Date: March 15, 2021
From: Joanna Rudenborg
To: Anne Kessler
Cc: Eve Ahrens, Cherin Marie, [redacted advocate], Brenda Dumper, Stewart Ruch, Eirik Olsen, Helen Keuning

Dear Anne,

Thank you for this very detailed report back. I deeply appreciate how much work you’ve done to look into our concerns and find out more about the organizations and what they’re able to do. Here are some of my updated thoughts, based on what you wrote.

I agree with you that GRACE’s lack of timely responses is concerning, so the following isn’t trying to convince you to use them for the investigation (which would then be greatly delayed). I just want to use GRACE’s past work as a benchmark for thinking about what Aequitask or RLV might be able to do.

One thing I love about GRACE is their reports. First of all, that they provide a report to all the victims they interview, and to the institution. That’s essential. It’s very important to me that the full investigation findings be published on the diocese’ website, for everyone to see. I am concerned that Wheaton didn’t disclose Aequitask's final report of the Blackmon investigation. Obviously victim confidentiality is important, but my thought is, that’s what redactions are for. It’s been a moment since I read through Julie’s coverage of that story, but from what I recall, in the end, information seems to have come out in more detail because Blackmon himself spoke about the allegations publicly, and the College was forced to come back and publicly answer him.

I assume there exists a detailed report of all Aequitask's findings in this case, but it seems that their clients are free to publish the reports or not, as they choose, and that the victims, or complainants, do not necessarily get a copy of the report.

So one of our priorities is that this investigation be publicly reported, both that it’s going on (which I assume is part of the process of finding additional victims), and then the final report appearing online, for the permanent record.

My second concern is the quality and scope of the final report. I’ve read a couple GRACE reports most of the way through, and skimmed others. What they do such a good job of is telling the story in great detail, sparing nothing, glossing over nothing. They have so many parts of each story told in the victims’ and witnesses' own words, transcribed from actual interviews, and they do such a good job describing all the background situations and context. The reports are thorough, gritty, personal, and hard-hitting, all while being exhaustively documented and factually careful. They read like real stories about real humans, which they are, and not like a lawyer carefully sterilized everything and sapped the lifeblood out of it.

So that’s become my bar. A GRACE report would make me feel, as a victim, like the story had really been told, and we could all move on to the next steps of reckoning.

So far I haven’t found an Aequitask report to review. I’m wondering if Aequitask has given you any sample reports, or if they have any online, that I can look through?

I also recall that critics of the Wheaton College Blackmon investigation complained that Bruce Melton didn’t electronically record the interviews he did with them, and then mischaracterized what they said. They may be wrong about the mischaracterizing, but if he didn’t record the interviews, there’s no way for anyone to check that. So that’s concerning. (Who investigates the investigator, and how?) Leslie Weinzettel at Rez is one of the people who complained about Bruce’s Blackmon investigation, so she might be a good person to reach out to, for the other side of that story. (I don’t know her and haven’t spoken with her, but her name is in the news reports.)

I did find an RLV investigation report of Lake Forest District High School. I read parts of this when writing the previous email to you, about the various organizations. I have mixed feelings. In many ways it is a solid investigation, and I think she did her job well, which was to assess the school district’s conduct in light of Title IX. It is just hard for me to tell from this report whether she’s set up to do a farther-reaching investigation that is focused on what all the contributing factors were, for instance, to the mishandling of [Cherin's daughter]’s allegations in 2019, not in terms of legal liability, but in terms of actual harm done. We are hoping for a story to be told that robustly answers questions such as: How did [Cherin’s family] come to lose two home churches, in a matter of months (COLA and then Rez), because they were made to feel distinctly uncomfortable and unsafe, attending either church, as a direct consequence of their daughter being abused by the first church’s catechist?

That is the type of incredibly difficult and painful question whose answer can bring about crucial cultural change so that others don’t go through what [Cherin’s family] did, with all its many cascading effects (such as silencing other victims). We are concerned that RLV isn’t equipped to ask these more difficult questions, and report the answers like GRACE would, but again, that’s based on what we can read online.

Back to Aequitask: it looks like Bruce sometimes does his own investigations, but they also often act as a middleman assembling a team of investigators tailored to a certain case. This makes me wonder if they would be able to do a more GRACE-like investigation, if Bruce were clear that that’s what the client wanted. On this page, for instance, the third bullet point mentions an investigation where the client specifically cedes attorney-client privilege, something that was very important to me on the list of GRACE’s unusual requirements of their clients.

So I’m open to learning if Aequitask is able to assemble a trauma-informed investigative team (with at least one female investigator available to perform victim interviews) that is committed to telling a very complete story, including finding and reporting details that may implicate individuals who would normally tend to be protected from criticism as having contributed, in whatever small and large ways, to the possibly 20+ years of enabling Mark and the last two years’ abuse of [Cherin’s family].

It is hard to state these priorities without sounding vindictive, but seemingly small words and actions (and inactions) can mean everything in these situations, and in-depth truth-telling means some people, including at Rez, not just COLA, are going to learn that things they did were incredibly harmful, even though they did not intend them that way. I have had to learn that, recently, myself, about many of my actions and inactions over the past three years. It’s a vital step in redemption and reconciliation, and the process won’t be complete without it. I personally know of a number of harmful things that were said, over the last two years, in the greater church sphere, and who said them, and how those people still don’t know the harm they did, and are not safe to be confronted on it, by those who were harmed. So when I think about reading this report, knowing that people who are interviewed will tell of these things, hoping the investigator will do what they themselves are not safe to do, I wonder: Will I read about this harm? Will it ever be addressed? Will the people who did this harm really learn anything from this report, or just be able to say to themselves, “Well, I didn’t do anything to contribute to this; I’m not implicated; it was others who failed….”

Will either of these investigators investigate the story in that much detail? Will their final report present all the witness and victim accounts of how people in the Church unconsciously enabled a predator? Will it expose the various implicit biases that led to much of the heartbreak we’re now dealing with? I’m not convinced Aequitask or RLV can’t do this; I’m just hoping to hear through you, that they’ve committed to doing this, because they know that the diocese truly desires to know as much as they can, even if it cuts very deeply in some instances.

So let me go back to using bullet points, since I’m getting long-winded again. It sounds to me like there is substantial flexibility in the scope of investigations these companies can do, and that perhaps your guidance of them is important in getting the desired results. 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.

Those are my considerations. I’m glad to hear you’re solely in charge of this, and will be the only one dealing directly with the investigator. I agree entirely about “investigation” being a flexible term, and I sincerely hope one of these organizations can do what I wish GRACE could do for us, that they can’t.

With gratitude, again, for all your hard work,
Joanna