From: ACNAtoo Advocacy Team
Date: Oct 11, 2021, 3:34 PM
To: Alan Hawkins
Subject: Additional follow-up re: Keith Hartsell

Greetings,

Thank you, Alan, for answering some of our questions in your reply to [redacted] and clarifying a little bit more what actually took place in Keith’s interactions with the Province immediately following our release of “Carol’s” story. We appreciate your honesty.

There are still a few details on which we are unclear. 

Why did you choose the provincial leader (left anonymous: why?) and Chancellor (who is not Jeff Garrety?) to do the evaluation meeting with Keith regarding whether the Bishop’s Council would need to take immediate action? Is this to uphold subsidiarity regarding disciplinary action? Obviously, it was determined by this duo that no action was necessary (at least no public one), despite not attempting to interview Carol as well to check the facts or challenge what Keith offered in his rebuttal. Was their purpose simply to see if the allegations merited action by the Bishop’s Council? If so, why was “Carol” not interviewed?

Why did these two evaluators take Keith’s statements at face value? 

The information we have heard from those whom Keith has spoken to privately includes facts in his defense which cannot coincide truthfully with Carol’s story. I am fully aware that in some situations and events, there can be two (or more!) sides to a story; however, there are details in Carol’s story that cannot be both/and. For example, either Keith did or did not bring along a female youth volunteer.

Also, per our conversation prior to the seating of PRT members, you agreed that having Alex Cameron chairing the Bishop’s Council was unforeseen by the Province and problematic due to his proximity to Keith. Given that the UMD’s constitutions and canons are up for review, which would include the Bishop’s Council and their role as Ecclesiastical Trial Court (Art III here) of the diocese, we lack faith that the Bishop’s Council can actually follow through with proper disciplinary actions. (Doubtless you are seeing the reasons why action within this diocese has rarely occurred against persons who have secure connections with the governing bodies with supposed ecclesiastical power to judge.)

And finally, did these two individuals actually tell Keith that they were “relieved” and “impressed” with his handling of the events surrounding Carol’s story, or did Keith lie about this to his congregation? If the former, we are concerned that the message being sent to Keith’s church and to the larger diocese is that this evaluating team (which Keith mistakenly named as the PRT itself) has the role of both investigating as well as adjudicating all reports submitted to them; you confirmed that no third-party investigative firm has been hired yet, and that they would be responsible for determining the veracity of the reports. What you have assured us is dismantled by what Keith has already spread widely amongst the entire diocese. The effect of this is not only the confusion of congregants, but also the loss of confidence for survivors to feel safe making any contact with the PRT.

If the latter - that Keith lied to his congregation and to the larger diocesan community - then your Sept. 8th commendation to the clergy was too late. It has not prevented the dangerous spread of misinformation. What has been said publicly has already almost certainly circulated far and for over a month. The gravity and validity of victims’ stories has therefore been undermined. Should information be provided in the future that proves Keith has lied, the Province’s response will be shown to be incompetent.

At this time, a public follow-up from the PRT or Provincial leadership to correct the errors in Keith Hartsell’s Sept. 5th Cornerstone Anglican Church - Portage Park announcement would follow a best-practices approach to a thorough investigatory process. Deceptive messaging needs to be called out and corrected. Confronting this is uncomfortable, understandably, but at the same time it is not only necessary, but urgent. You have communicated to us repeatedly your desire for the current course of events to proceed with all commitment to truth and justice, with the sincere hopes that reform, growth, and preservation of the diocese and larger denomination can be achieved. There is a clear opportunity here to follow through with that desire and commitment. 

Sincerely,

Audrey Luhmann and the ACNAtoo Team