A Petition to the Province

Jan 6

Written By ACNAtoo

On January 5, 2022, the ACNA Provincial Response Team presented survivors with a list of two investigation firms, explaining that some survivors had an opportunity to vote on which of these would handle the third-party investigation into the Diocese of the Upper Midwest. The eight PRT members would also each have a vote in deciding which firm to hire.

This email came after six months of communication between the Province and ACNAtoo (beginning with our July 15, 2021 open letter to the Archbishop), during which time our team attempted to persuade the Province of the importance and features of a trauma-informed, survivor-centered investigation.

As Joanna’s letter states, the Province has not chosen to do the right thing. Instead, they have offered survivors a choice between two law firms without any additional details regarding contract parameters. From the publicly available information provided by the writing and websites of the investigators/law firms in question, it seems clear that both firms are committed to serving and prioritizing the needs of the client (i.e the Province), which elevates protection from liability rather than elucidating the truth. Furthermore, these firms have no apparent experience with church related investigations and show little to no evidence on their websites of being survivor-centered.

The few survivors who the Province has included in this process are not actually being offered enough information to make an informed choice. They are being asked to make an investigative firm selection while simultaneously being denied the most critical information about this investigation. Despite being asked multiple times, the PRT has refused to clarify the parameters of the investigation and has stated that they will not share the contract they sign with the investigative firm. This leaves survivors with no way of knowing whether the ensuing investigation is even safe for them to participate in, let alone vote on.

The survivors and their advocates repeatedly requested that GRACE be hired as the investigative party, but the PRT has not explained why GRACE was not presented as an option or clarified whether they were even contacted. This request from survivors and advocates was not because they simply like GRACE the best – it is because GRACE is the only investigative organization ACNAtoo is aware of (after extensive research) where best-practice investigation parameters are non-negotiable, and where the investigator looks for the truth about abuse and how to make changes to prevent it, rather than just limiting their clients’ liability. Since other firms will tailor their investigation to whatever the client requests, GRACE is the only firm that survivors can support without needing to vet every detail of the investigation parameters and contract.

Of the two firms chosen by the PRT, it is our opinion that neither one meets even the basic criteria for trauma-informed and survivor-centered investigations. Not only do these firms fail to meet minimum standards, but their own words stand in blatant disregard of survivors' carefully stated requests to the Upper Midwest Diocese and the Province to make the investigation safe for survivors to participate in.

One firm openly highlights how their lead investigator “advocates on behalf of educational institutions in court and agency proceedings, mediations and arbitrations.”

The other firm emphasizes that external investigators should always “consider the legal backdrop in making factual findings to facilitate the rendering of legal advice by an employer’s counsel,” while constantly expressing the need to tailor every investigation to the “client's” goals and needs. In effect, both these firms appear to do whatever the client hires them to do, even if that means silencing survivors and protecting the organization.

This is not safe for survivors, nor is this independent.

Survivor Signatories

As the PRT is withholding details of the parameters and contract, hasn’t agreed to make the findings available to the survivors, and also refuses to consider GRACE as an investigative firm option, these Mark Rivera survivors are not willing to participate in an investigation process under these coercive conditions and add their names to this statement:

Holly M.
Joanna Rudenborg
“Clarke”
“Lily”
C.L.
F.F.
A.G.
A.D.
D.D.

We, the undersigned, stand with the survivors in solidarity and call upon the Anglican Church in North America to honor the survivors’ wishes and hire an investigative firm that will search for and publish all the truth, even if it shows the Province in an unflattering light, following the best practices of a survivor-centric investigation:

Waiving of attorney/client privilege
Investigative firm does not represent (or retain the option to represent) the client in ensuing civil litigation
The investigation conducts active vs. passive outreach and information gathering to reach as many potential victims as possible
Anonymity is protected as desired by victims or those who provide information
Prioritizing and protecting criminal cases
Active and trauma sensitive interviewing practices
The final report is made available, in full, to victims and/or published publicly
The scope of systemic contributions to abuse is both understood and communicated in the report, including enabling, mishandling and cultural contributions to the abuse and its aftermath.

Sign the Petition

To add your name as one of the now 675+ signatories on this petition, please utilize the form below:

Signatories:

Church of the ResurrectionDiocese of the Upper MidwestProvincial Response TeamPRTUMD InvestigationOpen LetterTime for Action SeriesSpiritual AbuseSexual AbuseAbuse of PowerAdvocacyMark RiveraStewart RuchPetitionACNAAnglican Church of North America

ACNAtoo

A Petition to the Province

Survivor Signatories

Sign the Petition

Signatories:

Investigations 101: Waiving Attorney-Client Privilege

ACNAtoo Statement regarding Deacon Val McIntyre