Biblical Mennonite Alliance and credential removal of past abusers

[R7ehr]

What is the name of this orphanage, what is LOH?

[Judas Maccabeus]

Bottom line is that the board that is running it is the entity that is responsible for the operation of the home...not a faraway entity in another country. Saying BMA is responsible does not reflect any understanding of how board or institutional governance works. I suggest you look into that before assigning blame.

Following a rapid unscheduled disassembly of the previously fantasy of “faraway entity with limited residual accountability” model, LOH personnel were actual W-2 employees of BMA. Shocker I know!

I am a BMA loyalists, this shocked me.

When BMA's s own compensated workforce has primary operational task associated with the care of vulnerable children, the organization can no longer be described as "distant spectator" whose primarily responsibility is maintaining a church directory.

Try showing up within BMA with a wedding band. See how long you will be in "the association". BMA has teeth.

The existence of other layers or "committees" may remain an important structural component. This is not a magical liability firewall capable of severing employment relationships, information pathways, supervisory responsibilities, institutional influence, or every potential duty of care.

I have done as you suggested and looked into this. I am not assigning blame, that is not my job.

“BMA had virtually nothing to do with Mexico” appears to have experienced an unexpected loss of structural integrity upon contact with payroll records.

The only thing that BMA can do is disfellowship ministers and remove congregations from listing as part of the fellowship. It does not own local property, it can’t take over and run a congregation. Why the individual people were listed as such, IF THEY REALLY WERE, is a mystery. The local board is responsible, full stop. Maybe the fact that I actually have experience with board governance might have something to do with why I understand the legal realities. Rather than slamming BMA, you should be asking “what was the board doing?”

[ken_sylvania]

Bottom line is that the board that is running it is the entity that is responsible for the operation of the home...not a faraway entity in another country. Saying BMA is responsible does not reflect any understanding of how board or institutional governance works. I suggest you look into that before assigning blame.

Following a rapid unscheduled disassembly of the previously fantasy of “faraway entity with limited residual accountability” model, LOH personnel were actual W-2 employees of BMA. Shocker I know!

I am a BMA loyalists, this shocked me.

When BMA's s own compensated workforce has primary operational task associated with the care of vulnerable children, the organization can no longer be described as "distant spectator" whose primarily responsibility is maintaining a church directory.

Try showing up within BMA with a wedding band. See how long you will be in "the association". BMA has teeth.

The existence of other layers or "committees" may remain an important structural component. This is not a magical liability firewall capable of severing employment relationships, information pathways, supervisory responsibilities, institutional influence, or every potential duty of care.

I have done as you suggested and looked into this. I am not assigning blame, that is not my job.

“BMA had virtually nothing to do with Mexico” appears to have experienced an unexpected loss of structural integrity upon contact with payroll records.

The only thing that BMA can do is disfellowship ministers and remove congregations from listing as part of the fellowship. It does not own local property, it can’t take over and run a congregation. Why the individual people were listed as such, IF THEY REALLY WERE, is a mystery. The local board is responsible, full stop. Maybe the fact that I actually have experience with board governance might have something to do with why I understand the legal realities. Rather than slamming BMA, you should be asking “what was the board doing?”

If in fact BMA is solely an association of leaders, why does it need $4MM per year in revenue, and where does it spend $4MM per year in expenses including more than $2MM in wages?
If Beacon of Light was simply a project sponsored by a BMA congregation, why was BMA listing it so prominently on the official BMA website?
It may well be the case that BMA had no authority to do anything other than disfellowship ministers and remove congregations from listing, but they shouldn't be surprised that by their acting as if Beacon of Light was a BMA sponsored project they have led people to believe that BMA was directly involved with the orphanage.
Regardless, I agree with your point that the board in charge of Beacon of Light is where the primary scrutiny belongs.

Although, John Eicher apparently disagrees. He was saying publicly in about May of this year I think it was, that being on a board for an organization like that is very demanding (seemed like he thought we ought to have a bit more sympathy for how difficult things like that are).

[Judas Maccabeus]

Following a rapid unscheduled disassembly of the previously fantasy of “faraway entity with limited residual accountability” model, LOH personnel were actual W-2 employees of BMA. Shocker I know!

I am a BMA loyalists, this shocked me.

When BMA's s own compensated workforce has primary operational task associated with the care of vulnerable children, the organization can no longer be described as "distant spectator" whose primarily responsibility is maintaining a church directory.

Try showing up within BMA with a wedding band. See how long you will be in "the association". BMA has teeth.

The existence of other layers or "committees" may remain an important structural component. This is not a magical liability firewall capable of severing employment relationships, information pathways, supervisory responsibilities, institutional influence, or every potential duty of care.

I have done as you suggested and looked into this. I am not assigning blame, that is not my job.

