For Your Reading Pleasure: Tales From the 90s

[ttribe]

Just now, rongo said:

What if someone with an ax to grind, though, called and reported that Bishop rongo had raped her, or that he had molested her son. Let's say that it is completely untrue; that there is not a shred of truth to it. What investigations or clouds of suspicion are launched through that? 

My county has this happening right now. An LDS judge has been accused of molesting a twelve year-old girl thirteen years ago (the accuser is 25). He has no record of anything, but is on leave and under investigation. He completely passed an in-depth polygraph through a licensed polygraph firm. There is no evidence, other than the woman's story and his denial. Will he be reinstated? Will he be under a cloud forever? 

I can think of people who are unhappy with their bishops for other reasons, but who would seize the opportunity to turn them in for something serious through a tip line.  

One of the purposes of the hotline is clear out the ax to grind stuff.  It's an imperfect system, but it is far more effective than nothing.

Pinal County, right?  I'll look that one up.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

One of the purposes of the hotline is clear out the ax to grind stuff.  It's an imperfect system, but it is far more effective than nothing.

Pinal County, right?  I'll look that one up.

Stephen Fuller. Here's a link from local media:

http://www.pinalcentral.com/casa_grande_dispatch/area_news/lawyer-says-pinal-judge-passed-polygraph-test/article_bee07268-bd9a-5916-8c60-7b80c3139adc.html

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

No, I don't think the Church should be an investigative entity. 

Thank you for clearing that up.

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

However, I do think the Church can, and should, improve a number of its procedures for calling leadership.  For example, background checks. 

I think you make a fair point here.

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Recording allegations of wrong-doing. 

This is a bit more touchy.  I think an falsely-accused person would deeply resent his records being "tagged" based on an unverified allegation.  Such an annotation would, it seems, amount to a guilty-until-proven-innocent, "Scarlet Letter"-type tain on the individual's reputation.  It could also incentivize false accusations.

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Creating and checking a database of allegations of wrong-doing. 

Actually, this happens to some extent already.  I know of a situation where the Church went, in my view, quite out of its way to ensure the safety of purported victims and other church members.

I can't go into detail, though.  Natch.

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Creating and maintaining programs specifically for victims of abuse within the Church. 

I wonder if counseling would be better.  The Church is not particularly equipped to provide long-term professional counseling to abuse victims.

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

All of these things are do-able; afaik, the Church does none of them.

One is do-able (background checks, at least in the U.S.).  The rest seem problematic in some ways.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Stephen Fuller. Here's a link from local media:

http://www.pinalcentral.com/casa_grande_dispatch/area_news/lawyer-says-pinal-judge-passed-polygraph-test/article_bee07268-bd9a-5916-8c60-7b80c3139adc.html

Long's comments are terrible - "...polygraph tests are “meaningless” and ripe for manipulation."  That sure would be news to the FBI, for example.  Nothing easy about this case, it seems.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

These are things that should not be going through "trained helpers." 

When you call the hotline, you are screened by a Family Services counselor before being connected to an attorney. This is to ensure that only things that have to be discussed with an attorney get through. So, even the bishops are screened.

You are confused about what I am suggesting.

A Family Services counselor is a "trained helper" according to what I meant.

I am suggesting an abuse hotline with the Church stamp of approval and publicizing so members who feel awkward about using the currently available ones feel more comfortable.  These would direct them to report abuse to police, suggest resources for support, just lend an ear if that is all that is wanted. These people would have professional counseling for abuse training even if volunteers. 

No legal advice would be given save to report to the police and that they might want to get a lawyer if they feel that would be helpful in getting attention from the police...or whatever the usual abuse hotlines suggest.

The only addition would be a tracking database that would alert those who would normally pass the info on to local leadership and would help them keep track of multiple complaints about the same person or the same ward or stake.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thank you for clearing that up.

I think you make a fair point here.

This is a bit more touchy.  I think an falsely-accused person would deeply resent his records being "tagged" based on an unverified allegation.  Such an annotation would, it seems, amount to a guilty-until-proven-innocent, "Scarlet Letter"-type tain on the individual's reputation.  It could also incentivize false accusations.

Actually, this happens to some extent already.  I know of a situation where the Church went, in my view, quite out of its way to ensure the safety of purported victims and other church members.

I can't go into detail, though.  Natch.

