Date: March 11, 2021
From: Anne Kessler 
To: Joanna Rudenborg, Cherin Marie
Cc: Eve Ahrens, [redacted advocate], Brenda Dumper, Stewart Ruch, Eirik Olsen, Helen Keuning 

Dear Joanna and Cherin,

I appreciate your careful thoughts from your last emails and I have some clarifications and additional information that I hope will be helpful. 

I have spent hours researching/interviewing all four of the firms mentioned in previous emails. I believe perhaps there are nuances lost in only viewing particular websites. I am finding that even though one firm may indicate a specialty or focus in one area, it does not mean that they lack in other areas. 

I also think we have some challenges in using the broad term "investigation." The term has so many meanings and until you explore the specifics of each individual case and learn what the priorities are, you can't know what each "investigation" should entail or what specific path it should or shouldn't take. I found agreement with all of the firms I researched, that they would not investigate/interfere with any portion of this case that has an active legal proceeding still pending. What they do say is that they can start the investigation by focusing on finding other victims or survivors. They all use a process that ensures safe, secure, and anonymous reporting.  Importance is also placed in making sure that the proper process is in place to help other victims/survivors once they are identified. One step in that process is to ensure new victims/survivors have immediate access to professionals who are equipped to address such cases. 

I started with six firms and quickly discarded two of them. I personally spent hours speaking to and researching the other four and have narrowed it down to two firms which I believe would do an excellent job for everyone involved. 

Lathrop GPM, LLP:
After deeper research I also came to the conclusion that this is not the right firm for our case. They seem to me to be more of a "law firm" and their focus is to "protect" the organization, handling PR issues, and seem to lean toward "legal privilege." None of these match up to what our priorities are.  

RLV:
In RLV's case, their owner, Rebecca Veidlinger, has 25 years’ experience in investigation/assessment work and actually trains and educates other investigating firms in using the "trauma informed/victim centered" approach. They are super responsive, replying within 12 to 24 hours of any request I submitted. This organization was referred to us by Wheaton College and they have used RLV on several sexual misconduct cases. The college indicated that they were impressed with RLV's process and how organized they were in setting up the online database to reach other victims, how efficient they were at getting the public letters out, and careful thought behind utilizing electronic links for greater access to alumni. They are very detailed about what support structures need to be in place and when.  

Aequitask:
These folks would definitely not rush through this process.  I believe that there are times when an organization must get to the truth as quickly as possible. I believe that is what was meant on their website. When you think about a case where a college professor is accused of sexual misconduct, answers to that allegation must be found out as quickly as possible. The college would need this information in order to fire and remove them from campus so they do not harm anyone else. I also have several individuals who have been directly involved in cases with Aequitask. Wheaton College reported that everyone (college and victims) held this company in "high regard."  We have direct knowledge from a victim's viewpoint who stated, " Bruce Melton was a gracious, gentle and precise investigator in my experience.  He handled delicate issues with care, ascertaining what he needed with dignity to all parties involved.  He is extremely professional and compassionate."  Bruce Melton, lead investigator, would handle this case personally and would give it his full attention. 

 GRACE:
I don't think there is any doubt that GRACE is a very solid company and has done tremendous work in this field. I don't know why they are lacking in their responsiveness, but it greatly concerns me. Perhaps this is just a result of Boz Tchividjian stepping down and perhaps they need time to adjust to their reorganization. If it were one instance where they were delayed in getting back to us that would be one thing. But at every turn, they seem to drag the process down.  Another troubling detail that I think speaks volumes is in the cost-over-time analysis.  I've asked each firm for a ballpark cost or what we should be thinking in terms of budgeting.  Although all 4 companies charge comparable rates for their per-hour work, the other three have a shorter timeline. GRACE seems to stretch the same number of billed hours over many months. That tells me that they will put about the same amount of hours in as the other firms, but take much, much longer to produce results and closure.  This concerns me greatly. We need to find any other victim's as quickly as possible. As a Diocese, we need professionals who will help us see what we did wrong and what we are doing right. We need tools to better educate our Pastors, Leaders, and families. We need all of this in a timely and efficient manner. After the critical parts of this case have been addressed, I am very interested in circling back around to GRACE's program "Safeguarding Initiative."  It seems really solid and is something we can engage in even if we don't use them for this specific case.

I believe we are all in agreement that the number one priority is to find other victims and/or survivors. Second, we need an independent analysis of our internal processes and where mistakes were made. Third, we need to be given the tools to improve and learn where processes are lacking. 

I truly believe that three of these four companies would do an excellent job, first and foremost for any potential victims, but also for the Church.  I am also confident that no harm would come to the ongoing criminal cases.  All of the candidates are very clear about that.  I would like you to know that the decision of which firm to go with is mine and I will be the sole contact with the firm as they go about their work.  No one will have input into their inquiry, not folks at the church and not people who are rightly invested in seeing this effort go forward, such as yourselves.  That is because the independence of the effort is critical to its integrity.  This responsibility has fallen to me in part because I have no past encounters with Mark of any kind.  It is a responsibility that I regard as a sacred trust and I ask for your prayers for wisdom and discernment as I move forward.

Blessings,
Anne