New Republic Picks Up Donn Ketcham Story

Bert, So you are going to make false statements and “stand by them”? That’s wrong, Bert. You are doing exactly what you accuse ABWE of doing, of ignoring the truth and sweeping it under the rug because it makes you look bad. Granted, being wrong and possibly lying about a policy here in a discussion forum is not as egregious in terms of consequences, but it is just as wrong. You made false accusations. You can’t just sweep your that under the rug and pretend they don’t exist. At this point, Bert, I don’t know how we can trust you. You say you write policies. Fine. But it appears to me that you don’t read them. I don’t know how else to explain this. You appear not to know what the policy actually says.

For you to say the policy is not clear is bizarre. I can’t imagine what is not clear. It seems that the problem is (1) you misread or overlooked somethings or perhaps just ignored them and (2) you think the policy should be written differently. Both of those are indisputable. I am not sure what is not clear about it. 3.6 is perfectly clear and given the breadth of things it addresses is certainly a reasonable statement. It allows them to do exactly what you think they should do. Your complaints are simply misplaced.

Here’s an example: Person A sees person B giving a hug to 10 year old person C who is known to have a close family type relationship that has never aroused any sort of suspicion. It is a quick hug and then they go their separate ways. Person A has never seen that before and has no reason to suspect anything so they don’t say anything. Ten years later, person B is found to have molested Person C. Should Person A be fired? Should they be suspended? Reprimanded? What is the appropriate response? In your view, you seem to think they should be fired for not reporting something they saw even though there is no cause for suspicion, no “reasonable” basis (to use the legal term) for reporting. When you have a policy such as you suggest, you can end up being unjust because you have no discretion. But you have no options because Person A didn’t report. Wisdom is usually the better part of valor. I will grant that you mean well. But that is not enough. Mandatory sentencing was a response to abuse, but it still resulted in injustice.

Or perhaps Person A reports and it is investigated and there is no evidence found. Both Person B and Person C adamantly and credibly deny any sort of wrongdoing. You have just caused Person A to slander a brother or sister in Christ, and for the rest of their lives, Person B will be under suspicion, all because of a misguided and unwise policy. Either scenario is easily avoided simply by the use of common sense and wisdom. Laws are written a particular way for a reason. And they use the word “reasonable” or something similar for a reason.

You say molestation is not a clear legal category. But it is plenty clear and has been for a very long time. This particular policy is more clear and more extensive about what is prohibited than the law is. You remind me of those who want controversy over words while ignoring the substance. But let’s assume you are right, that it’s unclear. What’s your solution? What definition of molestation would you add to this policy to make it more 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.

Here’s a good example. You acknowledge that they have a policy about crimes against children. If someone doesn’t read the policy, it won’t matter what it says. If someone does read the policy, they will know exactly what to do. There is nothing either in the line or the following paragraph that is confusing. Someone who does what you suggest (i.e., ignores the policy) should not be allowed anywhere near management because they can’t read a basic paragraph with comprehension. No policy is going to fix that. If seeing “molestation” in a list of causes for removal doesn’t clue you into the fact that “molestation” is a cause for removal, then you should return to high school. It’s a simple conditional: If A then B; if X then Y. It’s clear and easy to follow which is exactly what you say it should be.

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.

First, this assumes that a missionary would be a mandatory reporter in all these places. It is unlikely that a visiting speaker is a mandatory reporter in any of these places except possibly their actual place of service, and they may not even be there. Second, this is the way it is for everyone, not just missionaries. You, as Bert Perry, are required to know and follow the applicable state law where you live. Are you a mandatory reporter? Do you even know? Do you know the standards of reporting and the process of it? You are in the same boat as they are. Third, ABWE provides training on the legal requirements during its staff training sessions so they cover it. Fourth, they provide a Child Safety Officer and a Child Safety Response Team to help. So what other solution is there? A person simply has to know their legal duties by some means. It’s not anyone else’s responsibility. What would you have them do?

