MK forum

Discuss anything MK here
It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:02 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Vianopolis Abuse Reports
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:27 pm
Posts: 4954
Cagey Mango wrote:
I am sickened, but not surprised by august19's post. NTM would throw a bone to victims, slap abusers on the hand, and gloss things over for everyone else, telling them to "Keep moving, nothing to see here."

It is 2014, and this is how they are handling things? How can anyone trust that current and future abuse in NTM will ever be treated any differently? I know they can't go back in time to do things differently, but based on how they are protecting abusers now - I doubt they would if they could.

Raz has a hard copy of my report. I am posting this because I want her to have the freedom to state her impressions of the report for the benefit of others. I trust her and I know she will not relay any identifying information.


I am starting a new thread that perhaps will grow, as others find courage in Cagey Mango's example and begin contributing information about abuse at Vianopolis.

Yes, it is true that CM has mailed me a hard copy of the entire packet they received (from IHART I think? Correct me if I am wrong about who has mailed the individual reports to survivors.)

I have a number of observations/impressions.

Let me start by making this clear: I now see with my own eyes why these reports are absolutely unsuitable for general publication.

There is very specific information in them, detailing abuse incidents, that without question expose the victims to being identified -- by their abuser, by witnesses, or by any others who have heard accounts of specific incidents, either from the victim or from others.

Of the six abusers and two field leaders named, only one is deceased, as far as I can tell. That means any or all the rest of them may read this very post I am writing. It is completely understandable that survivors would be fearful at the thought that an adult who abused them as a child might read the words they used to describe an incident that traumatized them deeply.

I will be back with further observations later, but this is the first point I wish to make with heartfelt certainty.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 11:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:27 pm
Posts: 4954
Impressions, continued.

The packet of documents I have received from CM contains 21 separate documents or letters, for a total of 34 pages.

There is no way this could be considered a cohesive "report", which is another factor which makes it unsuitable for posting publicly.

And yes, many pages have a "CONFIDENTIAL" watermark across them, and/or this paragraph at the bottom, warning:"This document may contain information that is PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL OR EXEMPT from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended ONLY for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the receiver of this transmission is not the intended recipient, or the employee or responsible agent thereof, then any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited."

So I guess I might be in big, big trouble, since I am not the individual or entity to which this information is addressed.

:shock:

Furthermore, this packet of papers is not in electronic form. This would make it very challenging to post on a website like Fanda Eagles. Much of it is repetitious. I feel like I am wading through a lot of redundancy to find the significant information I am looking for.

I think we need a "shaking my head" emoticon.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 11:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:28 pm
Posts: 51
There is very specific information in them, detailing abuse incidents, that without question expose the victims to being identified -- by their abuser, by witnesses, or by any others who have heard accounts of specific incidents, either from the victim or from others.

To me, that's why it's key that these reports stay confidential to a degree. Yes, expose the perpetrators, but don't do so in a way that exposes the victims. That would only further victimize them. Every victim has the right to have their story told or not told under their terms.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:04 pm
Posts: 3572
SHAKE AND BAKE!
I'd like to bake those deceivers.
Boz must be shaking his head too.
How in the name of truth and transparency
Which we have read so many times
In ntm statements
IF and when they came out
Can these reports be called anything
That would help survivors????
That's just the point
They don't.
Now they have to compile their own report?
Despicable!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:27 pm
Posts: 4954
Anything that I post word-for-word from any of the documents sent me is going to require re-typing them. Therefore I will be selective.

From the IHART VIANOPOLIS INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY (From Patricia Hendrix, IHART Coordinator, Jan. 15, 2014):

General observations about the field during the time frame investigated

During the course of this investigation it was determined that prior to the year 2000 there were very few protocols in place to address complaints of misconduct toward children or inappropriate behavior now identified as child abuse. Leadership relied on a "Philosophy of Conduct" and members were expected to live in obedience to God and in submission to His Word, taking responsibility for their choices and the consequences of their choices.

