Randal Martin on the CAM/Jeriah Debacle

[Josh]

There are those who have borne a cost, especially in Haiti(I personally have not). I would argue that the "paydays" in Haiti should have/should come to complete stop. Given the fact that CAM has retained legal counsel in Haiti and the US, no victim in Haiti should ever be approached by CAM without them first being given the same privilege to ensure that the process is not exploitive.

And what entity do you propose pays for these lawyers? Generally, one does not hire opposing counsel. What you describe is completely out of the norms for any non profit organisation.

[Josh]

randalm,

I would hope that the investigative process could also provide repair to the whistleblowers.

In other words, you’re looking for a payday for people like yourself?

(Keep in mind I am one of the original whistleblowers.)

In what world does "repair" have the same definition as "payday"?

What us whistleblowers wanted was accountability, putting a stop to what the executive team was doing (which happened - the new board fired all of them), and an understanding of how to prevent this from happening again.

Instead, what I see in what randalm is saying is a desire to empty CAM of its funds and transfer them to lawyers, with no doubt organisations like his ASAA getting their cut. It’s particularly egregious given ASAA’s own sordid history; one who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.

[steve-in-kville]

In what world does "repair" have the same definition as "payday"?

Its a slam in the face when I hear people talk about abuse victims getting large settlements and then making comments like "oh, they can rape me for that kind of money!"

Doesn't work that way, buddy.

[Josh]

In what world does "repair" have the same definition as "payday"?

Its a slam in the face when I hear people talk about abuse victims getting large settlements and then making comments like "oh, they can rape me for that kind of money!"

Doesn't work that way, buddy.

In this case, the people seeking to profit aren’t even the original victims. Or even the original whistleblowers. Rather, they are people who claim to be representing the whistleblowers and thus demand CAM turn over lots of evidence to them.

This is all about a money grab against CAM at this point. People who actually cared put their reputations on the line back in the 2015 era.

[randalm]

Josh,

Perhaps out of the norm, but here's one organization's attempt at do so (Restitution Plan and Organizational Reform section). In this case they, they hired Rachel Denhollander to serve as a "Confidential liaison with survivors and to help guide the process of care, justice, and restitution for those who have been victimized." This process was put in place to protect the institution from themselves.

https://www.rzim.org/read/rzim-updates/board-statement

I definitely do not have knowledge of a "money grab" occurring as you referenced--- but there's likely more transpiring than I know about.

Randal

[Ernie]

Ernie,

Utilizing those two sentences from the meeting notes does little in the way of providing clarity to the central issues represented. I trust that the meeting notes you received also reflect the three main requests that were made:

Respectfully,
Randal

Thank you Randal for sharing what you know about the situation. All I received was a verbal report.

Ernie

[Josh]

I definitely do not have knowledge of a "money grab" occurring as you referenced--- but there's likely more transpiring than I know about.

Randal

You sure about that?

[ken_sylvania]

Ernie,

Utilizing those two sentences from the meeting notes does little in the way of providing clarity to the central issues represented. I trust that the meeting notes you received also reflect the three main requests that were made:

#1: A revision of the June 17th statement – “The board of directors has not authorized any settlement payments and has no interest in covering this up.” This statement stood alone for several months while CAM was aggressively pursuing victims for settlement.

#2: Public acknowledgement to that money was paid to victims under the NDA agreement. (Necessary because of CAMs denial of its use, and its negative impact on victims).

#3: A truly independent, third-party investigation (i.e., G.R.A.C.E.) to restore trust in the organization.

The “unresolved” portion of that meeting had to do with knowledge of Jeriah’s actions as being described as “sexual activity with young men.” I was making a “strong” appeal that a more accurate sentiment around the knowledge would be the “sexual abuse of a minor.”

As to the “conjecture” – you may be correct. I should have stated that "publicly addressing their use of the NDA appeared to influenced their call for a meeting." Almost immediately following the comments at the symposium, our four-month-old request for a meeting was granted. Here’s some background.

Throughout the summer and fall preceding the symposium, multiple requests for a meeting to discuss the harmful nature of the NDA around the cash settlements went unheard. These appeals were made directly to the Interim Haiti Country Supervisor, and the Chairman of the Board. The point was made that the document that we were referencing to as an NDA was simply a “legal document” to officially and legally record the transaction, and that the cash settlements were the best way in Haitian culture for them to respond. Assurance was given that the cash settlements in no were in no way tied to silence as an NDA.