You say that “a clear basic guideline requiring a certain degree of reporting is essential.” That is in the policy as you should know if you have actually read it. Section 3.4 requires internal reporting of prohibited conduct and 3.5 requires external reporting. Section 8 also addresses reporting. The policy requires the reporting of all prohibited conduct, not just illegal conduct. Section 5 spends several pages outlining the prohibited conduct that must be reported and to whom it is to be reported. So contrary to your claim, the policy is clear (1) that reporting both internally and externally is mandatory, (2) what should be reported, and (3) to whom it should be reported. So they already did what you said. And the policy outlines a variety of consequence up to and including firing for failure to do so. Again, how do you not know this?

I am beginning to think you didn’t even read the policy because it’s hard to imagine that someone who read the policy can be this unfamiliar with it.

You complain that this is based on what management thinks. Again, what other option is there? It’s always based on what management thinks. Even if you report it to law enforcement it is based on what management thinks. It’s called prosecutorial discretion. A document has no authority. Only people do in a case like this. No manual is going to address corporate culture.

In the end Bert, I don’t think you have read this whole document, particularly not closely and not with a view to understanding it. You have simply been wrong about too many things that are explicit. What policies you have written, I hope you have done it better than you have done here.

There is plenty that ABWE should have done. But I think the stuff you are harping here has been shown to be wrongheaded. In some cases you are simply wrong about what the document says and in other cases you are taking the worst possible reading of it when there is a perfectly legitimate and more sensible reading to take.

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.

The person and department is not unidentified.

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?

First, the policy section you cite applies to behavior between adults. It does not apply to child abuse issues. But having said there, here are the answers:

1. Make a phone call or a visit or send an email.
2. Give it some time, thought, and prayer and pay attention because you might be wrong and you are about to create huge problems if you are.
3. Then continue to give it time, thought, prayer, and attention. And realize you might be wrong.

BTW, this is the explicit application of Matthew 18.

The policy says if in doubt, report. But be ready to own the fallout of 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?

Well, because it takes a few seconds to find a phone and dial a number. The policy specifies that the report should take place immediately or quickly. In fact, it says that 9 times.

Here’s my question for you, Jay: Are you critiquing a policy you haven’t read? Because if you have read it, why would you ask this question? You would already know the answer to it.

So Tyler, you’re saying that in the scenario I provided you would report it to the authorities? Wow. Again, I would never want to be in a church like that.

You keep using illustrations from the military. I helped write a child protection policy in a church based on resources from Church Law & Tax (widely acknowledged to be an expert source in this area) and input from our insurance company, then implemented that policy in that same church with over 150 children’s volunteers, then oversee that policy for a number of years.

That doesn’t make me an expert or always correct, but I just find the idea that churches should automatically report any accusation, no matter how obviously false and ridiculous, to be just as dangerous as the opposite error. Again, the law in Iowa clearly states all “reasonable” accusations should be reported, so the law is on my side here.

EDIT: After reading Larry’s post and looking up the Iowa code, I remembered the correct word is “reasonable” not “credible” (as I used in a previous post), although they are similar. The point remains the same.

Tyler, as I clearly stated, our policy was based on our insurance policy and our state law.

Larry, re-read that section of the child protection policy. Would it kill them to provide contact information for child safety? If you have to spend a few minutes looking these things up, the section simply does not exist, really. A form would help as well.

Moreover, the adult section really has the same problems as we’ve been accused of for decades; it does not really specify a reporting structure, but requires one on one confrontation. Good luck getting that going when people are afraid of the bigwig. And again, it’s not clear to whom the problem ought to be reported.

And yes, they say they’ll comply with mandatory reporting laws….but with no punishment for not complying….with no one to tell…..honestly, Larry, read between the lines. The new policy may be better than the old, but please try to read it like an ordinary missionary in Bangladesh will read it, one who has the local manager very concerned that a star performer is being accused, and if he goes, so does a lot of the funding that the son of the head of the GARBC will bring in.

Really, when you argue that people are misstating the policy, you’re arguing against the policy. It’s like AP style—you lead with what’s important. ABWE does not, nor is it clear which paths ought to be taken. You cannot expect people to parse it out like good lawyers here.