I wonder if counseling would be better.  The Church is not particularly equipped to provide long-term professional counseling to abuse victims.

One is do-able (background checks, at least in the U.S.).  The rest seem problematic in some ways.

Thanks,

-Smac

Problematic? Perhaps.  Imperfect? Certainly.  Is there a better solution on the table?  I simply haven't heard one.  Keeping a record of allegations may have helped in the J. Bishop case if there were later victims (and it is likely that there are; these kinds of perpetrators don't generally just quit cold-turkey).

[rongo]

Just now, ttribe said:

Long's comments are terrible - "...polygraph tests are “meaningless” and ripe for manipulation."  That sure would be news to the FBI, for example.  Nothing easy about this case, it seems.

The thing is that this isn't in a court of law --- and is unlikely to end up there, given the dearth of evidence. It is being tried in the court of public opinion, and the *only* thing he can do is to ace a polygraph test and publish the findings. I also thought Long's comment was dumb: "He, a judge, is touting something he wouldn't allow in his own courtroom." 

It's frustrating, because I have wondered what would happen if someone falsely accused me of impropriety, either as a bishop or a teacher (I'm both). In this climate, you are put on leave "pending investigation," and there is a permanent cloud even if you are exonerated. And, you would be splashed in the press, like this judge. Pretty much all you can do is pass a polygraph.

[Calm]

"  I think an falsely-accused person would deeply resent his records being "tagged" based on an unverified allegation.  Such an annotation would, it seems, amount to a guilty-until-proven-innocent, "Scarlet Letter"-type tain on the individual's reputation.  It could also incentivize false accusations."

A separate dedicated database for tracking accusations and those who report them that can be part of background checks so local leaders aren't aware of them until they go beyond accusations could avoid that issue.  

Edited March 26, 2018 by Calm

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

The thing is that this isn't in a court of law --- and is unlikely to end up there, given the dearth of evidence. It is being tried in the court of public opinion, and the *only* thing he can do is to ace a polygraph test and publish the findings. I also thought Long's comment was dumb: "He, a judge, is touting something he wouldn't allow in his own courtroom." 

It's frustrating, because I have wondered what would happen if someone falsely accused me of impropriety, either as a bishop or a teacher (I'm both). In this climate, you are put on leave "pending investigation," and there is a permanent cloud even if you are exonerated. And, you would be splashed in the press, like this judge. Pretty much all you can do is pass a polygraph.

Yeah, his comments strike me as advocate puffery and hyperbole.  Sounds, to me, like he's trying to force a settlement.

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

The Fairfield Wives

Fairfield, California, is home to a large Mormon community, and for a long time many of the town's civic leaders have also been local leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Until the recent disclosures that have so disturbed the harmony of this serene and proper town, Dr. John Parkinson was one such leader.

My wife was the Vicky Hardy mentioned in the article. 
"and a woman named Vicky Hardy, who didn't seem to have any connection to Parkinson or her fellow defendants."
We were rather new to the area and knew he was our stake president but other than that she had no knowledge of who he was or anything about the history of what was happening. 
Someone had supposedly saw her in the parking lot of where his office was and then later picked her out in a funeral crowd of hundreds of other people. 
The only reason he filed this suit was to have something he could use in his defense for the law suits against him.  We had to spend a couple thousand dollars which we could not afford for a lawyer.
Parkinson eventually dropped the lawsuit against this group of people. It left my wife rather depressed that her own stake president would sue her for something she had no connection with..

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

My wife was the Vicky Hardy mentioned in the article. 
"and a woman named Vicky Hardy, who didn't seem to have any connection to Parkinson or her fellow defendants."
We were rather new to the area and knew he was our stake president but other than that she had no knowledge of who he was or anything about the history of what was happening. 
Someone had supposedly saw her in the parking lot of where his office was and then later picked her out in a funeral crowd of hundreds of other people. 
The only reason he filed this suit was to have something he could use in his defense for the law suits against him.  We had to spend a couple thousand dollars which we could not afford for a lawyer.
Parkinson eventually dropped the lawsuit against this group of people. It left my wife rather depressed that her own stake president would sue her for something she had no connection with..

Holy.Crap. Seriously? What a disaster!

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The hotline is only available to bishops.  I agree it is excellent, but it is also limited in its impact.

