The CAM scandal links and assorted other topics thread

[Ms. Izzie]

Ernie, just for the sake of clarity (and I think I've written this before), but I want to make it clear, for me it isn't about "knowing more details." I don't need to know, and don't want to know, more specific details regarding the sins committed. I want to make that very clear.

A good distinction to make--what did you mean, Ernie about "knowing more details", details about what leadership did in the past and is doing now or details about sins committed?

[appleman2006]

An organization that replaces it's entire governing board is like getting into a car with Mr. Magoo. It may not crash, but no one will know where they are going.

Won't even know where the keys are to the executive washroom.

J.M.

Which is why I have never advocated for a total change all at once. And I have no beef with Nolan Byler. In fact I consider him a friend. But having the same chairman for almost 20 years or more especially when the top executive is also the same is a recipe for disaster for any organisation. And for what it is worth I was saying this long before last June.

I was not directing this at you. You seem to have had enough experience with board governance to realize what madness making such a change would be. And I agree, that eternal tenure on a board is a bad idea, particularly one that is likely self perpetuating. Ours had term limits, same people frequently kept showing up, but at least it made for a deeper pool.

Have any idea how they could broaden the base of the board? Oh yes, I am actually somewhat amused that you actually appear to know who Mr. Magoo is.

J.M.

Just for the record I would even tolerate longer term limits for at least some of the board for the first ten to twenty years of an organization to insure continuity of the original mission and goals. After that though I see no value and only danger for long term limits. No one person is irreplaceable and if they really are that says something about how fragile the organisations is. If after a board member's term is up and the feeling is that their expertise is really needed, there are all kinds of creative ways that can happen either on a consulting basis or in the form of a secondary ex officio advisory position.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Which is why I have never advocated for a total change all at once. And I have no beef with Nolan Byler. In fact I consider him a friend. But having the same chairman for almost 20 years or more especially when the top executive is also the same is a recipe for disaster for any organisation. And for what it is worth I was saying this long before last June.

I was not directing this at you. You seem to have had enough experience with board governance to realize what madness making such a change would be. And I agree, that eternal tenure on a board is a bad idea, particularly one that is likely self perpetuating. Ours had term limits, same people frequently kept showing up, but at least it made for a deeper pool.

Have any idea how they could broaden the base of the board? Oh yes, I am actually somewhat amused that you actually appear to know who Mr. Magoo is.

J.M.

Just for the record I would even tolerate longer term limits for at least some of the board for the first ten to twenty years of an organization to insure continuity of the original mission and goals. After that though I see no value and only danger for long term limits. No one person is irreplaceable and if they really are that says something about how fragile the organisations is. If after a board member's term is up and the feeling is that their expertise is really needed, there are all kinds of creative ways that can happen either on a consulting basis or in the form of a secondary ex officio advisory position.

Simply making it clear that part of your job is training your successor may be a start. Missionaries do that all the time.

J.M.

[Ernie]

Ernie, just for the sake of clarity (and I think I've written this before), but I want to make it clear, for me it isn't about "knowing more details." I don't need to know, and don't want to know, more specific details regarding the sins committed. I want to make that very clear. I have elucidated before, in more depth, what in my view would be appropriate steps to take that haven't yet been taken to my knowledge:

A good distinction to make--what did you mean, Ernie about "knowing more details", details about what leadership did in the past and is doing now or details about sins committed?

Some people want more information... more details about what happened at CAM before Jeriah returned to the US, what has happened after the news has been made public, what is happening currently at CAM in regards to policy's and culture, and what CAM's future intentions are.

1) Directly apologize for the institutional failure and culpability they share in permitting this tragedy. (Not an apology for "what our employee did,") An apology for what the institution did, and the culture they created, that fostered this.

As we have been saying earlier, it is an assumption that CAM created this culture. Ms. Izzie is saying that CAM staff is just living out of their culture. I think I agree.

2) Because of gross negligence (failure to report crimes as directed by lawful authority), at more than one key leadership level, employ a third party like GRACE, to investigate exactly how far this negligence spread.

I'm not aware that CAM leadership knew of any behavior that was considered a legal crime. They didn't know that he was a pedophile.

3) Communicate clearly the steps they are taking. The public statements released at least "seemed" to contradict known actions taken by CAM on the ground as described by their attorney. These things need a transparent explanation. Even if it was "the BOD didn't know what was actually going or initiated by the key leaders on the ground in Haiti."

All I know is that the attorney was not speaking on behalf of CAM. Some of his details were not correct.

4) If CAM is using legal counsel in the reparations agreements, make sure that the victims also have a third party legal counsel review proposed agreements.

CAM representatives have not withheld copies of documents signed by victims. CAM has given victims full liberty to accept or reject any proposals and have given victims as much time as they want. Making sure they have third party legal counsel is not something I have any knowledge on.

[Ernie]

I will try to summarize the public information that some of you are wanting. If I am misunderstanding please inform me.

1. Some people want more information... more details about what happened at CAM before Jeriah returned to the US, what has happened since the news has been made public, what is happening currently at CAM in regards to policy's and culture, and what CAM's future intentions are.
2. Some people want more apologies.
3. Some people want statements that explain a change in practice from what was indicated in former statements.

If this is what people are wanting in terms of details or information, I have conveyed this to CAM leadership multiple times.