Larry, re-read that section of the child protection policy. It does not once say to whom the report should be made.

Once again Bert, you are simply wrong.

To make a report under this Policy, the ABWE Staff Member shall notify ABWE’s Child Safety Officer or, if the Child Safety Officer is unavailable, another member of ABWE’s Child Safety Response Team (“CSRT”). The members of the CSRT may be contacted on ABWE’s website under Protecting Our Children. The CSRT includes the Child Safety Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Vice President of Global Operations of Ministries, and such other individuals as may be appointed by the President of Ministries from time to time.

There are no less than three people specifically identified as well as others who are appointed from time to time.

Not to mention there are numerous times that “ABWE” is mentioned as the place where the report is made, which signifies the organization itself which provides many more places to report. So if one of the three is not available, there are plenty of others to report to.

This is explicit and once again you have said something blatantly untrue.

How long, Bert? When you still stop this nonsense and actually read the policy and seek to understand it? When will you take responsibility for the falsehoods you have told?

Would it kill them to provide contact information for child safety?

Um, “The members of the CSRT may be contacted on ABWE’s website under Protecting Our Children.” Inside of 60 seconds I found an email address and a phone number. That is much more accessible than this document is. And it can quickly be changed online if need be.

Moreover, the adult section really has the same problems as we’ve been accused of for decades; it does not really specify a reporting structure, but requires one on one confrontation. Good luck getting that going when people are afraid of the bigwig. And again, it’s not clear to whom the problem ought to be reported.

Again, simply incorrect. From the policy manual:

If there truly is a problem, the field team leader and the Regional Director should be informed.

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.

The Regional Director will inform the ABWE President, V.P. of Global Operations, and the Executive Director of the problem and receive input.

How many times will make accusations that are blatantly false?

But on top of that, the one on one confrontation is Matthew 18. It is biblical.

And yes, they say they’ll comply with mandatory reporting laws….but with no punishment for not complying….with no one to tell…..honestly, Larry, read between the lines. The new policy may be better than the old, but please try to read it like an ordinary missionary in Bangladesh will read it, one who has the local manager very concerned that a star performer is being accused, and if he goes, so does a lot of the funding that the son of the head of the GARBC will bring in.

There is a punishment for not complying, and why read between the lines? We can actually read the words that address your issues. Plus the “ordinary missionary” in Bangladesh or wherever will have gone through the training process where this is taught.

Really, when you argue that people are misstating the policy, you’re arguing against the policy.

No, you are misstating the policy. Virtually everything you have said about the policy is blatantly incorrect.

ABWE does not, nor is it clear which paths ought to be taken. You cannot expect people to parse it out like good lawyers here.

No, it is clear. You don’t have to be a lawyer. You need a jr high reading level.

How long, Bert? How long will you continue to make false accusations? How long will you continue to refuse to take responsibility for your words?

Tim Challies, who had posted a link to the Atlantic article, yesterday posted this letter he received with additional perspective:

First, to give a little background about myself, I attended The Master’s College where I was first exposed to ABWE. After completing medical school and residency my wife and I committed to going with ABWE in Africa to work in medical missions and church planting. We arrived in France in 2016 to begin language studies and will be leaving in December of this year to start our work at a hospital in an African nation.

Making a decision to go with ABWE required much thought and prayer. One issue for us was this history of child sexual abuse by Donn Ketcham and ABWE’s failures in properly dealing with us. First, as a Christian who wants to see Christ glorified, I could not partner with ABWE if I did not have the confidence that going forward their leadership would properly address sin issues. Second, as a father of 3 young children, I would never commit to going with ABWE if I thought the culture that would put my two daughters and one son at risk of sexual abuse. Having never even been a member of a Baptist church, I can assure you that I have no prior allegiances to ABWE. Thus, our commitment to serve in this agency stems from a conviction from a few key things, namely 1) their conviction to use medicine to plant churches best allows us to use our gifting to serve God in missions, and 2) the patterns of failure in dealing with sin and sexual abuse by Don Ketcham have been thoroughly dealt with and will not be an issue in the future.