“BMA had virtually nothing to do with Mexico” appears to have experienced an unexpected loss of structural integrity upon contact with payroll records.

The only thing that BMA can do is disfellowship ministers and remove congregations from listing as part of the fellowship. It does not own local property, it can’t take over and run a congregation. Why the individual people were listed as such, IF THEY REALLY WERE, is a mystery. The local board is responsible, full stop. Maybe the fact that I actually have experience with board governance might have something to do with why I understand the legal realities. Rather than slamming BMA, you should be asking “what was the board doing?”

If in fact BMA is solely an association of leaders, why does it need $4MM per year in revenue, and where does it spend $4MM per year in expenses including more than $2MM in wages?
If Beacon of Light was simply a project sponsored by a BMA congregation, why was BMA listing it so prominently on the official BMA website?
It may well be the case that BMA had no authority to do anything other than disfellowship ministers and remove congregations from listing, but they shouldn't be surprised that by their acting as if Beacon of Light was a BMA sponsored project they have led people to believe that BMA was directly involved with the orphanage.
Regardless, I agree with your point that the board in charge of Beacon of Light is where the primary scrutiny belongs.

Although, John Eicher apparently disagrees. He was saying publicly in about May of this year I think it was, that being on a board for an organization like that is very demanding (seemed like he thought we ought to have a bit more sympathy for how difficult things like that are).

I would guess that much of that is Elnora. An institution like that can eat up money fast.

I am on a pair of boards. You soon come to the realization that "The Buck Stops Here." You are both ethically and legally responsible.

No matter how it is advertised or listed, the final responsibility is the local board, which is ultimately the one vetting workers, making a budget and putting people in place that oversee day-to-day operations. They are the ones who put the CEO and COO in place. If an unsuitable candidate is sent from Indiana or wherever, the board needs the guts to send such back, and deliver whatever is necessary to enforce that decision.

[seinetsodumm]

If in fact BMA is solely an association of leaders, why does it need $4MM per year in revenue, and where does it spend $4MM per year in expenses including more than $2MM in wages?
If Beacon of Light was simply a project sponsored by a BMA congregation, why was BMA listing it so prominently on the official BMA website?
It may well be the case that BMA had no authority to do anything other than disfellowship ministers and remove congregations from listing, but they shouldn't be surprised that by their acting as if Beacon of Light was a BMA sponsored project they have led people to believe that BMA was directly involved with the orphanage.
Regardless, I agree with your point that the board in charge of Beacon of Light is where the primary scrutiny belongs.

I think stating BMA is an association of leaders is an oversimplification. However, as pointed out, BMA does not control individual congregations. Their authority in congregational affairs extends only as far as congregations allow. Once the relationship sours, either party is free to move on. Outside of congregational life though, BMA has quite a bit happening. Destinations International (DNI), Ministry training center (MTC) & Elnora Bible Institute (EBI) are all arms of BMA. I don't know if it is still active, but at one time they were also trying to start a VS project in Oregon. That project may have stalled as the website information seems very outdated. Convention and Minister Enrichment come with surprising cost. They also maintain a publication. I'm not defending their budget, just stating some of their diverse interests.

Also, are you introducing a new topic by naming Beacon of Light? Or did you mean Light of Hope?

[ken_sylvania]

The only thing that BMA can do is disfellowship ministers and remove congregations from listing as part of the fellowship. It does not own local property, it can’t take over and run a congregation. Why the individual people were listed as such, IF THEY REALLY WERE, is a mystery. The local board is responsible, full stop. Maybe the fact that I actually have experience with board governance might have something to do with why I understand the legal realities. Rather than slamming BMA, you should be asking “what was the board doing?”

If in fact BMA is solely an association of leaders, why does it need $4MM per year in revenue, and where does it spend $4MM per year in expenses including more than $2MM in wages?
If Beacon of Light was simply a project sponsored by a BMA congregation, why was BMA listing it so prominently on the official BMA website?
It may well be the case that BMA had no authority to do anything other than disfellowship ministers and remove congregations from listing, but they shouldn't be surprised that by their acting as if Beacon of Light was a BMA sponsored project they have led people to believe that BMA was directly involved with the orphanage.
Regardless, I agree with your point that the board in charge of Beacon of Light is where the primary scrutiny belongs.

Although, John Eicher apparently disagrees. He was saying publicly in about May of this year I think it was, that being on a board for an organization like that is very demanding (seemed like he thought we ought to have a bit more sympathy for how difficult things like that are).

I would guess that much of that is Elnora. An institution like that can eat up money fast.

I am on a pair of boards. You soon come to the realization that "The Buck Stops Here." You are both ethically and legally responsible.

No matter how it is advertised or listed, the final responsibility is the local board, which is ultimately the one vetting workers, making a budget and putting people in place that oversee day-to-day operations. They are the ones who put the CEO and COO in place. If an unsuitable candidate is sent from Indiana or wherever, the board needs the guts to send such back, and deliver whatever is necessary to enforce that decision.

