Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
August 22, 2019, 06:56:36 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Faithwalkers 2011  (Read 44693 times)
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2357



« Reply #100 on: April 15, 2018, 07:40:37 am »

Yes. Each person would have to sign off on transparency.

As it stands now, the system is not fair to the victims. They cannot even see the final report to check for inaccuracies. Plus, the final determination will be made by a board accountable to the people being investigated.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
arrogantcat
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #101 on: April 15, 2018, 07:58:05 am »

There is no investigation in the world in which those contributing to it are going to be able to "check for inaccuracies". There is also no way you are going to get everyone involved to sign off on making the report public, anyway. Who do you think makes these decisions when allegations come up against company leaders?
Logged
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #102 on: April 15, 2018, 08:16:58 am »

Actually, Joan Harris has indicated to me personally that she could write a report that protected any of Evergreenís concerns for privacy yet still disclosed her findings, thus making it fit for public viewing. Evergreen has declined her offer to do such according to Ms. Harris.
Logged
arrogantcat
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #103 on: April 15, 2018, 08:30:32 am »

That isn't going to give anyone the opportunity to "check for accuracy", nor would it make all of the allegations publicly available, or fulfill any of the other requests for "transparency".

Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2357



« Reply #104 on: April 15, 2018, 08:37:46 am »

Having results fit for public viewing is what transparency means. It means all can see. It means the people alleging abuse, Mark, and ECC pastors all see the same report and have the opportunity to challenge any inconsistencies.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Roger Dodger
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



« Reply #105 on: April 15, 2018, 09:14:47 am »

We don't know who has come forward from both sides of this situation.  EC could honestly be looking to protect Suzanne as well as others with what has been brought to their attention. It is again standard practice in situations like this to not release full report to the public.  This is due to ample reasons.  Even MPR with their investigation of Garrison Keillor stated they would not make investigation public.  Jon McTaggart the CEO/President who over-sees parent company of MPR shared the following in a note to members and listeners:

"We have not released the letter because of our commitment to protecting the privacy of those involved, including Garrison. No MPR employee, or anyone associated with our public service, should have to fear that we will disclose their identity and details of personal matters simply for MPRís benefit."

Logged
arrogantcat
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #106 on: April 15, 2018, 09:38:21 am »

Yeah, if a report were made public, it would simply be her assessment of whether abuse occurred. There would be no way to pick apart inconsistencies because personal accounts would not be made available. The purpose of hiring an investigator is to determine whether Mark should remain employed, not contribute to the public discussion around this. I don't see why producing said report would be a good use of church funds.
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454



« Reply #107 on: April 15, 2018, 09:39:50 am »

So is the church simply an employer? 
Logged
Roger Dodger
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



« Reply #108 on: April 15, 2018, 10:03:17 am »

In the eyes of Mark, yes EC is simply the employer. I believe that is a straight forward question Rebel in a Good Way.
Logged
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #109 on: April 15, 2018, 10:15:32 am »

Given that one of the accusations is that Evergreen, as an organization, has not been completely honest in their dealings with situations that may reflect poorly on the church, can you understand why the victims are having a difficult time trusting the BOT to ďdo the right thing?Ē
Logged
arrogantcat
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #110 on: April 15, 2018, 10:41:34 am »

For the purposes of this investigation, the church is an employer. This is an employment dispute and is being handled as such. Doesn't matter whether or not one party is mistrusting or not.

Logged
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #111 on: April 15, 2018, 11:09:18 am »

So what youíre saying is if the investigation finds there is merit to the accusations, but the Board decides not to take action on those findings, youíre okay with that because, as an employer, they can handle it however they deem appropriate?
Logged
arrogantcat
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #112 on: April 15, 2018, 11:11:32 am »

Nope. If that's were what I was saying, I would have said that.
Logged
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #113 on: April 15, 2018, 11:40:20 am »

Then could you please clarify because I am not following how an outside accusation of impropriety is classified as an "employment dispute."
Logged
arrogantcat
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #114 on: April 15, 2018, 12:55:48 pm »

Mark is employed by the church. Suzanne's complaint is that he is employed by the church. This is an investigation into whether he should be employed by the church. The investigation is being handled accordingly.

Nothing in the above paragraph suggests I, or anyone, would or should find it acceptable for the church to continue to employ someone who actually sexually abused someone.
Logged
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #115 on: April 15, 2018, 01:42:03 pm »

I think the root of the impasse we are at in this conversation is that you trust the church to do the right thing and the victims do not.
Logged
arrogantcat
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #116 on: April 15, 2018, 02:04:11 pm »

The impasse is that, absent any evidence of wrongdoing, the only avenue left is to discredit the investigation, and ascribe guilt thereby. An organization need not be inherently trustworthy in order to for a third party investigation to be valid. Simply burying the findings of the report entire would be impractical at this juncture, and pretending otherwise is absurd. 
Logged
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #117 on: April 15, 2018, 02:33:21 pm »

As for evidence of wrongdoing, that is for Ms. Harris to judge, no? And no one believes that the BOT would bury the report entirely. Things donít come in black and white usually. All or nothing. Most of life comes in varying shades of grey. The victims do not trust the Board to disclose fully the findings of Ms. Harris. All the victims are asking is a third party investigation not an internal investigation. If that canít be achieved, and apparently it canít, then they are asking that Ms. Harisís report to be released to the victims as well as the BOT.
Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #118 on: April 15, 2018, 02:44:56 pm »

Well put arrogantcat.

Linda, you said:

"I totally understand why people don't speak or why they wait till they are stronger emotionally or their children are older."

Fine, but Suzanne did speak 18 years ago. 18 years later, she utterly and completely changed their story.

You said: "This is why it is so serious and the results should not be in the hands of people appointed/approved by the executive board (of which I've heard MD is a member and which I've heard is 4 pastors who are "more equal than others" who make the big decisions, correct me if I'm wrong)."

No pastors are currently on the board. But you've heard that before.

You said: "The church could release documents of those giving testimony authorize it. The victims are willing to do that. I understand Mark and ECC are not."

How do you know the victims are willing to do that. Have you spoken to them? Suzanne now won't even participate. It seems to stretch credulity to say she (and others) are willing to release the results of an investigation she won't participate in.


Logged
araignee19
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 278



« Reply #119 on: April 15, 2018, 03:02:22 pm »

Round and round and round we go. Why we can't stop, nobody knows...

Every argument made above in the last 48 hours has been made before in the course of this debate. The recent update from ECC said they would wrap up their investigation by the end of May. Let's wait to see if Suzanne and the other accusers are satisfied in May, and if not, maybe some will wish to take up their cause by other means at that time.

Until then, why keep saying the same things over and over as if anyone will be convinced? Or as if this will change the course of the investigation?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1