It is on this latter point that I feel that the article failed. I believe that truth is important and glorifies God, which is why I am glad that the truth of Donn Ketcham’s sin and the cover up/failure to properly deal with it by ABWE leadership came out. There is no excuse for that. From what I know of the incident, I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this article’s details about the abuse and ABWE’s handling of it in the years to follow.

However, in the same concern for truth, I believe the article failed to report significant portions of ABWE’s thorough and significant response that has taken place over the last 6 years. I do not know why this was not done by the author. However, this information is readily available as I will summarize below. Thus, whatever the cause for this omission, the author did not fulfill her responsibility to fully investigate the truth about the topic she discussed.

First, ABWE’s discussion of the situation and their response can be easily found on their website. It includes a thorough discussion about the incident, including the executive summary and the full 280-report of the investigation done by Pii, which clearly delineates Donn Ketcham’s repeated incidents of sexual abuse, ABWE’s failure to properly remove him from the organization long before the victim mentioned in the article was abused, and ABWE’s mishandling of the abuse incident spanning several decades. These failures are fully acknowledging in several places, from the video by the current president at the top of the page, the statement below this video, links to further statements, etc. I list these things to demonstrate that ABWE as an organization is not hiding from there sin, but confessing it and repenting.

Furthermore, ABWE has responded by removing and replacing the ABWE leadership and Board of Directors during the time of this misconduct (this was done several years ago). Because of the report released last year, further consequences were given to those who mishandled the situation. ABWE has a strict child protection policy and a training program, which I can personally attest to since I have completed it. In short, they have initiated significant changes to minimize the chance of future abuse and ensure that if such a thing happens again it is properly dealt with.

This is why I have a concern with the article you linked to. It fails to mentions this response and change. As a result, one is left with the impression that ABWE continues in this pattern of behavior instead of realizing that God has worked to bring about repentance and change. I have already seen this article referenced by others on Facebook and Twitter. I have other colleagues who have been approached by friends who are questioning the integrity of ABWE after reading it. In short, this article is having a damaging effect on an organization and people in the ministry who are committed to spread the kingdom of Christ, a damaging effect that rises from its failure (even if not purposeful) to share the whole truth about this situation.

Which leads to my motivation in writing you directly. A significant number of my fellow church members and friends read and trust your blog. So, when you post an article like this, it carries a significant weight. And unfortunately, I am concerned that by posting this article without any mention to ABWE’s response, you are unwittily propagating this incomplete disclosure of truth.

Imagine there was a large church where one of the pastor’s committed sexual abuse (as we know, this has happened way too many times). Despite a lot of God-glorifying ministry that happened through others at the church, some of the leaders did not fully deal with it. It leads to more abuse. We agree this is awful. But suppose it comes to light and the church deals with it in a God-glorifying way. There are consequences for sure, to the name of Christ and the reputation of the church. But if they have removed those who have failed and confessed their sin and repented and moved forward, is there any reason that church should forever be defined by that sin? Can God never use them in ministry because of that failure? Must the new people and leadership and those who were never involved be considered complicit in the past failure? Or, in God’s grace, can He use their obedient response to move his kingdom forward? Can they actually be defined in God’s grace by their humble response to their sin?

In conclusion, I would ask two things. 1) Please go to ABWE’s website as mentioned above. Read the statement, watch the short video, take a look at their response. 2) If you believe that they have responded in an appropriate, God-honoring way that doesn’t pass over sin, please consider making an additional post to balance out the impression given in “The Silence of the Lambs” by its omission of this response.
—Stephen W, Albertville, FR

https://www.challies.com/letters-to-the-editor-consecutive-exposition-f…

How many times will YOU make the false claim that I’m making false claims here?

First of all, for moral failure, one on one confrontation is required. From page four:

The protocol to be used in handling moral failure on the part of a missionary is as follows: Step 1: Confront the alleged offender.