[TruthSeeker]

Earnie, you've demonstrated excellent communication & mediation skills between CAM and the vocal minority!

[Aurien]

2) Because of gross negligence (failure to report crimes as directed by lawful authority), at more than one key leadership level, employ a third party like GRACE, to investigate exactly how far this negligence spread.

I'm not aware that CAM leadership knew of any behavior that was considered a legal crime. They didn't know that he was a pedophile.

Were Paul and Eli Weaver not considered CAM leadership, or did they truly not know that Jeriah's victims were underage? The reports are that the boys Jeriah abused ranged from ages 8-14. If they truly didn't know how old the victims were and didn't bother to ask, then that was very negligent and Joshua is right in saying that an organization like GRACE needs to investigate CAM to see how far this kind of negligence spreads.

[queserasera_2]

Earnie, you've demonstrated excellent communication & mediation skills between CAM and the vocal minority!

And he's the only one doing it that I know of, so thank you.


The very big difference that I see between CAM and church leadership is that CAM is a steward of God's resources ($$) that we give them. We are literally paying their salaries. In that sense, they work for us. It is incumbent upon us to choose good stewards of our resources. And I suspect it is less that the old orders trust CAM but that they don't understand what's actually happened. And I am concerned that the institutional attitude seems to be "we only will do what's right if it costs us not to."

[Ms. Izzie]

Ms. Izzie is saying that CAM staff is just living out of their culture.

Take out the word just and it would be more accurate for what I am saying. In my mind, it is not an excuse; it is a problem. The culture has problems that need attention. The problems have the potential to spiritually kill people. The scandal at CAM is showing us who we are. I am lumping different brands of Anabaptists in one lump because that is what CAM is--different brands coming together to do something together--different brands, same culture.

[joshuabgood]

Ernie, thanks always for being a gentleman. I should add, that my passion around this comes from a situation, which I'll refrain from discussing the particulars of, where someone very close to me was sexually abused by a person with ties to power, in the Conservative Anabaptist world. When confronted, the offender was given cover by "powers that be." And real reconciliation and ownership has never occurred to this day and pain remains. And yes, the appropriate ministerial staff were involved in trying to sort this out, conservative Anabaptists on both sides. I can say the one set of individuals spent much of their social capital trying to get righteous resolution, for which they have my deep respect, to no avail. The damage from these things is legion. And it's personal to many people. Including me because of my proximity.

Some people want more information... more details about what happened at CAM before Jeriah returned to the US, what has happened after the news has been made public, what is happening currently at CAM in regards to policy's and culture, and what CAM's future intentions are.

Ok. But that is substantively different from salaciously desiring details regarding the sexual perversions that occurred. This is simply accountability and timelines. An independent investigation would in fact reveal this. I don't see how any scriptures anywhere would indicate that this level of transparency, given the gravity the tragedy, is out of place.

As we have been saying earlier, it is an assumption that CAM created this culture. Ms. Izzie is saying that CAM staff is just living out of their culture. I think I agree.

Ernie, I appreciate your patience. I am going to try one more time. The question is, does CAM bear any culpability at all for sending a known sexual offender to the mission field and allowing him to enjoy the lack of supervision that empowered him to do what he did? Do they, as an institution, have any culpability in permitting a culture where it is was "then" considered acceptable for more than one key leader to fail to pursue what they knew? I cannot see how, any reasonable person, would conclude anything but "yes," they bear some culpability. This was not just a one off event, totally unknown, that happened in an isolated case by a rogue employee. This was a long pattern of events with at least some prior knowledge by at least 3 key leaders. Part of the picture is also this is a son of an influential bishop. It is part of picture that included the HH situation. I would like to you to answer if you don't mind, in your view, does CAM, as an institution bear any culpability for what happened? If so, they should apologize for whatever role that is, even if it is say 5% with regard to failure to supervise effectively. This tragedy morally demands it. And that apology shouldn't be word smithed so as to avoid legal responsibility in the future. With all due respect, it isn't an apology for what "our employee did." It is an apology for what CAM did/failed to do as an organization to protect the individuals children involved. If they have already done this, can you direct me to it?

I'm not aware that CAM leadership knew of any behavior that was considered a legal crime. They didn't know that he was a pedophile.

Due to the recorded testimony of HH it seems that there was an awareness that some folks knew that people were involved were below the legal age of consent. A independent investigation could confirm or disconfirm this.

All I know is that the attorney was not speaking on behalf of CAM. Some of his details were not correct.

Thanks for letting me know that. I wish they would put that in a statement. But I believe it.

CAM representatives have not withheld copies of documents signed by victims. CAM has given victims full liberty to accept or reject any proposals and have given victims as much time as they want. Making sure they have third party legal counsel is not something I have any knowledge on.

Thanks for this info. I believe this also...though again it would be nice to know without reverting to MN. Regarding legal counsel, again ethics and equity would demand that if one party is represented and using legal counsel then certainly the victim also should have access to legal counsel. CAM could clarify this if they wished. (In the NYCDOE when I worked there we always advised folks, prior to signing contracts or disciplinary agreements, please have your attorney or your union attorney review this. *We did also for protection in case somebody complained later they weren't represented.)

And that...is my last words on the topic. CAM can move forward as they deem best...