As chairman of the Diocese of Connecticut's Personnel Committee, I must take issue with a number of the references to our diocesan pay levels in the article on clergy salaries [TLC, July 7].

If, in using the word "stipend," the author meant by that, "salary," that is misleading in the U.S. context for clergy compensation. Most analyses show there is considerable juggling of pay among salary, housing and utilities by clergy - and legitimately so, because our tax laws encourage it. Hence, any meaningful compensation relationship should focus on the total of salary, housing allowance, utility reimbursement, and probably Social Security allowance (essentially the figure used by the Church Pension Fund).

On this basis, our diocesan bishop's compensation is close to $100,000, and a new cleric around $32,000 to $36,000, depending on housing cost in the area of assignment. Thus the relationship is more like three to one for bishop to starting priest, not two to one as illustrated in the article.

A second misleading statistic involving Connecticut is the use of the Episcopal Church Summary of Pension Fund Compensation (Here the word "stipend" is used but now it includes salary, housing, utilities, Social Security allowance, etc.). Fr. Lowery fails to point out that when these compensation figures are adjusted for cost of living differentials, Connecticut ranks 21st out of 100 dioceses, rather than first.

I am sorry to see that what could have been an interesting article has been spoiled by what I consider a cavalier use of statistics. In fact, properly used, the statistics probably support Fr. Lowery's thesis that U.S. clergy pay levels reflect greater differentials than found in the Church of England, and Connecticut is no better or worse in that regard than other dioceses.

R. Donald MacDougall

Old Greenwich, Conn.