If you don’t think this is a problem, keep in mind that Donn Ketcham’s sins include forcible rape. Think about this a moment. You’ve got to have a less direct means of confrontation here. Say, an “incident report form” that can be used for everything from accidental injuries to….forcible rape. Say a form that is included right in the text of the policy manual, with clear instructions on physical address, phone numbers, email addresses, and the like.

Yes, you can look it up with first world internet, but reality is they don’t have that in a lot of places where ABWE works. It’s got to be there or it doesn’t get done.

Sorry, Larry, but it matters that the main document points in two different directions, doesn’t clearly describe penalties for failing to report, does not provide an incident report form, and the like. It matters that the child protection manual’s instructions also do not have an incident report form, clear instructions on where to send it, and descriptions of penalties for failing to report. It matters that the main document says one thing in one paragraph and hints at another in the next, and it matters that if one follows the first sentence, one might never see the second paragraph at all. It matters that the child policy manual says that punishments will be at the discretion of ABWE—and does not clarify that for some sins, there is no discretion.

Larry, this is not like a court case where you’ve got lawyers who are going to dig deep and harmonize a bunch of different passages and read in and figure out what the best solution is. This is a type of case where a lot of people are going to get to the first sentence of the moral failure policy, go to the kids policy—let’s imagine a good wait on internet in Bangladesh—then not know where to send the report or what it needs to say—there’s another ten minutes on Bangladeshi internet—then realize that penalties are not spelled out in the document….

(you make these things too difficult, and they will not get done, especially without clear incentives)

These would be decent policies given a missionary population of U.S. -based lawyers with excellent internet speeds. ABWE is 0 for 3 on that, though, so they really need to fix some things.

How many times will YOU make the false claim that I’m making false claims here?

What false claims have I made?

I have quoted the policy to documents false claims you have made. I have quoted you and then quoted the document, and you can compare them side by side and see that your claims are false. Whether they were knowingly false and malicious or whether you simply didn’t read the document and didn’t know what you were talking about, I don’t know. But we must not make false claims about people and organizations. We must tell the trutth, even if it doesn’t make the point we want to make.

You claimed they didn’t require reporting, but they do. You claimed it didn’t say who a report about child victims should be made to. It does. You claimed the adult section had no reporting structure. It does.

All of these things, and others, you could have found simply by reading the document, or even by Cntrl-F and using “Find” to find it if you were interested. They were explicit. You were simply wrong.

First of all, for moral failure, one on one confrontation is required.

Yes, it does. That’s Matthew 18. Remember when you used to argue that we should be following Scripture? Boy, those were the days.

I actually think there are times when one on one confrontation is not necessary; it might be good for self-protection or for strength to go with someone. And I think the policy allows for that when it says as a part of step one that “If there truly is a problem, the field team leader and the Regional Director should be informed.” I don’t think telling someone else of a real offense violates the spirit of the policy. But the point is that it should be handled biblically from the first level all the way through.

Sorry, Larry, but it matters that the main document points in two different directions,

It points in two different directions about two different things. You handle children one way and adults another way. It doesn’t point two different ways about the same thing, at least so far as I can see.

An incident report form may exist and not be public. It may not exist. It may be a good idea, but it isn’t necessary. Basically, you are judging them by the policy you think you be written. I am fairly sure they had insurance companies and attorneys involved in this. I am pretty sure they aren’t just winging it.

The document is clear to me. I think it would be pretty clear to you if you actually read it with a desire to understand it. Furthermore, remember that ABWE trains all its associates on the matter. It’s just not that hard for someone of average intelligence and common sense.

It matters that the main document says one thing in one paragraph and hints at another in the next, and it matters that if one follows the first sentence, one might never see the second paragraph at all.

It doesn’t hint at it. It plainly states it. And the two different paragraphs clearly apply to two different things (assuming we are talking about the same section). If someone doesn’t read the document, it doesn’t matter if all this stuff is in there that you want. If someone only reads the first paragraph and misses the second, that’s on them.

It matters that the child policy manual says that punishments will be at the discretion of ABWE—and does not clarify that for some sins, there is no discretion.

This is a misleading claim. The policy manual which includes the CPP plainly states that for some sins, association with ABWE is terminated. It’s hard to be more clear than that. Again, if people don’t read the document, then it won’t matter what it says.