In the US, child abuse began to receive national attention in the mid to late 1960s when mandatory reporting laws came into effect for certain professionals. In the mid-1980s that was extended to other occupations including teachers and other school staff. These laws were only enforceable in the USA, but it is noted that NTM did not immediately create comparable policies for their overseas schools. During this time period, complaints that were received overseas, and sent to the NTM Headquarters in Sanford, were stored in either one large file for the field, or in a personnel folder if an action was taken.

The investigation confirmed that in the early 1980s, allegations of suspicious and inappropriate behavior by a dorm parent toward children in his care began to be reported. An attempt was made to address this behavior but a lack of follow-up allowed these actions to continue and escalate to a level that the investigators determined to be abusive.

Some staffing decisions regarding dorm parents and teachers were indicative of a shortage of staff, rather than the overall welfare of children. Accusations made by children were not taken seriously or rebuffed entirely. The attempts to substantiate allegations by children were insufficient. Reports were not always passed on to the Executive Committee. This resulted in occurrences of alleged offenders remaining in close proximity to the children they had been accused of abusing, creating an atmosphere of distrust.

Following the development of protocols, there was some significant improvement in the processing of allegations of abuse, however problems continued to exist. Although policies in place allowed for prompt responses to allegations, porcedures were not always followed. Some autonomous actions and decisions at the field level required action by the Executive Committee to ensure the removal of some offenders.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:04 pm
Posts: 3572
The GRACE Report is looking more honest/ robust/ and useful by the minute.
Holding you up, Raz.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:27 pm
Posts: 4954
dbarney wrote:
Because of the graphic nature of the reports IHART assures us that "Please make it clear to the survivors that they were the only ones who received their statement of finding. Ex: __________ only received the statement of finding that was theirs, no one else did.


Tambo MK wrote:
There is very specific information in them, detailing abuse incidents, that without question expose the victims to being identified -- by their abuser, by witnesses, or by any others who have heard accounts of specific incidents, either from the victim or from others.

To me, that's why it's key that these reports stay confidential to a degree. Yes, expose the perpetrators, but don't do so in a way that exposes the victims. That would only further victimize them. Every victim has the right to have their story told or not told under their terms.


Yes. Tambo MK, I agree with you. These Via reports, in the form in which they are written, do need to stay confidential. If they are "graphic in nature" then of course, by all means they should be kept private.

The question arises, were these reports written this way by design, so that they would never be published, in order to protect the organization which paid for the investigation? Or does this show a lack of understanding of how to write an abuse report in such a way as to expose evil while still keeping the victims of abuse safely unidentified? If it is latter, then I suggest this should be corrected before any further time and money are spent on putting together the Panama report, or the Bolivia report in the future.

I have read other abuse investigation reports which, in my opinion, were suitable for posting publicly.

The IHART investigation report on abuse at Vianopolis clearly is NOT.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 1:52 pm
Posts: 8
Hi friends,

I've been part of these forums for years now, but I have some information about the IHART reports to post here. I am doing so under a new username, in order to protect myself and also to preserve the privacy of other victims.

I will post each part of the report in separate posts. I will obviously not post anything that will disclose personal testimony of any of the victims, unless it is my own.

First:

IHART
910 Willowbrook Dr., SE #1
Hunstville, AL 3502

April 21, 2014

As I write this note to those who participated in the Vianopolis investigation, I can't help by admire those who came forward to trust IHART and its investigators with your stories. It is not an easy process to go through and we deeply appreciate the trust you had in us. Thank you.

Enclosed you will find the results of the investigation. I pray this brings some amount of closure and that the healing process can begin. Each of you are a hero in my book.

