Why We’re Here: A Reminder on the Forthcoming Report
The ACNA Province announced on Sept. 7th that the Husch-Blackwell investigation into the mishandling of sexual abuse reporting in the Upper Midwest Diocese (UMD) is nearing completion. With Husch-Blackwell’s redacted investigative report soon to be publicly available, ACNAtoo would like to offer a reminder of our primary concerns regarding this investigation.
The investigation was not approved by the majority of survivors.
The ACNA’s statement says that Husch Blackwell was hired “after selection by a unanimous vote of the Provincial Response Team (PRT) and majority vote of the survivors who participated in the firm selection process.” Bp. Alan Hawkins, the Provincial Response Team’s point person with Mark Rivera’s survivors, did verbally promise that survivors would have a vote on selection of the investigation firm but repeatedly refused (in both written and spoken communication) to clarify who “counted” as a survivor. Bp. Hawkins not only refused to define “survivor,” he did not even attempt to contact multiple publicly-known survivors, all of whose contact information was known to survivors who were in contact with the Province. The PRT ultimately hired Husch-Blackwell without offering a voting opportunity to at least seven of Mark Rivera’s known survivors.
These survivors became aware that Provincial leadership had narrowed its search down to two investigative firms and had called for a vote, all while not seeking to contact them, refusing to clarify who could even vote, and continuing to ignore survivor and advocate requests to explain how either of these firms would execute a safe and transparent investigation. Ultimately nine survivors of Mark Rivera signed a Petition to the Province in Jan. 2022, urging Provincial leadership to change course. This petition gained more than 675 public signatures but was ultimately ignored by the ACNA.
Without disclosure of the investigative contract or a commitment to waive attorney-client privilege, these survivors felt they could not safely disclose their stories of abuse and church mishandling to Husch-Blackwell. (For further context on why both these steps are essential to a thorough and transparent investigation, read our blog posts about public contract and scope and waiving attorney-client privilege.)
The investigation has been criticized by the ACNA’s own hand-selected survivor advocates.
We are also extremely concerned about the pending investigation report based on the insight of people who did participate in the Husch-Blackwell hiring process. As former PRT member Rev. Gina Roes stated:
“…each firm is following abnormal and highly concerning procedures, as dictated by their respective contracts with the Province – contracts no one (including the three of us) outside of ACNA provincial leadership has been allowed to see. (We have confirmed with multiple attorneys that the investigations’ confidentiality protections are substandard and unusual.)”
Autumn VandeHei, another PRT member who resigned over what she termed “deceptions and conflicts of interest,” decried the lack of survivor confidentiality and other serious deficiencies in the process in a statement here. Helen Keuning confirmed this lack of confidentiality and raised the concern that the UMD Bishop’s Council was expected to pay for 50% of the Husch-Blackwell investigation without being allowed to see the contract. In short, many of our publicly-stated concerns about the investigation were corroborated by people who had been in the room as the PRT’s decisions were made.
The investigation is very likely missing crucial evidence.
As stated above, the majority of survivors known to ACNAtoo declined to participate in the investigation, since it was clearly not safe for them. In addition to this, because the ACNA refused to waive attorney-client privilege, it is highly likely that relevant evidence covered by this privilege (any communication between UMD or ACNA leaders where legal counsel was present or copied) has not been made available to investigators. Given that former UMD lawyer Charles Philbrick allegedly advised church leadership in 2019 that they did not need to report child sexual abuse to the authorities, the waiving of attorney-client privilege was demonstrably crucial in this investigation.
A third-party investigation cannot be thorough or accurate without an examination of all relevant evidence. Experts agree that the recent high-profile investigation into the Southern Baptist Convention’s mishandling of abuse would have failed to uncover the key evidence it did, had the SBC not waived attorney-client privilege (Guidepost Report, pp. 9, 20). The same principle applies to the ACNA investigation: UMD leaders with the most at stake reputationally have not been required to share any number of crucial known and unknown facts with Husch-Blackwell, potentially undermining the entire stated objective of the investigation.
Nevertheless, we hope UMD and ACNA leaders have sought to live in the light during this investigation, offering up complete evidence—even if unflattering or incriminating—to bring the truth to light. We hope that this investigation report leads to essential changes throughout the province that will protect children and adults from the predators in our midst. Christians are called to nothing less.