New Republic Picks Up Donn Ketcham Story

Bert,

You will never find a way to enforce policies if people don’t want to follow them and DO want to cover up sins / crimes. You could have a policy manual of thirty million pages and it wouldn’t work. It’s no different than a pastor who has lost his family or who was committed adultery but the church won’t terminate his employment either because ‘the church would suffer’ or ‘he is the pastor and we can’t do that’.

This was part of the problem with HCA and Maddi. They left the disciplinary decision to the Board and the Board threw the book, the table, and the entire library as well.

I just searched the child protection policy for a reference to sexual immorality. It has none. It also does not contain the word “disqualified”. What document are you looking at, Larry?

Again, if the child protection policy does not say this EXPLICITLY, they are treading on very thin ice. And it ain’t there. And it’s what people are going to refer to if and when this kind of thing happens again.

Jay, agreed that you could have the policy be infinite in length, and it wouldn’t work without people being willing to do so. That said, there are simply some things that you have to put in there to deal with known corporate culture—at the very least, your summer missionaries are going to figure out that things at ABWE are not according to spec, and they will talk and cut off the pipeline of new summer missionaries.

It is in the ABWE International Policy Manual dated April 2017, which is where the CPP is found as well. It comes up on the first page of a Google search for “ABWE adultery.” Why did you not think to look this up before taking such an outspoken and strong position on it?

Here is the link, and here’s a very interesting quote from it: page 4, right before your quote.

The Child Protection Policy applies to situations involving child victims. In all other situations, this Moral Failure Policy applies

In other words, your quote is completely irrelevant to your point. The policy in question is the child protection policy, which still fails to require mandatory disassociation from ABWE, still fails to require mandatory reporting of crimes to authorities, and still fails to separate those who sweep these things under the rug. For that matter, the moral failure policy should also provide for severe penalties for those who sweep these things under the rug.

Step 2: If offense is confirmed and admitted*, the offender, if married, will be urged to immediately inform the spouse of the details.

5 The Regional Director and field team leader will then assure the spouse and/or offender(s) of ABWE’s support and love, remind them of the protocol which will be followed, and work out with them how the rest of the immediate family will be informed. *Note: In instances where the offense is not admitted, the procedure will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Isn’t that more or less what they did with Donn Ketcham?

Oh wait, no - they sent the offending * women * home. Donn was allowed to stay on the field.

In other words, your quote is completely irrelevant to your point. The policy in question is the child protection policy, which still fails to require mandatory disassociation from ABWE, still fails to require mandatory reporting of crimes to authorities, and still fails to separate those who sweep these things under the rug. For that matter, the moral failure policy should also provide for severe penalties for those who sweep these things under the rug.

Bert, perhaps you are simply not reading closely and not thinking clearly.

First, the CPP is part of the Policy Manual and it requires mandatory dissociation for sexual molestation. It plainly states that. For you to say otherwise is downright bizarre. The line you quote about the moral failure policy appears to refer not to the immediately following paragraph, but to the six steps outlined below which is the actual protocol. In other words, when the moral failure is not covered by the CPP, then you follow the six steps. When it involves a minor, you follow the CPP. But dissociation for sexual molestation is explicit.

Second, the CPP does not fail to require mandatory reporting. Section 3.5 says, “This Policy requires that Staff Members comply with mandatory child abuse and neglect reporting laws applicable to them when they become aware or suspect that a child has suffered abuse or neglect.” Section 8 is devoted to mandatory reporting and makes plain that the mandatory reporters are required to report and reporting to the mission will not suffice. Did you really just miss something that big? Why would you say something that is so obviously untrue?

Third, regarding sweeping things under the rug, one of the apparent reasons for the “discretion” is the very long list of things included, not all of which are of equal weight. Not reporting a frontal hug (a violation of the policy) or buying a hamburger (also possibly a violation of the policy) is different than not reporting an actual physical molestation (also a violation of the policy). ABWE is wise to reserve discretion for this rather than treat these the same. I highly doubt that, given the heavy emphasis on reporting things, that ABWE intends to protect anyone who sweeps it under the rug. That makes no sense at all.

Bert, might it be good to give some thought to your approach. In the recent past you have missed a number of clear and obvious things and then gone on to try to build a case on a falsehood, such as you have done here. Two of the accusations you made here are explicitly false and the third can easily be seen as a wise policy given the breadth of the policy. You have also made accusations against people that you have no basis for making. I don’t think that is a good way to go about discussion.

*Note: In instances where the offense is not admitted, the procedure will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Jay, what should the policy be when an accusation is made but the offense is not admitted?

Further investigation might be a good idea, instead of just saying ‘we’ll figure it out as we go’.

Further investigation might be a good idea, instead of just saying ‘we’ll figure it out as we go’.

Where did they say “we’ll figure it out as we go”?

Doesn’t “case by case basis” essentially mean the same thing as “we’ll figure it out as we go”? No, they didn’t use that exact wording, but I’m not comfortable with “case by case” given ABWE’s track record. After all, Donn Ketcham was his own special case and look at how that was handled. Everyone who was wronged was ignored (or actively suppressed) until the victims created a website detailing what was going on and went public.

