KUTV report reveals how the LDS Church responded to MTC sex scandal

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

I hope everyone will take the time to watch the press conference from today.  It helped clear up some of the questions I had and gave me a chance to actually hear from Mckenna in person.  

I think the entire conference is on the video here:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/04/05/woman-accusing-missionary-training-center-president-of-rape-stands-in-front-of-cameras-to-say-she-is-a-victim/

I watched all of it.  She’s very composed and does a great job (same with her attorneys).  I hope everyone who’s been posting on this thread with comments and questions will watch it.  There’s a lot of information there to take in.

[Calm]

17 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Shared responsibility was my point, but you expressed it much better than I did. But the overall accountability ultimately stops with the Church as they have right of veto on any and all actions as they are the client and are paying the bills and it is the Church’s bidding that Jordan is carrying out, no matter the latitude that may or may not be allowed.

Don't disagree.

[Marginal Gains]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

As I understand it, Jordan's document was not intended for public consumption.  Ergo no intent to "trash the victim."  Ergo your accusation seems unfair.

I am an attorney.  I am privy to all sorts of warts-and-all information about opposing parties.  That's what litigation is for.  But virtually none of those "warts" are aired at all.  We need have a "lay of the land," but not because we want to "trash" the other side.

Thanks,

-Smac

It was intended to trash the victim to the victims lawyers to try and intimidate her into dropping the action or reducing the settlement. Ergo my accusation is fair and matches the evidence.

That they copied it to the perpetrators son could be considered naive, or it could be considered calculated. We will never know. But their failure to protect the information means they are guilty of trashing the victim either through a lack of diligence or by design.

Is Jordan going to go after Greg Bishop for breach of confidentiality? Have they made a statement denouncing Greg Bishop’s behaviour? If not, why not?

Edited April 6, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, JulieM said:

I watched all of it.  She’s very composed and does a great job (same with her attorneys).  I hope everyone who’s been posting on this thread with comments and questions will watch it.  There’s a lot of information there to take in.

I agree.  The attorneys are impressive and so is she.  I honestly believe that the church will at least try to offer a settlement quickly so this case will go away as much as it can go away.  I highly doubt they want this to go to trial.

For those having a difficult time with the video on the SLT website, Calm has posted the video here (along with her written account of a little over half the interview and her thoughts on it):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70407-accuser-of-joseph-bishop-files-suit/?do=findComment&comment=1209808798

 

[toon]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

But what does "investigate as appropriate" mean?  Does it mean "that the Church is supposed to be some sort of investigative and/or law enforcement agency?"  I think . . . not.

What's appropriate will depend on the circumstances.  Employers with legal guidance figure it out all the time.  But, at a minimum, if a missionary were to have accused a mission president of sexual assault, I'd expect the church to have someone qualified (not just a local ecclesiastical authority) interview her, interview the mission president, follow up on any physical evidence to the extent it exists, ask or look into the possibility of potential witness, and interview them.

Quote

Really?  What "resources" are you thinking of here?

You're kidding, right? Small employers with fewer than 50 employees conduct or arrange for thorough investigations all the time. Are you claiming that the Church doesn't have nearly the resources that small employers do?

Quote

No, I am not claiming that.  "Principal/Agent"-type scenarios are, I think, a different category.  The Church should investigate such claims to some extent, but should also refer such claims to law enforcement.  The Church's investigation should be careful not to impede or disrupt investigation by law enforcement.

The vast majority of abuse claims are in a separate category, and relate to non-"Principal/Agent"-type scenarios.  That is, a member of the ward meets with the bishop and accuses her husband, or a neighbor, or some such of abusing her child.  The Church's "investigation" of this category of claims is, I think, necessarily more narrow, particularly if the accused denies the allegations.  The Church's "investigation" would involve conferring with the attorneys on the bishops' helpline to determine the bishop's legal obligations of disclosure and non-disclosure, and also the scope of the bishop's "investigation" (if any at all).  And again, the Church's efforts should not impede or disrupt investigation by law enforcement.

But the case being discussed in this thread is a principal/agent case. And the Church's first press release was that they referred the allegations to local church leadership, who spoke with Bishop, and that they could do nothing when he denied them. It also pointed out that it doesn't have the investigative tools available to law enforcement. But I believe that's beside the point. Seems more like an excuse to justify why it wasn't going to investigate. Of course, employers don't have those same tools, but that doesn't prevent them from investigating.

I get that there's a need to coordinate with law enforcement when it's conducting an investigation. You don't want to impact the integrity of that investigation, so it may be necessary to wait before completing some aspects of an internal investigation. But it's not an excuse for not conducting a thorough investigation. In this case, the PD had apparently completed its investigation, concluding that while there was merit to at least some of the allegations, they were time barred. This happened before the Church's first statement.

And, the Church actually did investigate. We don't know what more they did with regard to Bishop, but they did investigate the accuser, interviewing friends and family. Concerns about impacting the criminal investigation apparently didn't stop that.

(And you can claim that this investigation was by the law firm in defense of threatened litigation, but I don't see how that makes any difference, as I can't imagine the law firm unilaterally engaging an investigator or doing it internally without first receiving authorization from its client.)

Quote

Nope.  Not going to entertain blithe dismissals of "differing legal standards."  Not gonna do it.

You are playing with fire here.  Accusations of sexual misconduct are extremely serious.  As soon as we start having discussions about how private persons and entities (such as the LDS Church) should approach such a serious issue, and as soon as we preface such discussions with disturbing and uninformed statements like "regardless of differing legal standards," then I'm going to say "Hold up!  We're headed into some treacherous waters!"

