Thread by @katierouquine

Regarding my ongoing concerns surrounding the abuse scandal in @The_ACNA:
Dear Provincial Response Team,
I first wrote to you four weeks ago with my concerns about the state of the investigation into the Anglican Church in North America's abuse scandal.

I've yet to hear a response, unfortunately. This will be my 3rd letter to you, in addition to a number of social media posts I've written or pertinent articles I've found and tagged you in, all in hopes of some kind of dialogue, or at the very least, the respect of a response.

As I noted a week ago, "I realize I might feel like a fly in your ointment, but I urge you to consider I might be one of the canaries in your coal mine".

I hope you can see I'm not only advocating for survivors of abuse in the Province and @MidwestAnglican, but am also advocating for *you*, my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm advocating for you to be what you claim to be: men and women of truth, character, and integrity.

Your colleague, @frandrewgross is fond of this quote from William Sparrow, "Seek the truth. Come whence it may. Cost what it will". I urge you to not only cling tightly to those words, but to put them into action with humility and courage –

– trusting our Lord has already made a way through the deep waters before you.

I'm writing to revisit the questions I raised in my first letter to you in regards to Fr Keith Hartsell. Why? Because I've since had several people reach out to me who had serious concerns about Fr. Keith's behavior and also attempted to write to your team about them.

Some received the same auto-response I did or they received brief and non-committal responses that the PRT would review what they sent (and yet are still waiting months later for any further communication).

Others finally heard back after multiple attempts, but were given conflicting information about who was handling the questions surrounding Fr. Keith's behavior – the PRT, the Bishop's Council, or The Executive Committee.

(note: I'm referencing both Fr. Keith's past behavior related to survivors under his care as well as his recent behavior attempting to address those situations when they became public).

Originally I wrote:
A few months ago, when the story broke about Keith Hartsell's complicity in a particular abuse situation, I watched closely to see how it would be handled.

It was possible – and I hoped – Keith would offer a sincere apology when reflecting upon his behavior in his early ministry years. However, upon Keith's first pass at addressing this at his church on September 5th, no sincere apology was offered.

Then, curiously, the recording of that livestream was removed. Your team, the PRT, asked him to correct his initial statement. You even alerted #ACNAtoo that Keith Hartsell would be presenting a public correction on October 31 regarding his misleading comments from September 5.

It was possible – and I hoped – Keith would then offer a sincere apology upon realizing how the 1st attempt was lacking. However, when Keith offered a statement "publicly", the audio of said statement was muted for over 5 minutes on the livestream. This appeared dubious, at best.

However, if the muting was accidental, why wouldn't Keith provide his statement in writing? He never did and therefore leaves those watching – and like me, hoping – with very little choice other than to assume he intended to hide his statement.

Yet, what needs to be hidden if it's all aboveboard? What needs to be hidden if it's all true? Then the PRT chose to not pursue the matter further.

As more people have reached out to me regarding how this was handled (or rather, not handled), I've gone back to see what might have been published regarding the PRT's involvement or responsibility. Under the question of scope, your website notes two things:

1a. "The PRT is a temporary team formed to address the specific need for oversight of the third-party investigation into the handling of sexual abuse claims against Mark Rivera, a Lay Catechist in the Diocese of the Upper Midwest, and care of the survivors."

1b. "It does not have canonical authority in any other matters within the diocese, nor does it have such authority to intervene within any other diocese in the Anglican Church in North America."

2a. "As more information has come to light and additional allegations regarding abuse of power within the Diocese have been made,"

2b. "the Bishop’s Council of the Diocese has requested that the Province expand the scope of its work to include these matters. The Executive Committee has accepted this request."

That second section prompted me to find out who was on The Executive Committee and the Bishop's Council. I know the former has recently received new members and the latter was restructured last fall when it came to light there were too many conflicts of interest seated.