The reports coming directly from victims (from different areas), multiple American missionaries, and victim advocates were strikingly different. CAM was offering cash in exchange for their willingness to sign an NDA. Victims were feeling pressured, being approached frequently by CAM’s attorneys on the streets, at their homes etc. Some victims were requesting to be left alone, and it seemed like an incredibly harmful power differential for these victims to be approached by CAM’s attorneys to quickly settle without the ability to have legal representation themselves. Eventually, in November of 2019, a signed copy of the agreement was provided from out of Haiti. The spin put on the document as not being an NDA quickly fell apart.

I also agree that not all members of CAM are responsible for one (or several) persons mistakes within CAM. However, the decision to pay victims cash settlements was a motion that was voted on at the board level of CAM. It is likely that not all board members understood that an NDA was attached to the money at the beginning. But the defense of its use happened at the highest levels of CAM leadership. Furthermore, the fact that CAM has been unwilling to have an independent investigation speaks to the "heart" of the organization as much as the NDA itself. I agree, many innocent, godly individuals serve at every level within CAM. In CAMs efforts to “care” for the victims, the protective stance eventually inflicts harm on the victims. Despite the organizational failures around Jeriah, CAM has maintained close contact with the victims, establishing a committee to make contact with the victims and “care” for their needs. As the offending organization, contact with the victims is inappropriate, unethical, and unsafe as it places the victims directly in harm’s way as this story demonstrates.

The correct course of action today is the same as it was in the summer of 2019 - for CAM to truly remove themselves from the “drivers’ seat” through an independent investigation, trust the investigative process with a commitment to follow the recommendations given. It’s really a simple path forward, but very difficult because it requires CAM to relinquish control of the narrative. I would hope that the investigative process could also provide repair to the whistleblowers. With striking similarity whistle blowers(victims, native Haitians, and American missionaries) have been labeled as unstable, and untruthful. Relinquishing control of the narrative would also give a chance for the reputations and dignity of these individuals to be publicly restored.

Here's the NDA in case its existence is in doubt. Unless something has changed, multiple victims in Haiti are still bound by this document today.

Respectfully,
Randal

Thank you for providing a copy of the agreement. Just for what it's worth - I was very much under the impression from statements you and others had previously made that this "NDA" would prevent individuals from talking about the abuse and CAM's involvement in it. Perhaps I read more into your statements than what you intended to say. At any rate, it does appear that the NDA only prohibits discussing the terms of the release and not discussion of the abuse and surrounding issues.

You mentioned the harmful effects of the NDA on the victims. In what way do you consider it harmful to the victims to not be allowed to discuss the amount of the settlement that they've received?

[ohio jones]

What us whistleblowers wanted was accountability, putting a stop to what the executive team was doing (which happened - the new board fired all of them), and an understanding of how to prevent this from happening again.

CAM is not all that transparent about who's running things; the latest info I can find is from the 2019 annual report (presumably 2020 will be published soon), and a lot could have happened since then. Comparing that information to the previous year, there are no new board members and a 75% carryover in the executive operations team. If there has been a wholesale turnover in the board and executive team, surely one would think it would have been significant enough to be mentioned here, in the Budget, Plain News, or somewhere. Could you say more about the new board and the firing of the entire executive team?

[randalm]

Yes.

I am aware of several lawsuits, one of which CAM has mentioned on their website.

As a CA I could not conscientiously enter into a lawsuit, nor would I conscientiously stand in the way of a victim obtaining legal counsel given the situation on the ground in Haiti with CAM having brought in their legal counsel first. The situation on the ground in 2019 was a massive power-differential and a departure of CA values at every level.

If CAM is truly liable, I would assume any case would enter into a court of law to ensure that the civil liability is fair and reasonable according to the laws of the land. And it would only be fair for CAM to argue their innocence or admit their guilt. However, I believe we should all as CAs allow the legal process to take place, and realize that this secular arm of power "does not bear the sword in vain." In the event that this is a considerable amount of money, I think we should embrace the momentary "cost" as a culture, realizing that any amount is small compared to the lifetime of suffering for the victims and the gross injustice of the situation.

At some point perhaps money will need to be raised. This is Ok -- for valuable lessons are being learned by all of us. It may be difficult for the public nature of something like this to take place, but also an opportunity for everyone of us to exercise humility and for us as a culture to make some major course corrections.

I appreciate your perspective. If you ever want to chat, here's my cell# 931-310-0309.

Randal