procedure when he fired former Rev. Trevor Woolridge from his job as pastor of the Mount Zion AME church, it was claimed yesterday.

Instead, Bishop the Rt. Rev. Phillip Cousin kowtowed to the whims of a minority of UBP-aligned AME church officials who are jealous of the success Mr. Woolridge has had at the church, a Mount Zion church member said.

The irate member, who spoke to The Royal Gazette on condition that he was not identified, said: "If the Bishop can deprive someone of his livelihood without following the church's own rules, then we as a church need to consider how Christian we Christians really are.'' Bishop Cousin, who arrived earlier this week to attend the annual district conference which began last night and ends today, fired Mr. Woolridge from his post after he was convicted of sexually assaulting one of his parishioners.

But the manner of his dismissal has disturbed some parishioners. They say that procedures were not followed and they want this matter redressed.

The church member continued:"The Bishop has just flown down here and listened to the presiding elder and two other ministers who are consumed with jealousy and envy.

"Mount Zion is the fastest growing AME church in Bermuda and Rev. Woolridge is the reason why that is so. St. Paul is supposed to be the mother ship but it's not.'' The Royal Gazette obtained a copy of the church rules yesterday. Section 14 deals with clergy sexual misconduct.

For a first offence of sexual harassment, a clergy will "immediately surrender his ministerial office, duties and responsibilities for a period of not less than six months, nor more than 24 months depending on the circumstances and the severity of the offence.'' Once a charge has been laid against a minister, the rules require the Presiding Elder to call the judicial committee of the annual conference and hear all the witnesses required to prove the charge.

The accused priest has the right to make a statement on his/her own behalf and to interrogate witnesses but the accused does not have a right to present any of his own witnesses.

After this investigation, the judicial committee will rule on the evidence and decide if a trial is justified. If one is required it will be within 30 days of the ruling.

If convicted at that trial, the accused priest will be suspended from all official standing in the church until the next annual conference.

The church member said none of this occurred in Mr. Woolridge's case, consequently justice requires that he be given due process within the church.

"If the Bishop had followed through with all these procedures then none of us at Mount Zion would have a problem,'' the member continued. "It would be a non-issue.

"We could then, if he was convicted after all that including the appeal, go on to talk about forgiveness and compassion.

"But from both sides, things are not right. If the Bishop is following the laws of the land, that process is incomplete because Rev. Woolridge has launched an appeal.

"If he is following church laws, then he has not followed one single principle that is set out.'' Editorial: Page 4 Woolridge firing criticised Consequently, the church member said that some members of the Mount Zion Church have concluded that Mr. Woolridge is the victim of jealousy, envy and political smear tactics.

"The newspapers did have some influence on the Bishop's decision,'' the church member added. "But on top of that there are people who do not like the Trevor Woolridges and the type of Ministry he practices.

"These people believe that ministers should be stale, staid, stuffy and unapproachable. But Trevor has mass appeal. When he preaches people listen and get swept up in it.'' To back up his statement, the church member said that Mount Zion has averaged $16,000 in offerings every Sunday and last Sunday was no exception.

Mr. Woolridge has appealed his sexual assault conviction and is out on bail pending the outcome.

Last week, Mr. Woolridge was found guilty of exposing himself to a female parishioner and grabbing her breasts.

Acting Magistrate Michael Smith said that he accepted both lawyers' submissions that credibility was the premier issue in the case.

Moreover, he said that on the complainants' version of the facts, Rev.

Woolridge exposed himself to her and put his hands on her breasts.

Conversely, he said that Rev. Woolridge testified that this never occurred because he went to the woman's home to deliver a grocery voucher and promptly left.

Mr. Smith said that Mr. Woolridge's evasiveness during the cross examination tainted his own credibility.

The complainant who cannot be named for legal reasons, alleged the sexual assault occurred during a visit Mr. Woolridge made to her home on September 20, 1996.