Shalom,
Pat Hendrix
IHART Coordinator
(contact info)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 1:52 pm
Posts: 8
<NTM letterhead>

March 18, 2014

Dear MK,
It is with profound sadness that I write to you, having read the results of the independent investigation of East Brazil. As you will learn when you receive a packet from Ms. Hendrix, the IHART Coordinator, the results affirm that you were hurt by a member of NTM, someone who should have been your protector. Words fall short of the anger and grief I feel as I read the results of this report. On behalf of the Executive Board, I am writing to say that we are very sorry for what you have experienced. Since keeping your confidentiality is part of our process and I have not been given your name, I'm unable to make this letter more personal but I trust you can read my heart in it.

Thank you for your courage in speaking out and telling your story to the investigative team. Your courage has helped us become much more aware of the signs of abuse and the indescribable damage done to the precious life of a child. I want to assure you that we have taken aggressive steps in our efforts to prevent this form happening to any other children. You have been very instrumental in this endeavor.

These investigations have affirmed our need to have an independent group confirm abuse, connect with survivors, and follow up with them regarding the findings of the investigations.

We have asked Ms. Hendrix, the coordinator of the investigation, to send you:

1. A summary of the complete report.
2. A report written by Ms. Hendrix and her team that provides specific information related to your testimony, the person or persons who wronged you, and the specific outcomes recommended by the independent panel that evaluated the report.
3. A letter to you to inform you of the steps NTM USA is taking regarding the person or persons who wronged you.

If you would like to communicate with someone from NTM, we would welcome a conversation with you. If you would like to pursue counseling, we will financially help you with that as well. Since your identity has been held in confidence by the investigative team and not revealed to us, please make your wishes known to Pat Hendrix.

We thank you for your bravery and patience in sharing your story. You have made a difference.

With utmost respect.
Larry Brown
(contact info)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 3:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 1:52 pm
Posts: 8
IHART
Independent Historical Abuse Review Team
VIANOPLIS INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY

Date: January 15, 2014
From: Pat Hendrix, IHART coordinator
RE: Investigation of historical allegations of abuse occurring at the NTM Boarding School at Vianopolis, Brazil

BACKGROUND

Brief Introductory Statement about the investigative agency and its history


The independent Historical Abuse Response Team (IHART) was established in February 2011, in response to allegations by survivors in countries where New Tribes Missions operated. IHART is charged with receiving and investigating allegations of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse.

The diverse IHART investigative team was comprised of retired law enforcement personnel, ordained pastors, and a psychologist with a combined total of over 250 years of criminal investigative experience, pastoral care, and counseling. This report is the result of a lengthy and comprehensive investigation. Information developed was the result of tireless communication with survivors to gain their knowledge and description of abuse endured by them and their fellow students. This report was only possible through their unselfish courage and desire to be heard.

Briefly Describe the scope of the investigation

In May, 2011 IHART was tasked with investigating allegations of abuse in East Brazil. Abuse is alleged to have occurred from 1983 until 1998. The investigation was broadened to include leadership issued as recently as 2009. The majority of interviews were conducted in the USA either by phone or in person. To gain a better understanding, the members of the investigative team traveled to East Brazil to conduct some interview

Briefly describe the necessary background information about mission life in this location

The New Tribes Mission school at Vianopolis, Brazil, was opened in the spring of 1952 in the City Hall of Vianopolis, Brazil. In 1953, another building in town housed the school. The "Land," as it was known, was purchased in 1954 with personal funds by Clayton Templeton and Ralph Hovland. The land and buildings were registered and given to "Missao Novas Tribos do Brasil" (MNTB), and was never New Tribes Mission USA (NTM USA) property. The school was officially opened on the land in 1955, and classes were held in a room at the end of the shop, as missionaries on the field pooled their money for various building projects.

There have been a total of 204 graduates since 1966. Prior to that time, students were required to go elsewhere to receive their diplomas. The smallest graduating class were comprised of one student each, and were graduated in 1968 and 2006. The largest classes comprised of 8 students each were graduated in 1984, 1990, and 2001. Classes ended at the school in May 2011.