I agree.

[I Timothy]

JohnH:

I come from a "failed city", so your argument bothers me. I have heard Mennonite's in PA, NYC, IN and elsewhere denigrate my city. As a result, some conservative Anabaptists have come into my city thinking they don't need to follow our laws.

Nobody said that there isn't a need to follow laws. I did, however, say that I have a rather low level of confidence in the Mexican government at the moment to protect children, seeing as it is routinely failing to do so.

Reporting things to government authorities often results in... exactly nothing happening. I'm not saying not to report, but my general expectation from making a report is that nothing good will be accomplished from it. The most likely result is nothing at all. Sometimes the result is negative, including when the government investigates and then declares there isn't a problem when there actually is.

Are you sure you don't have an axe to grind against BMA and against plain Anabaptists as a whole? Be honest.

Who do you want answering the cries for help at 3am, when a young girl is begging for help after an assault?

What exactly do we expect the mission director to do? Tell her that the local board has jurisdiction and therefore this is somebody else's problem?

If the people calling for help are BMA employees, what responsibility does BMA have toward its own employees?

I don't like the question, “Do you have an axe to grind?”

That is not my standard.

I would ask exactly the same questions if this were the Lutherans, the Catholic Church, a Baptist mission, my employer, or any organization responsible for people working with vulnerable populations, especially children:

Who knew?

What did they know?

When did they know it?

What did they do?

If something happened that should have been reported but wasn't, why wasn't it reported?

Given what the Anabaptist community should have learned from the Jeriah Mast case, I expected BMA to be on the side of decisive action when credible concerns involving mission employees or children were brought forward.

Whether I like BMA is irrelevant (I do). Whether anyone has confidence in the Mexican government is secondary. Reporting suspected wrongdoing and guaranteeing that the government will respond appropriately are two different things. This creates documentation of the reports and decisions.

What responsibilities exist when an employee or child is put at risk? Who needs to report what to whom?

The dangerous answer to the 3am plea is to do nothing.

If anyone reading this forum has firsthand information about possible criminal conduct that has not been reported, please report this information to the appropriate authorities.

[Judas Maccabeus]

JohnH:

I come from a "failed city", so your argument bothers me. I have heard Mennonite's in PA, NYC, IN and elsewhere denigrate my city. As a result, some conservative Anabaptists have come into my city thinking they don't need to follow our laws.

Nobody said that there isn't a need to follow laws. I did, however, say that I have a rather low level of confidence in the Mexican government at the moment to protect children, seeing as it is routinely failing to do so.

Reporting things to government authorities often results in... exactly nothing happening. I'm not saying not to report, but my general expectation from making a report is that nothing good will be accomplished from it. The most likely result is nothing at all. Sometimes the result is negative, including when the government investigates and then declares there isn't a problem when there actually is.

Are you sure you don't have an axe to grind against BMA and against plain Anabaptists as a whole? Be honest.

Who do you want answering the cries for help at 3am, when a young girl is begging for help after an assault?

What exactly do we expect the mission director to do? Tell her that the local board has jurisdiction and therefore this is somebody else's problem?

If the people calling for help are BMA employees, what responsibility does BMA have toward its own employees?

I don't like the question, “Do you have an axe to grind?”

That is not my standard.

I would ask exactly the same questions if this were the Lutherans, the Catholic Church, a Baptist mission, my employer, or any organization responsible for people working with vulnerable populations, especially children:

Who knew?

What did they know?

When did they know it?

What did they do?

If something happened that should have been reported but wasn't, why wasn't it reported?

Given what the Anabaptist community should have learned from the Jeriah Mast case, I expected BMA to be on the side of decisive action when credible concerns involving mission employees or children were brought forward.

Whether I like BMA is irrelevant (I do). Whether anyone has confidence in the Mexican government is secondary. Reporting suspected wrongdoing and guaranteeing that the government will respond appropriately are two different things. This creates documentation of the reports and decisions.

What responsibilities exist when an employee or child is put at risk? Who needs to report what to whom?

The dangerous answer to the 3am plea is to do nothing.

If anyone reading this forum has firsthand information about possible criminal conduct that has not been reported, please report this information to the appropriate authorities.

Is this an AI generated bot?

[I Timothy]

Would a bot remember sitting at SMBI in the 1990s and having a classroom discussion about whether a girl should run away from unwanted male advances? This discussion isn't about me, there are real victims who need support and resources.

[AnthonyMartin]

Would a bot remember sitting at SMBI in the 1990s and having a classroom discussion about whether a girl should run away from unwanted male advances? This discussion isn't about me, there are real victims who need support and resources.

Probably not a bot, but I would. 93, and 94 terms…