Piecing It All Together:
Part 04, Official Channels

“Joanna Rudenborg, with the support and help of Cherin Marie, Eve Ahrens, and another advocate, emails Bp. Stewart Ruch and UMD and Greenhouse leaders Cn. Eirik Olsen, Cn. William Beasley, and Rev. Keith Hartsell.

In her email, Joanna explains at length why the situation with Mark Rivera is far worse than Church of the Resurrection and the UMD leaders seem to realize. She then begs Bp. Ruch to enlist an independent third party investigator as well as asks them to bring in professional help to train staff and church leaders and to advise the diocese on how to proceed in a safe manner.

“Please do not think you are an exception to the rule. Every great church scandal starts with a Mark Rivera. Every church thinks they will “handle” it. Every church thinks they’re a little bit different, that their predator is a little bit different, that they can get him and his victims counseling, and that will take care of it. Please don’t be every church. Please be better.”

That email is included in its entirety here, with significant redactions to protect the identities of the many victims and vulnerable people:
”

“Bp. Stewart Ruch replies to Joanna’s email, assuring her that it will be read carefully and taken seriously:

”Joanna:
Thank you for your email. I want you to know that it will be read carefully and taken seriously. There is quite a lot to digest here, so it may be awhile before you hear from us but be assured we will be absorbing what you have written.

Sincerely,
+Stewart and Eirik+”
”

“Joanna Rudenborg sends an email to Fr. Rand York, Christopher Lapeyre, and other COLA community members (her former neighbors), expressing her confusion and pain that she has not heard from any of them in weeks. She also addresses the fact that they have still not reached out to support Cherin and her daughter in light of these new allegations against Mark.

Joanna urges them to face the harm they did to Cherin’s family and calls all of them to action to protect and support Mark Rivera’s many reported victims and others who may still be vulnerable to his abuses.

In her email, Joanna openly names her role in enabling Mark’s abuse of another survivor and apologizes for how her actions have harmed her former neighbors and friends.

“If you have faced even a sliver of the reality I am facing, I understand the shame you feel. My silence about Mark raping me compounded all of this harm, for over two and a half years. My complicity in [redacted]’s abuse is virtually unforgivable. I allowed myself to be so deluded by Mark’s lies that I let him use my apartment to meet up with [redacted], two years ago, when she was barely 18. It’s all there, in the emails. Trust me, I know better than anyone, the shame of enabling a predator.”

“Not only did I gravely harm [redacted] by implicitly communicating my approval of what Mark was doing to her, but I betrayed you by being a part of it.”

“I want to conclude by reiterating that I am deeply and unconditionally sorry for every last way my enabling Mark contributed to your harm, and your families’ harm, including those ways I do not yet know about. I am so sorry.”

This email was shared in its entirety with Bishop Stewart Ruch and UMD leaders. ”

“Joanna replies to Bp. Stewart Ruch, thanking him for his prompt response and encouraging him to share her own abuse story and her communications to him with his advisors, as he sees fit.

“We all appreciate you responding so promptly, and look forward to hearing back from you when you’ve had a chance to digest and absorb further.

It just occurred to me that I should invite you to share this email with any relevant people: Rez pastors, other leaders, whomever you consult with as you’re discerning things. The same goes for my November email. The story is obviously personal and painful, and people have been sensitive to forwarding it, for that reason, which I appreciate. But at this point I’ve shared it with all my friends and family (the difficult part), and beyond that I just consider it to exist as a testimony that’s available to anyone looking into the larger situation.”

Read Joanna’s email to Bp. Ruch here:
”

“Eve Ahrens emails Anne Kessler to ask some clarifying questions that reiterate specific critical concerns that have been underscored multiple times by the survivor/advocate team.

“Do they also offer to represent the church in any ensuing litigation? Will they investigate/provide anonymous space for other victims to come forward, or are they just investigating the last two years? Are they familiar with predatory patterns of abusers with multiple victims and patterns of community responses and will they be investigating and providing training on both?. Please keep us updated as you gather more information.”