I believe the limitation is by design. And I think the current hotline ought to remain as-is. 

From your subsequent comments, it sounds like you're okay with that though; you just think the church could be doing more to provide additional services (new, separate services) to help victims of abuse within the LDS community. Maybe there is sufficient need for such programs to exist, either independent of or in tandem with other existing services. I'm not certain, but I'm certainly not opposed to the idea as a general matter. 

I guess my main point was just that, while I'm all in favor of learning from our past / previous mistakes (including the those that took place in the 80's and 90's), I kind of bristle a bit when it seems as though there is another, unstated premise, in threads like these: namely, that the church hasn't been making changes or learning from it's mistakes over the past several decades. 

 

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

I believe the limitation is by design. And I think the current hotline ought to remain as-is. 

From your subsequent comments, it sounds like you're okay with that though; you just think the church could be doing more to provide additional services (new, separate services) to help victims of abuse within the LDS community. Maybe there is sufficient need for such programs to exist, either independent of or in tandem with other existing services. I'm not certain, but I'm certainly not opposed to the idea as a general matter. 

I guess my main point was just that, while I'm all in favor of learning from our past / previous mistakes (including the those that took place in the 80's and 90's), I kind of bristle a bit when it seems as though there is another, unstated premise, in threads like these: namely, that the church hasn't been making changes or learning from it's mistakes over the past several decades. 

 

 

Yes, I believe there should be two very different hotlines.  Have no problem with the current one given how it has been described.

The Church is constantly changing, sometimes it can be hard to be aware of it if one is not part of the group changing.

The Church, imo, has a poor culture for sharing information.  I understand the history that likely brought this to be and I definitely approve it as far as confidential issues go, but I think publicizing more details about how things are run behind the scenes could help people feel more connected to leadership they have less or no contact with.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Calm

[rpn]

Polygraphs are NOT accepted in US courts precisely because they are problematic.   Polygraph examiners will tell  you that their usefulness is usually in the fact that examinees disclose lots of stuff so it wont' come up as deceptive on the polygraph itself.   There are a few exceptions:  they are better when you are "asking did you take a necklace with blue beads from the house at 3214 polard street in Sonoma, WY?  (If you used the word "stones" instead of "beads" then someone might answer no, because he believed that the material was porcelain and not stone, and been found to have answered truthfully, for instance. even if they took the dang necklace.)   And you can find a polygraph "expert" who will anyone truthful if you pay them enough.  So, yes, some attorneys will ask a client to take a polygraph and tout the client as truthful when the questions weren't even on point, or the person flat out lied.   And the science of polygraphs is that the body expresses its distress over bad acts, but it also expresses distress at having a polygraph, and at hearing some words or being triggered by them, or even at needing to use the restroom and not knowing you could interrupt to do that.   Conversely, a person trained to surpress his emotions or a socio/psycho path may not show any reaction and thus be declared truthful.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

........................  Unverified anecdotes do much to provoke public ourrage and moral panic, but they do not constitute competent, probative evidence of a systemic problem.

2. I am not discounting the possibility that a systemic problem (principally nonfeasance by the LDS Church re: allegations of abuse).  There may be such a problem.  But anecdotes do not establish that.......................

Most of those instances which are available online are not anecdotal, but rather entail civil or criminal court cases, or both, with formal testimony on the record, and have occurred over a period of many years.  The Church has moved on in many cases, although civil suits charging the Church with failure to supervise themselves adequately still crop up regularly.  As with the Roman Catholic Church, a lot of money has been paid out.

Changes have clearly taken place in some LDS programs, most notably in scouting, but getting appropriate changes in other areas (Title IX at BYU for example) was like pulling teeth.  That shouldn't be necessary.  Enlightened leaders should be able to sit down and reach reasonable compromises on what needs to be done.

[cinepro]

59 minutes ago, rongo said:

What if someone with an ax to grind, though, called and reported that Bishop rongo had raped her, or that he had molested her son. Let's say that it is completely untrue; that there is not a shred of truth to it. What investigations or clouds of suspicion are launched through that? 

My county has this happening right now. An LDS judge has been accused of molesting a twelve year-old girl thirteen years ago (the accuser is 25). He has no record of anything, but is on leave and under investigation. He completely passed an in-depth polygraph through a licensed polygraph firm. There is no evidence, other than the woman's story and his denial. Will he be reinstated? Will he be under a cloud forever? 

