FAQs about the UMD Investigation and GRACE
We recently learned that there is some confusion around ACNAtoo’s position regarding the investigative firm GRACE and the upcoming investigation into the mishandling of sexual abuse allegations in the ACNA Diocese of the Upper Midwest.
We appreciate the supporters who reached out to explain how our communications gave the wrong impression: namely, that we will not be satisfied unless this investigation is carried out by GRACE. We are sorry we did not communicate this clearly. The following FAQs are designed to answer some of the questions we’ve received; we’re always happy to address additional questions that come our way (info@acnatoo.org).
Why does ACNAtoo keep talking about GRACE?
GRACE is the only investigative firm we are aware of that has survivor-centered best practices built into their investigations. These practices are non-negotiable in every GRACE investigation.
Consequently, GRACE is the only firm that ACNAtoo could support without needing to review the investigative contract. As we stressed in our January 14, 2021 response to the Provincial investigation announcement, “with any firm besides GRACE (whose best-practice investigation parameters are non-negotiable), the only way for survivors to know whether the investigation is safe is for the specific contract and parameters to be published.”
The PRT declined to address public and private questions regarding GRACE and their standards for months, except to reassure ACNAtoo that GRACE was still being considered as a candidate. The ACNAtoo team repeatedly asked the Province to learn about GRACE and their investigation best practices so that the PRT could specifically insist on those best practices with another firm if GRACE was not able to do the investigation.
Did ACNAtoo know about a potential conflict of interest with GRACE?
Yes. Both ACNAtoo and the Province were aware of this potential conflict of interest, but the Province repeatedly assured our team members that GRACE was still an option.
Boz Tchividjian’s legal representation of one of the survivors was disclosed to Bp. Alan Hawkins on July 8, 2021 and has been known to everyone involved since that time. ACNAtoo worried this might constitute a conflict of interest but were unsure, which is why we repeatedly opened dialogue with the PRT to see if GRACE could be hired. The PRT would not engage our questions or listen to our suggestions beyond saying they were still considering GRACE as a possibility.
In fact, the PRT did not communicate any concerns about a conflict of interest until January 14, 2022, when they announced that they had hired investigative firm Husch Blackwell. Prior to this announcement, Bp. Alan Hawkins continually assured ACNAtoo team members that GRACE was still an option the PRT was considering:
On an August 25, 2021 video call with Bp. Hawkins and the ACNAtoo team, Bp. Hawkins was asked directly whether GRACE was being considered as an option; “Yes, although no decisions have been made yet,” he replied.
On November 3, 2021, an ACNAtoo team member asked Bp. Hawkins if GRACE was still an option and he assured the advocate that GRACE was still on the table.
On November 29, 2021 the PRT assured Joanna Rudenborg via email that “GRACE has been on our list from the beginning,” but declined to answer her direct questions about whether the PRT had contacted GRACE to see if they were able to carry out the investigation or, if GRACE was not hired, whether the PRT would commit to a GRACE-equivalent investigation.
(For full documentation of Joanna’s questions and the PRT’s answers, see this Twitter thread.)
The PRT has asserted that they received a legal notice on November 29, 2021 which “increased a conflict of interest that could not be overcome” – the same day they assured Joanna GRACE was still a potential candidate. Why did the PRT not then write back to Joanna or ACNAtoo, in the many weeks following, to say that they were unable to hire GRACE due to a conflict of interest?
Why did ACNAtoo ask the Province to hire GRACE in their recent petition, knowing there was a potential conflict of interest?
As explained above, as of our January 6, 2022 petition, the Province had not indicated to ACNAtoo that they had any concerns about a conflict of interest with GRACE, but rather had stated multiple times since the potential conflict was public that GRACE was in fact still a candidate.
Our petition noted that we had repeatedly asked the Province to hire GRACE, but it was not our purpose to demand GRACE as the only investigative firm option. We sought instead to explain why GRACE continued to be our first choice, because GRACE’s standards make them the only organization that can be trusted implicitly not to cooperate in protecting their client (the ACNA) over the safety and care of survivors.
We also sought to highlight the PRT’s refusal to explain why GRACE was not presented as an option for survivors to vote on. At the time of our petition, ACNAtoo had been asking about GRACE for months and received no answers beyond vague assurances that GRACE was still being considered. We wanted to understand why our questions continued to be ignored while the Province publicly asserted their “commitment to survivors.”
If the Province knew GRACE could not be hired, why would they not then commit to using GRACE’s model to ensure a thorough and impartial investigation into the Upper Midwest Diocese?
ACNAtoo stands firmly by our request that this investigation be carried out to GRACE standards and we continue to await clarification from the Province as to why they refuse to address our repeated calls for these standards to be upheld.
If GRACE can’t do the investigation, what’s wrong with Husch Blackwell, the firm even the recently-resigned PRT members endorse?
While both ACNAtoo and the three former PRT members want a thorough, survivor-safe investigation, our perspectives differ somewhat on the matter of the investigative firm Husch Blackwell.
ACNAtoo stands by our initial concerns about Husch Blackwell’s commitment to their clients’ needs (without regard for survivors) and their history of defending religious institutions at the expense of abuse victims. However, we believe that the scope, parameters, and investigative contract are far more important than the investigative firm itself, as explained in our recent blog post: Investigations 101: Public Contract & Scope.
While the PRT members were personally able to interview Husch Blackwell representatives directly, ACNAtoo survivors and advocates have had nothing to refer to in forming an opinion except Bp. Alan Hawkins’ personal assessment of the firm (emailed to survivors on January 5) and the firm’s website, neither of which gave satisfactory answers to our many concerns.
Back in August 2021, Bp. Alan Hawkins assured ACNAtoo advocates on a Zoom call that survivors would be given the same information and education that the PRT were given when deciding on a firm, so survivors could cast an informed vote in the firm selection process. Without any of this promised information, ACNAtoo survivors and advocates could not endorse the Husch investigation.
That being said, ACNAtoo recognizes that Husch Blackwell is a professional and capable firm that may be well equipped to carry out a thorough and safe investigation, if it were shown to participating survivors that their contract outlined appropriate survivor-safe standards.
Since the PRT refuses to disclose the contract between Husch Blackwell and the ACNA, our concerns about the Husch Blackwell investigation remain.
ACNAtoo is committed to transparency and we always want to know where we can do better. We are grateful to supporters who reach out to ask questions and give us the opportunity to clarify publicly where our communications have caused confusion.