Here’s an interesting fact for you: Our church insurance company has a sample CPP that does not spell out the consequences for these sins. It specifies that (in addition to reporting) an internal investigation be carried out and that recommendations of action be made. It doesn’t specify what those actions should be.

This is a type of case where a lot of people are going to get to the first sentence of the moral failure policy, go to the kids policy—let’s imagine a good wait on internet in Bangladesh—then not know where to send the report or what it needs to say—there’s another ten minutes on Bangladeshi internet—then realize that penalties are not spelled out in the document….

The penalties are spelled out in the document, and every person with ABWE undergoes training on it. So they have been told what to do and they have been told who to ask if they don’t know or are not sure.

Average internet speeds in Bangladesh are about 2Mbps, so it’s not that slow. And they know where to send the report and what it needs to say. And they probably have a hardcopy of the CPP and one on their computer as well. It’s not that difficult.

Again, Bert, you are trying very hard to make a point that is unfounded. The document is decent enough. You would write it differently. Fine. When they ask you, you write it. Or start your own organization and write your own.

But no matter how you would write it, don’t make false claims about what it does or does not say.

[Joeb]

Another case in point. A girl sexually assaulted at BJU later filed charges against her Perp. The Perp is s fine Missionary Guy with four little kids and a wife on the Mission field . The Mission Board refuses to cut funding to force him to return and face charges. Reason he said he was sorry and asked for forgiveness therefore the sin is now on her head ie bitterness. Even though he harassed her after the assault.

The bitterness issue is the same thing the girl and her sister were told even though their Perp raped them 1000 times.

When is this stupidity going to stop and when as we as bothers and sisters of Christ are going to campaign and publically ask Churches not to fund ABWE and other idiots who do the same with the idea of killing the organization.

I did so I spoke to an Elder of my former church. Jim probably knows this couple. Both he and his wife are doctors. I told my friend the church should tell them to find another mission board or within a reasonable amount of time be defended.

Considering my old church donated a lot of money including my money and helped him physically build his clinic and home in Africa. I think they have a right to make that request. I told my friend all the church is doing is supporting a totally morally bankrupt and corrupt organization by continuing support to ABWE.

@Joeb: if there is related case that is public information at this point, please link to a credible source. Otherwise, this is not a place to make allegations of criminal activity.

As for policies and corporate culture, I’ve been reading, line by line, an average of 60 policies a week for two years now (these are mostly county and municipal police departments), and had a few opportunities to edit manuals and draft policies before that, and then years in the work force on the staffs of several ministries as well as large and small corporations. For what it’s worth, in my experience:

• The old saying that culture eats policy for breakfast is true. This doesn’t mean policies are worthless, but it does argue that they are ultimately not determinative of what organizations actually do.
• No amount of policy, however well crafted, can ultimately substitute for good people with sound judgment. You can’t have a policy for every scenario, and if you did, the quantity of policy would guarantee it is not consistently referenced.
• The corporate culture (values, commitments, principles, convictions and the practices that grow out of them) is rarely better than the policies. Sometimes it is, but not usually.
• Organizations almost always have a process for making internal evaluations of allegations first (with language in policies that distinguishes baseless accusations from potentially true ones), whenever going outside isn’t required by law. Even in cases where mandatory outside reporting is involved, there’s no way to completely avoid some internal evaluation. This is because the law will say “report A to B,” and you have to make a determination whether what has happened is “A” or not.
• Policies are never perfect.

As for ABWE, it’s quite clear that they do indeed have a policy of mandatory reporting to the appropriate outside authorities, as Larry has pointed out:

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 8.2.1 says, “ABWE Staff Members who are mandatory reporters are responsible for making reports under applicable law.”

Could things be more clear in their policies? Probably. Policies are never perfect. Many of the agencies I work with have whole departments that do nothing but study, evaluate, and update policies.

At the same time, the more resources you put into compliance, the less you have left to do what you exist to do. Presumably, no organization exists for the sole purpose of compliance with regulations!