I can think of people who are unhappy with their bishops for other reasons, but who would seize the opportunity to turn them in for something serious through a tip line.  

It should be pointed out that polygraphs are about as reliable as flipping a coin.  You may as well tell us that they asked a Ouija board if he was guilty and it said "N-O."

 

Quote

Although polygraph machines look scientific and measure responses such as sweating and increased pulse rate with exquisite accuracy, they are crude in their conception. Indeed, they are no more sophisticated than an ancient Arab ordeal for detecting liars.

In the Arab test a heated knife blade was pressed to the subject’s tongue. If he was telling the truth, his tongue would not get burned. The idea is that when people are nervously excited, their mouth goes dry because nervousness suppresses salivation. In principle, the lie detection system involved is exactly the same as for a polygraph test.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201303/do-lie-detectors-work

 

  As for the hypothetical being posed, there is always a risk.  The only perfect method for determining the truth would be for God to tell us what is going on.

But since that doesn't appear to be a reliable option in these cases, our best judgement and efforts would have to suffice, with the knowledge that there is a risk of a guilty man going free or an innocent man being falsely convicted and continually trying to improve the process. 

Sadly, in the examples in the OP (and the story of President Bishop), these considerations aren't really relevant since there was corroboration available for anyone with the energy to look for it, and it was a failure of attention that allowed them to continue for so long.

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

Thank you for clearing that up.

I think you make a fair point here.

This is a bit more touchy.  I think an falsely-accused person would deeply resent his records being "tagged" based on an unverified allegation.  Such an annotation would, it seems, amount to a guilty-until-proven-innocent, "Scarlet Letter"-type tain on the individual's reputation.  It could also incentivize false accusations.

Actually, this happens to some extent already.  I know of a situation where the Church went, in my view, quite out of its way to ensure the safety of purported victims and other church members.

I can't go into detail, though.  Natch.

I wonder if counseling would be better.  The Church is not particularly equipped to provide long-term professional counseling to abuse victims.

One is do-able (background checks, at least in the U.S.).  The rest seem problematic in some ways.

Thanks,

-Smac

Problematic? Perhaps.  Imperfect? Certainly. 

Indeed.  

47 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Is there a better solution on the table?  I simply haven't heard one. 

Well, I have suggested no-audio closed-circuit cameras in bishops' offices.

I have also suggested windows in the doors for bishops' offices.

More training for bishops, with particular emphasis on compliance with the "chaperone" requirement for interviews.

47 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Keeping a record of allegations may have helped in the J. Bishop case if there were later victims (and it is likely that there are; these kinds of perpetrators don't generally just quit cold-turkey).

You may have a point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, rpn said:

........................  Conversely, a person trained to surpress his emotions or a socio/psycho path may not show any reaction and thus be declared truthful.

Sociopath Mark Hofmann, for example, fooled the best polygraphers into declaring him completely innocent and truthful.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

........................  Unverified anecdotes do much to provoke public ourrage and moral panic, but they do not constitute competent, probative evidence of a systemic problem.

2. I am not discounting the possibility that a systemic problem (principally nonfeasance by the LDS Church re: allegations of abuse).  There may be such a problem.  But anecdotes do not establish that.......................

Most of those instances which are available online are not anecdotal, but rather entail civil or criminal court cases, or both, with formal testimony on the record, and have occurred over a period of many years. 

But they are still, nevertheless, anecdotal (as in "a short account of a particular incident or event").

In an organization of 15 million members, there will sadly be "civil or criminal court cases," because there will be some instances of abuse.  I do not deny that.  My point relates to whether there is a "systemic" problem in the LDS Church.

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Church has moved on in many cases, although civil suits charging the Church with failure to supervise themselves adequately still crop up regularly. 

I guess I'd like to see these.

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Changes have clearly taken place in some LDS programs, most notably in scouting, but getting appropriate changes in other areas (Title IX at BYU for example) was like pulling teeth.  That shouldn't be necessary.  Enlightened leaders should be able to sit down and reach reasonable compromises on what needs to be done.