Read Eve’s email to Anne Kessler here:
”

“Anne Kessler emails Eve Ahrens to say that Eve’s expressed concerns continue to be at the forefront of the Diocesan team’s investigation priorities.

“Yes, I have all of the focus points you have provided and continue to keep them in the forefront as I work through the search process. All of your priority points and providing me with some of the key terms and language (i.e. trauma focused and victim centered) have been extremely helpful to me! Thank you!”

Read Anne Kessler’s email to Eve here:
”

“Joanna Rudenborg emails Anne Kessler, cc’ing not just Bp. Stewart and Lay Cn. Brenda Dumper, as previously, but also Fr. Steve Williamson and Cn. Eirik Olsen. Her email is longer and more detailed than previous emails and carefully explains, yet again, the objectives of a third-party investigation, referring at length to her own extensive research on the topic.

Joanna cites her growing concern that the Diocesan team’s responses, especially the investigation firms they are considering, do not indicate that they understand crucial elements of the process or the parameters that must be in place for the investigation to achieve objectives of truth-telling, accountability, education, and the transformation of the Upper Midwest Diocese into a safe place for vulnerable people.

Joanna identifies red flags with the three potential investigative firms and provides multiple news articles that serve as case studies for the ways independent investigations have gone terribly wrong in other church responses to sexual abuse.

Joanna mentions that the diocese’s communications indicate a prioritization of concerns with legal liability over serving those who have been abused. She again reminds the Diocesan team that the survivors “want transformation, not adjudication.”

Joanna expresses the survivors’ disappointment that GRACE (due to its own high standards of victim protection) cannot perform the independent investigation while court cases against Mark Rivera are pending, and she asks the diocese to pause and, given these limitations, think creatively about equivalent options.

After laying out in painstaking detail how GRACE (the gold standard for independent investigators of church sexual abuse cases) conducts a survivor-centered investigation not seen elsewhere in the field, Joanna explains how an investigation that does not live up to those standards could actually do more harm than good for survivors.

She concludes:

”...my official stance is that I’d prefer to wait and get a better understanding of what a GRACE assessment might accomplish, and put the brakes on enlisting an independent investigation, unless and until we can find an investigator that can speak to every concern I brought up in this letter, and satisfy Cherin and me that they are able to do a GRACE-level job finding and reporting the truth, not merely performing a perfunctory adjudication that risks leaving victims worse off than we were before.”

Read Joanna’s email here:
”

“Cherin Marie, alarmed that the diocese does not seem to grasp the components of a survivor-safe investigation, emails Anne Kessler and Bp. Stewart’s team for the first time, echoing Joanna’s concerns that an investigation not done to GRACE’s standards will be worse than no investigation at all.

Cherin asks that the diocese wait until the pending court cases conclude before attempting an independent investigation. She requests that, in the meantime, the Diocese hire GRACE for what services they can provide: assessing current policies and procedures and helping to establish a trauma-informed response team to field other survivors who come forward.

“After reading through their websites and doing some general research about these three firms, I am extremely concerned about all of them, for numerous reasons, and I am grieved that some are even being considered as options by the diocese.”

“Even the slightest discrepancy in witness accounts can lead to a case being dismissed, and a predator walking free, which is exactly why GRACE is unwilling to take any steps that might lead to this happening. Because of this, I would not be able to give interviews to or even speak with any of these firms, should the diocese hire them, as it would be unsafe for me or my family to do so.”

“I realize that ultimately this decision belongs to the diocese, and that I do not have any right to ask for my voice to be considered in relation to this decision. I am nonetheless urging you to reconsider these options. My family is specifically asking the diocese to hire GRACE, if it is willing to do so.”

Read Cherin’s email to Anne Kessler here:
”

“Anne Kessler emails Cherin Marie and Joanna Rudenborg to assure them that she is reviewing and carefully considering their ongoing concerns about the independent investigation. Anne indicates that the Diocesan team will be doing more work and will inform the survivor/advocate team when they have arrived at a decision.

“We have a good deal of homework to do over the next few weeks and we will let you know when we’ve arrived at our decision.”

