurisdictionally proper to apply a policy retroactively to conduct predating both the policy itself and the body enforcing it—especially when the review process was created only after the complaint was filed?

Q3. Authority Over Commission Membership

Is it jurisdictionally proper to impose corrective action based on conduct occurring prior to an individual’s service on a connectional commission, particularly when such action effectively nullifies an election by the General Conference?

Q4. Authority for Removal

Is it jurisdictionally proper for an ad hoc four-person Review Team to remove an elected volunteer from a connectional commission when such authority is expressly vested in the commission itself, and when the conduct cited does not meet the threshold for removal set forth in ¶805.3 of the Book of Doctrines and Discipline?

Q5. Constitutional and Judicial Authority

Is it constitutionally appropriate to develop and apply an accountability process outside the Church’s established judicial framework, when the Constitution assigns the General Conference authority “to provide a judicial system mandating uniform processes and procedures and protecting the rights of all those within the Church” (¶208.12), and when those uniform processes are set forth in Part 9 of the Book of Doctrines and Discipline and the Judicial Practices and Procedures?

Q6. Right of Appeal

Is it constitutionally appropriate to impose corrective action without providing any avenue for appeal, given that the right of appeal is expressly protected in the GMC Constitution (¶211) and preserved as one of only two Restricted Rules (¶212.2), alongside the protection of doctrinal standards (¶212.1)? This right has served since 1808 as a foundational safeguard for both clergy and laity.

Q7. Procedural Fairness

Is it procedurally proper to adjudicate a complaint where credible concerns exist regarding bias or partiality, especially when the constitutional and judicial safeguards designed to ensure fairness were not fully observed, and where the policy relied upon expressly calls for impartial investigation and the promotion of fairness and dignity for all parties?

Q8. Substantiation and Use of Authority

Is it procedurally appropriate to impose corrective action when the underlying claim was not substantiated, and when the terminology relied upon in the Review Team’s report is neither defined nor contemplated within the policy invoked to justify such action?