What proposals do you have in mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, rpn said:

Polygraphs are NOT accepted in US courts precisely because they are problematic.   Polygraph examiners will tell  you that their usefulness is usually in the fact that examinees disclose lots of stuff so it wont' come up as deceptive on the polygraph itself.   There are a few exceptions:  they are better when you are "asking did you take a necklace with blue beads from the house at 3214 polard street in Sonoma, WY?  (If you used the word "stones" instead of "beads" then someone might answer no, because he believed that the material was porcelain and not stone, and been found to have answered truthfully, for instance. even if they took the dang necklace.)   And you can find a polygraph "expert" who will anyone truthful if you pay them enough.  So, yes, some attorneys will ask a client to take a polygraph and tout the client as truthful when the questions weren't even on point, or the person flat out lied.   And the science of polygraphs is that the body expresses its distress over bad acts, but it also expresses distress at having a polygraph, and at hearing some words or being triggered by them, or even at needing to use the restroom and not knowing you could interrupt to do that.   Conversely, a person trained to surpress his emotions or a socio/psycho path may not show any reaction and thus be declared truthful.

Taking something like Val-ium deadens emotional responses (causing oneself some form discomfort during the baseline for example).  Unless there is a blood test along with polygraphs, why bother imo.

Too many ways to trick the machine at this point.

[Amulek]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I have suggested no-audio closed-circuit cameras in bishops' offices.

I wonder if video is even needed. Data storage is pretty cheap these days, but video files are still pretty big, and you would probably have to keep them for some time as well. 

In the tech world, a lot of companies have employees who work remotely, and it's common to have some sort of application installed on their computer that takes a screenshot of their desktop once every so often (the length of time can vary depending on how closely you want to monitor the employee). It seems like you could have something like that for bishop's offices as well. It could take a picture of the bishop's office, randomly; once every 30 seconds to a minute, which could be accessible from another location in real time (e.g., the clerk's office next door) and then saved remotely for future use if necessary. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I wonder if video is even needed. Data storage is pretty cheap these days, but video files are still pretty big, and you would probably have to keep them for some time as well. 

Video files would not need to be high quality, and could probably just be a frame every 5 seconds or so.  

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

In the tech world, a lot of companies have employees who work remotely, and it's common to have some sort of application installed on their computer that takes a screenshot of their desktop once every so often (the length of time can vary depending on how closely you want to monitor the employee). It seems like you could have something like that for bishop's offices as well. It could take a picture of the bishop's office, randomly; once every 30 seconds to a minute, which could be accessible from another location in real time (e.g., the clerk's office next door) and then saved remotely for future use if necessary. 

Interesting stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SteveO]

I was talking with my mom the other day about all this.  She was an RN for the Milwaukee county jail for a number of years.  She says it made it her jaded, but I think it just made her more street smart.  

She remarked how there are something like 11 active members of the elder’s quorum in their branch.  She then said that she’s trust maybe 3 of them to watch her grandkids.

Salt Lake could most likely make some changes, but I think the real change has to come in the form of some cultural changes among the general membership.  I think the fear of being “judgmental” needs to go away.  If someone gives me bad vibes, the onus isn’t on me to change my perception and be more “Christlike” and give them the benefit of the doubt.  The onus is on the person Putting up the red flags to prove me wrong.  And there isn’t anything wrong with that.  There’s lots of creeps out there, not just in the church but in every organization.  Women and especially young girls shouldn’t feel like they need to be polite just because the guy is a fellow member of the church.  

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

.................................I guess I'd like to see these.

I am aware of current cases going forward, and I don't think that can be avoided.  There will always be such cases.  That is the nature of our litigious society.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What proposals do you have in mind?.................

None in particular.  However, just generally I'd say the Church has not been aggressive enough in rooting out the predators in a proactive way. This is true of American society in general, of course, as the long-term sex abuse problems at Penn State and Michigan State Univ demonstrated all too well.  We must not foolishly trust university presidents, legendary football coaches, or mission presidents, but must always cynically recognize that anyone can fall.  We all seem to repeatedly make the mistake of believing that, because we think we know someone, that he would never do anything wrong.  Yet, how wrong we can be!!  We all need to exercise wary respect.  Trust but verify.  There is too much at stake.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, SteveO said:

.....................She remarked how there are something like 11 active members of the elder’s quorum in their branch.  She then said that she’s trust maybe 3 of them to watch her grandkids............

A wise woman, your mom.  Better safe than sorry.