Identify the investigative team membersAn investigative team was appointed by Pat Hendrix, IHART coordinator, consisting of lead investigator, Richard Ramirez, and investigators Jim Richter, Randy Coffman, Doug Mills, Susan Roegner, Joe Pirone, and psychologist Kristen Ramirez.

Identify the number and types of people interviewed
The investigative team interviewed or received statements from 60 people including survivors, witnesses, parents, perpetrators, staff, and former members of the Vianopolis Board and Field Committee.

PRIMARY FINDINGS

Identify by name and offense those offenders who were investigated:


Frank Sidney Parker (sexual, physical, and emotional abuse)- deceased
Stephen Richard Armour (sexual and emotional abuse)- dismissed
Samuel Roger Bailey III (sexual abuse [voyeurism])- ineligible for future NTM service
Dawn Leslie Canright (sexual and emotional abuse)- dismissed
Jerome Peter Wnuk (physical and emotional abuse)- dismissed
Paul Allen (Bucky) Nageli (emotional abuse)- not dismissed- actions did not rise to the level of a dismissible offense.

Report to Authorities

The result of the investigation, pertaining to the above named individuals, have been reported to the local, state, and Federal authorities for any action they deem appropriate.

Briefly describe lesser outcomes being administered

Individuals listed above will have Statements of Findings placed in their files and sent to survivors of their abuse. Some individuals will also be asked to contribute specified amounts to the MK Counseling Fund. NTM will send letters to Sending Churches where those churches are on record. Statements of Findings and other appropriate documents will be sent to the current leadership of East Brazil.

Survivors will receive letters of apology from NTM and may also be offered other letters of apology. NTM USA will contribute ongoing help toward the survivors' healing process and will continue to review its policy manual in several areas.


General observations about the field during the time frame investigated

During the course of this investigation it was determined that prior to the year 2000 there were very few protocols in place to address complaints of misconduct toward children or inappropriate behavior now identified as child abuse. Leadership relied on a "Philosophy of Conduct" and members were expected to live in obedience to God and in submission to His Word, taking responsibility for their choices and consequences of their choices.

In the U.S., child abuse began to receive national attention in the mid to late 1960's when mandatory reporting laws came into effect for certain professionals. In the mid-1980s that was extended to other occupations including teachers and school staff. These laws were only enforceable in the USA, but it is noted that NTM did not immediately create comparable policies for overseas schools. During this time period, complaints that were received overseas, and sent to NTM Headquarters in Sanford, were stored in either one large file for the field, or in a personell file if an action was taken.

The investigation confirmed that in the early 1980s, allegations of suspicious and inappropriate behavior by a dorm parent toward children in his care began to be reported. An attempt was made to address this behavior but a lack of follow-up allowed these actions to continue and escalate to a level that the investigators determined to be abusive.

Some staffing decisions regarding dorm parents and teachers were indicative of shortage of staff, rather than overall welfare of children. Accusations made by children were not taken seriously or rebuffed entirely. The attempts to substantiate allegations by children were insufficient. Reports were not always passed on to the Executive Committee. This resulted in occurrences of alleged offenders remaining in close proximity to the children they had been accused of abusing, creating an atmosphere of distrust.

Following the development of protocols, there was some significant improvement in the processing of allegations of abuse, however problems continued to exist. Although policies in place allowed for prompt responses to allegations, procedures were not always followed.
Some autonomous actions and decisions at the field level required actions by the Executive Committee to ensure the removal of some offenders.

Interviews- Due to the desire to protect those who were abused, identities, dates and locations of interviews are not listed here. The survivors who were interviewed were given a code name to be used in the report and statement of findings. The IHART Coordinator and Lead Investigator are the only people who know the code. All information concerning this investigation is being kept by Gammon & Grange, P.C. of Washington, DC.

Evidentiary requirements for Findings- the basis for evaluating the findings is the evidentiary standard of "preponderance of evidence" (fact finder has determined that it is more likely [51% or more] than not it happened.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group