CAM Molestation Issue

[ken_sylvania]

Let me ask for more clarification here. You said “their status was in review for quite awhile.” Does that mean that someone in CAM was actively reviewing their actions regarding Jeriah (i.e. there was an internal investigation)?

You also said that “last year a decision was made.” Who made the decision? Does this mean that the CAM board decide to fire them at this point? Or that they voluntarily decided (or were convinced to voluntarily decide) to not return?

So my understanding at this point would be: Paul and Eli Weaver were put on paid leave from June 2019 to until sometime in 2021. During this time they weren’t doing work for CAM apart from some minor help in transitioning. Would that be accurate?

I'm sorry that I did not see this before now. I don't know the answer to your questions. I am planning to ask some questions this summer.

Thanks, Ernie. I didn’t mean to imply at all that I thought you were dodging my questions. You’ve been very forthright and have been a credit to CAM, though sometimes I think you’re trying to save them from themselves, and that’s often a losing battle.

I suspect if you were to have an opportunity to get to know Paul Weaver and Eli Weaver yourself you would come to appreciate their candor, humility and desire for godliness as well.

[Josh]

What exactly defines "independent"? The CAM board reconstituted the executive suite and the CAM board itself has had members replaced. A nonprofit is supposed to have an independent board (and I believe CAM does).

What does not make sense is that various people who frankly had little to do with CAM in the first place were loudly crowing about how an "independent investigation" needed to be appointed - with them in charge of deciding what counts as "independent". Like it or not, the people ultimately in charge of CAM are its board and its supporters. And from what I can see, its supporters are satisfied with what has come to light and what has been conducted.

Ultimately, those who are so deeply critical of CAM should perhaps consider going and founding their own agency, finding supporters and funding, organising a board, and then when they experience a problem or a scandal, they can come to me and I'll appoint and independent investigation of my own choosing. How does that sound?

[Ernie]

You’ve been very forthright and have been a credit to CAM, though sometimes I think you’re trying to save them from themselves, and that’s often a losing battle.

The underlined is going straight over my head, so if you want enlighten me or share examples here publically or by PM, I am open to that.

[Ernie]

Yes I think CAM should have let their supporters know the outcome of the matter whether or not they commissioned an independent report.

Yes, I have suggested this multiple times.

[Ken]

How long does it take to do an internal review of an employee's actions? How long *should* it take?

It should be quick but thorough. Investigations shouldn't get sat on the back burner with the hopes it goes away. Depending on the organization, there should be a neutral (hopefully) HR department that handles it.

HR departments are not “neutral” and it is a mistake for any employee to ever think that they are. HR departments work for and represent the organization. If you want a truly neutral review in a case like this (or any sort of more mundane sexual harassment allegations within an organization) then you really need to have outside review. An HR department might be fair. But they are not neutral. By definition they represent and work for the organization.

[Sliceitup]

What exactly defines "independent"? The CAM board reconstituted the executive suite and the CAM board itself has had members replaced. A nonprofit is supposed to have an independent board (and I believe CAM does).

What does not make sense is that various people who frankly had little to do with CAM in the first place were loudly crowing about how an "independent investigation" needed to be appointed - with them in charge of deciding what counts as "independent". Like it or not, the people ultimately in charge of CAM are its board and its supporters. And from what I can see, its supporters are satisfied with what has come to light and what has been conducted.

Ultimately, those who are so deeply critical of CAM should perhaps consider going and founding their own agency, finding supporters and funding, organising a board, and then when they experience a problem or a scandal, they can come to me and I'll appoint and independent investigation of my own choosing. How does that sound?

If I had such an agency and it was discovered that people within my organization knew that someone was raping minors, and that they allowed him to rejoin the organization and once again have access to minors, then I would want so many answers. I would want to know what else has happened that I don’t know about. And you can bet that I wouldn’t trust my own organization, who already failed so spectacularly, to carry out the investigation.

[Josh]

HR departments are not “neutral” and it is a mistake for any employee to ever think that they are. HR departments work for and represent the organization. If you want a truly neutral review in a case like this (or any sort of more mundane sexual harassment allegations within an organization) then you really need to have outside review. An HR department might be fair. But they are not neutral. By definition they represent and work for the organization.

Hiring an outside agency to do an investigation also means an organisation that, by definition, works for the organisation and is paid for by them.

Incidentally, the exact same problem happens with accounting audits. Often the same of the "big 4" will be a consultant to a large company and also conduct audits of them; how fair do you think those audits really are?

[Josh]

If I had such an agency and it was discovered that people within my organization knew that someone was raping minors, and that they allowed him to rejoin the organization and once again have access to minors, then I would want so many answers. I would want to know what else has happened that I don’t know about. And you can bet that I wouldn’t trust my own organization, who already failed so spectacularly, to carry out the investigation.

You seem to have a presumption that the board & donors did not do such a thing. From what I can tell, they indeed did. The people involved who were responsible were replaced, which went straight to the top. CAM simply has not produced a document or report that satisfies people who are various third parties who, from what it seems, just don't like how CAM does things. CAM is a lot more responsive to its donors who prefer things to be done in a bit of a different way, which does not include hiring "outside" "independent investigators".

As I said, you are free to start your own agency and run things the way you see fit, but would you submit to having your agency yield to independent investigations from me (and also pay me for them)?

[Pelerin]

You’ve been very forthright and have been a credit to CAM, though sometimes I think you’re trying to save them from themselves, and that’s often a losing battle.

The underlined is going straight over my head, so if you want enlighten me or share examples here publically or by PM, I am open to that.

The underlining comes from ken_sylvania, not me. Under which he wrote:

I suspect if you were to have an opportunity to get to know Paul Weaver and Eli Weaver yourself you would come to appreciate their candor, humility and desire for godliness as well.

First a note of clarification, Ken, the “they” being saved from “themselves” that I had in mind was CAM, not Paul and Eli Weaver specifically, but I do have more to say on your comment below.

So then, in reply to both of you, I’ll offer this as an aside (I don’t want to derail the topic):

What I mean is that CAM seems to have made the decision to hunker down, not say much of anything, and try to ride this out. Ernie, you don’t think that’s the right way to handle it and you see the consequences of that way of handling it. And you like CAM and you want it to do well, so you’re here trying to mitigate some of those consequences for CAM. That’s what I mean by saving them from themselves.

I don’t want to get into details, but I had a somewhat similar experience (though there were differences) with trying to save an organization from themselves. I wanted to organization to do well and succeed. But it didn’t work and I got frustrated. For the most part the leaders were people I liked. They didn’t have ulterior motives or a hidden agendas. They were just making bad decisions. So what I’m trying to say, Ken, is that I am very familiar with the idea that good people can make very bad, even disastrous decisions.

(I think I may have met one or both of the Weavers briefly at some point.)

[steve-in-kville]

An HR department might be fair. But they are not neutral. By definition they represent and work for the organization.

This is true.