I know, I know - ABWE has a new administration, new policies, is committed to doing the right things…etc. Call me skeptical. I’d like to think that they’ll handle it correctly in the future, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say.

Doesn’t “case by case basis” essentially mean the same thing as “we’ll figure it out as we go”?

No. Case by case means each situation is handled on its own merits. What else would you do when someone doesn’t admit guilt?

You have to handle it on a case by case basis. Someone may refuse to admit guilt because they are lying. Someone may refuse to admit guilt because they are not guilty. Someone may refuse to admit guilt to one thing but are actually guilty of something else. But you can’t treat them all the same because you don’t know. When someone admits guilt, it is easy to have a blanket policy, which they do. But otherwise you have to handle it on a case by case basis.

To me, it seems like some here are looking for things to complain about and end up going after the wrong things. Perhaps it would be good to take a step back.

You have to handle it on a case by case basis.

Someone may refuse to admit guilt because they are lying.

and then you figure out what to do as you go.

Someone may refuse to admit guilt because they are not guilty.

and then you figure out what to do with the person who lied about the accused.

Someone may refuse to admit guilt to one thing but are actually guilty of something else.

and it’s incumbent on you to get at the facts of the case, not just decide that it’s a ‘nothingburger’ and move on. God treats false accusations and gossip the same as any other sins, correct?

But you can’t treat them all the same because you don’t know. When someone admits guilt, it is easy to have a blanket policy, which they do. But otherwise you have to handle it on a case by case basis.

Correct - and you figure out what to do as you go, which was my entire point.

We’re talking about the same thing, Larry. I really believe that this is largely a matter of terminology.

We’re talking about the same thing, Larry. I really believe that this is largely a matter of terminology.

Perhaps, but “make it up as you go” sure sounds a whole lot different than “deal with it on a case by case basis.” “Make it up as you go” sounds very pejorative and that seemed your intent was to make it sound bad for ABWE based on your connection to Ketcham. “Make it up as you go” seems to communicate a haphazardness without direction or principles. I don’t think that is what is going on here. Why not use their terminology?

[Larry]

Further investigation might be a good idea, instead of just saying ‘we’ll figure it out as we go’.

Where did they say “we’ll figure it out as we go”?

See above. I’ve written quality policies as part of my jobs, Larry, and you simply don’t understand how this works. First of all, the policy still does not clearly state the first thing that needs to be stated; failure to remove an adulterer/child molester from the mission is in itself cause to remove a person from the mission. We have a proverb in quality; corporate culture eats corporate initiatives for lunch. So if it’s not absolutely clear and enforced, the policy in effect does not exist. This is especially the case because a problem like this is extra work, embarrassing, and quite frankly people just want it to go away as quickly as possible. That’s a big part of why the allegations against Ketcham were put in dirty files and otherwise ignored.

So with reference to ABWE’s history, the new manual does not at all address the problem of corporate culture because it does not clearly outline punishments for failing to remove the Donn Ketchams of the world from the mission. The old policy was presumably harsh on adultery and crimes against kids, and (per PII), they looked past that one too. So we know a priori that the new policy does not really address the problem; it relies on management to “add” something to it. Dangerous in the best of situations.

In this case, the policy is not clear. We have one line that says crimes against children are covered in the child policy manual, and a paragraph or two below, the reader is expected to clue in that “molestation” (in itself not a clear legal category) encompasses the entire area of child sexual crimes. What’s going to happen is that one person is going to CPM, the other looks at that paragraph, and the decision is made, again, according to….corporate culture, which has not been fixed.

Same basic thing with sexual sin involving only adults. Yes, it’s now cause to remove, but….when….by whom….and what, again, is the penalty for failing to do so? Again, the corporate culture has not been addressed, and that provision is really likely to end up a dead letter.

Regarding mandatory reporting, the problem is that the manual requires the missionary to know and follow the applicable state laws….OK, good luck with that when the missionary starts in one state, solicits contributions in a dozen or so other states, gets trained in a few more states, and ends up serving in a number of foreign fields. Even lawyers get confused with this level of complexity. Again, a policy that can’t reasonably be followed really doesn’t exist. Hence, a clear, basic guideline requiring a certain degree of reporting is essential—my church does it with an incident reports, and we are of course only dealing with one state’s law.

So I stand by what I said; as things stand right now, ABWE’s turnabout is built on the “sand” of “what management thinks”. That’s really, really dangerous. While management support is necessary to any good system, you’ve got to have a system that is meaningful outside of management.

I have also written policy for a couple of other places, including a child abuse prevention policy. Deferring to an unidentified person or department to manage a situation as difficult and opaque for guidance on a case-by-case basis is a recipe for all sorts of problems and confusion.

For example, the policy I cited says that someone accused of misconduct should be privately confronted. What if your suspicions are against someone in a different province? What if you have suspicions but don’t feel comfortable because you don’t have enough proof to make this anything more than ‘something seems wrong’? What if the accused assures you everything is on the up and up but you aren’t buying it?

For that matter, why isn’t the ABWE Child Risk Safety Officer (or whatever the title is) notified the very second someone receives an allegation of child abuse on a mission field?