Read Anne Kessler’s email to Joanna and Cherin here:
”

“Joanna Rudenborg emails Anne Kessler and team to recommend resources that she has found helpful from experts in the field of abuse in institutional settings, including Boz Tchividjian, Rachael Denhollander, and Wade Mullen.

Joanna reiterates her desire that the two teams continue to collaborate until a mutually satisfactory solution to the investigative issues can be found.

Read Joanna’s email to Anne Kessler and Diocesan leaders here:
”

“Anne Kessler emails Joanna Rudenborg thanking her for these resources.

“Thanks for sending along this information Joanna! I’ve already listened to Julie Roy’s interview...it was very good. I look forward to diving into the rest.”

Read Anne Kessler’s email to Joanna here:
”

“Anne Kessler emails Joanna Rudenborg and Cherin Marie, indicating that she has narrowed the investigation search down effectively to two firms: RLV (Rebecca Leitman Veidlinger Investigations) and Aequitask.

Anne addresses Cherin’s primary concern by assuring the survivors of her confidence that, regardless of what investigator the diocese chooses,“no harm will come to the ongoing criminal cases.”

Read Anne Kessler’s email to Joanna here:
”

“Joanna Rudenborg emails Anne Kessler another detailed list of concerns with RLV and Aequitask.

Joanna explains that she is willing to consider these two investigative firms if and only if the diocese will set strict parameters that ensure the chosen firm operates along the same parameters GRACE uses for its own investigations.

Joanna identifies how these parameters level the playing field for survivors rather than cater to the liability concerns of the “client” (the diocese) and also ensure a maximally safe trauma-informed process. Such parameters are necessary for survivors of abuse still at large in the diocese, whose decision to come forward (and the care they will receive after doing so) hinges on the quality of the investigator’s resources for discovery and response.


“My question is, according to the more extensive research you’ve done, or questions you could still ask in your final decision-making process, can RLV or Aequitask set up an investigation that accomplishes the following:

* Does an excellent job making victims feel safe to come forward, including providing a female interviewer for victims who may not feel comfortable disclosing their abuse to a man, and stating clearly in their outreach to potential witnesses / victims, that no one in the church will know that they have spoken to the investigator. (I picture this process involving a separate encouraging invitation from Stewart, to all church members and anyone on the contact list, to please speak to the investigator if they know anything at all, emphasizing total confidentiality. I think people will feel safer and be more likely to participate, if Stewart says it publicly, as the first point of contact, rather than them hearing it first from some firm they know nothing about.)

* Opens up this invitation to all victims of any church members or leaders at any time in COLA’s or Rez’s history, not just Mark, and deals with any cases as they arise, including understanding why the victim did not come forward before, or if they did, what kind of response they received. This will help contribute essential data to the larger conversation about culture and training.

* Opens the invitation up to anyone with any information about Mark or other grooming or abuse or mishandling of allegations, whether or not the people coming forward with information were themselves victims. (I assume this is automatically stated in the public invitation to come forward, that any investigator sends out, but just to cover my bases.)
Sets up a team of professionals to help the victims begin to address their trauma. (You mentioned this already; I’m just being thorough.)

* Specifically writes “attorney-client privilege” as not existing, into the contract. (It sounds like you are heading this way, anyway, but for the record.)

* Records interviews and keeps thorough, confidential records that could be individually verified if someone disputes the way they are represented in the final report. (I’m writing this per the complaints about the Wheaton Aequitask investigation.)

* Pursues and reports thoroughly on instances of mishandled allegations, enabling of predators, and any careless / ignorant / unfounded comments or conversations that contributed to these things, regardless of the culpable party’s intentions, in order to aid a larger organizational assessment (whether done by the investigator or another organization).

* Tells all the victims’ stories in great detail (unless a given victim requests otherwise), per GRACE’s example.
Publishes the report of the findings (that the diocese will put online), with appropriate victim confidentiality, but without confidentiality for any non-victim adults who are involved and implicated in contributing to harm.”

Read Joanna’s email to Anne Kessler here:
”