Most of the people on The Executive Committee are not familiar names to me, but interestingly, I noticed the Council Chair for the Bishop's Council is Fr. Alex Cameron, who I recall as a close friend/colleague of Fr. Keith's from when we were Facebook friends.

(Note: Fr. Keith has unfriended both me and my husband since I posted my first letter expressing concerns).

It’s also worth pausing to consider that Fr. Steve Williamson and Dr. Barbara Gauthier have worked at Church of the Resurrection with Fr. Keith for over a decade and both are also on the Bishop's Council.

There may be other personal connections to Fr. Keith on the Council that I'm simply not aware of, but these three stood out as conflicts of interest, to varying degrees.

I know Fr. Steve and Dr. Barbara from attending Church of the Resurrection for 20 years, but I don't know Fr. Alex Cameron. A cursory Google search showed he and Fr. Keith are actually connected on multiple specific fronts.

1. Equipped to Heal Ministries: Fr. Keith leads this, and both he and Fr. Alex speak regularly at E2H conferences (presumably for fees).

2. The Isaiah 40 Foundation: Fr. Alex is the President of The Isaiah 40 Foundation and Fr. Keith has sat on the board of The Isaiah 40 Foundation at the Director level.

3. The Greenhouse Movement: Fr. Alex runs Isaiah 40 conferences at Greenhouse locations (in which there are fees to attend).

Any one of these connections could signal a conflict of interest for Fr. Alex, but it's of significant concern that there are *multiple* – particularly when Fr. Alex holds the position of Council Chair of the Bishop’s Council at this time.

Additionally, I noticed The Isaiah 40 Foundation listed Andrea Millard as another Director. Her last name caught my eye because I'd just seen it on the list of newly appointed members to The Executive Committee.

A quick search confirmed she is married to Fr. Jonathan Millard, who is indeed one of the new members of said committee.

Clearly, there are conflicts of interest in both The Executive Committee and The Bishops's Council when it comes to addressing the concerns that have been raised around Fr. Keith. Is this why nothing has been done at this point to hold him accountable?

Let me be clear on my concern and my intent: I do not intend to indicate that any of these individuals who have overlap with Fr. Keith are not people of good character or impugn their motives.

Rather, it's simply not likely – due to their overlap (particularly in the case of Fr. Alex) – to be impartial in regards to the many concerns that have been raised.

Why was the PRT initially invested in holding Fr. Keith accountable for his lacking apology? If your team was invested, why didn't you hold him accountable when he muted his audio?

Who on the PRT has the courage to follow through? That's a serious and sincere question. I'm concerned some of you may also fall into the camp of being "too close" to Fr. Keith (or perhaps to others who are close to Fr. Keith) and do not want to make things messy.

But, like Pilate, just because you ceremonially wash your hands in front of a waiting audience doesn't mean you're innocent or inculpable. For some reason, your team decided to not pursue it further. Is that because it was passed on to The Exec Committee? Or the Bishop's Council?

I have it in writing from a clergy person that UMD clergy were specifically requested to not publicly comment on the unfolding ACNA situation, even refraining from defending themselves, just weeks before Fr. Keith did just that.

It's unfortunate that Fr. Keith muted the audio on what was to be his corrected statement. I would be happy to extend him the benefit of the doubt and hear what he had to say, first assuming the best of him and his ability to learn from the mishandling.

However given that he's not made his corrected statement public and given that the PRT neglected to follow through & address the matter (or other matters raised by those who wrote in), it leaves me in the awkwrd position of wanting to believe better but having no evidence 4 that.

If there is nothing to hide, then your team...or The Executive Committee...or the Bishop's Council...ought to be able to clarify. If instead there are things being hidden, then please decide who's territory it is and address it already.

Who in leadership is willing to act like someone in leadership when it comes to these repeated and multiple concerns?

“There is no better test of a man's integrity than his behavior when he is wrong” —Marvin Williams

@ArchbishopFoley

With sincere care,

Katie Robichaud

#ACNAtoo

@threadreaderapp unroll please