Fine. Putting your histrionics aside, let me clarify. The legal standard requiring an employer to maintain a harassment free workplace may differ from whatever legal obligation the Church may have. But as I pointed out earlier, employers don't solely make efforts to maintain a harassment free workplace and investigate violations because of the legal obligation, they also do it for other reasons. They do it to maintain morale. They do it to maintain a professional atmosphere and proper decorum. They do it to protect employees under their care from harm. They do it because it's simply the right thing. And they go out of the way to do it, adopting policies, training management and employees. They recognize that no matter how much effort they may make to prevent it from happening the first place, it can still happen. So they make sure employees and managers know what to do if it happens, where to report, and they properly investigate complaints, so that there's at least some level of trust in the procedure, as they don't want employees to think it would be futile to speak up.

Quote

Now how is it that "a lawyer for the Mormon church" came to be involved in this matter, when the disclosure of abuse was made by the abuse victim "to her bishop?"  The answer is . . . Kirton & McConkie.  Bishops in the U.S. and Canada have a "help line" that they can (and are specifically instructed to) call whenever allegations of abuse or serious misconduct are disclosed to a bishop.  The laws of the various states (and Canadian provinces) vary, so the law firm helps the local bishop in determining which disclosures are necessarily to be reported to law enforcement, which disclosures might need to be reported, and which disclosures which must not be reported.  When a bishop is obligated to disclose, the attorneys at Kirton & McConkie often make the report on behalf of the bishop.  This is how the "lawyer for the Mormon church" became involved in the above story.

Are you sure that's how they got involved. I'm fully aware of the hotline. But my impression was that the accuser had hired a lawyer, who likely had written a demand letter, and that's how legal was currently involved.

Quote

In the main, the LDS Church does not and should not have the "capacity or resources" to function as a law enforcement/investigative entity.  If a violent or sex-related crime is committed, the Church should contact law enforcement and let them investigate (provided that the priest/penitent privilege is preserved).

Are people really claiming that they should. I'm certainly not. There's no question that criminal behavior, privileged communications aside, should be reported to law enforcement. Harassment may be different, as it may not be criminal. Regardless of whether the allegations are of criminal conduct or not, in an agent/principal situation, the Church should also conduct its own investigation and take appropriate action.

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, toon said:

What's appropriate will depend on the circumstances.  Employers with legal guidance figure it out all the time.  But, at a minimum, if a missionary were to have accused a mission president of sexual assault, I'd expect the church to have someone qualified (not just a local ecclesiastical authority) interview her, interview the mission president, follow up on any physical evidence to the extent it exists, ask or look into the possibility of potential witness, and interview them.

Did anyone even take the time to go over to the MTC and see if a room in the basement (as described by Mckenna) even exists?   If not, I wonder why that wasn't one of the first things done by church leaders (or someone looking into her sexual abuse claims). 

(And maybe it did take place....I just have not read if it did or not happen).  I guess I need to refresh my memory of when she first made her claims, but I'm thinking it was pretty soon after she completed her mission, so the room may have still been set up as she described.

Edited April 6, 2018 by ALarson

[juliann]

52 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Did anyone even take the time to go over to the MTC and see if a room in the basement (as described by Mckenna) even exists?   If not, I wonder why that wasn't one of the first things done by church leaders (or someone looking into her sexual abuse claims). 

(And maybe it did take place....I just have not read if it did or not happen).  I guess I need to refresh my memory of when she first made her claims, but I'm thinking it was pretty soon after she completed her mission, so the room may have still been set up as she described.

A former employee there at that time confirmed it right off the bat.  

[provoman]

11 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

It was intended to trash the victim to the victims lawyers to try and intimidate her into dropping the action or reducing the settlement. Ergo my accusation is fair and matches the evidence.

That they copied it to the perpetrators son could be considered naive, or it could be considered calculated. We will never know. But their failure to protect the information means they are guilty of trashing the victim either through a lack of diligence or by design.

Is Jordan going to go after Greg Bishop for breach of confidentiality? Have they made a statement denouncing Greg Bishop’s behaviour? If not, why not?

Can you show a breach of confidentiality? 

In your opinion what confidentiality did Greg Bishop agree too?

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

A former employee there at that time confirmed it right off the bat.  

Ok...didn't read that.  Thanks for the info.

So I have to wonder then why her claim was not taken seriously by her bishop (who apparently did not believe her)?  Very odd and very sad.  All of this (the lawsuit, etc.) could have been avoided if it had been taken care of immediately and Bishop called in and disciplined (and not allowed to hold other leadership positions).

Hopefully this case will at least cause some changes to take place so this can be avoided in the future.

 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

Can you show a breach of confidentiality? 

I think the releasing of the name of her daughter (who she put up for adoption) is a breach, isn't it?  I've read they got her name from records in the LDS Family Services files.  That information should have remained private and confidential.

Edited April 6, 2018 by ALarson

[juliann]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok...didn't read that.  Thanks for the info.

So I have to wonder then why her claim was not taken seriously by her bishop (who apparently did not believe her)?  Very odd and very sad.  All of this (the lawsuit, etc.) could have been avoided if it had been taken care of immediately and Bishop called in and disciplined (and not allowed to hold other leadership positions).

Hopefully this case will at least cause some changes to take place so this can be avoided in the future.

 

The bishop was decades ago. The verification of the room came shortly after the tape was released. 

It is too bad this couldn't have happened when he was younger, although the victim blaming would probably have worked back then, but I'm afraid they will use his age now to excuse appropriate consequences. 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the releasing of the name of her daughter (who she put up for adoption) is a breach, isn't it? 

Who "released" the name of her daughter?

31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've read they got her name from records in the LDS Family Services files.  That information should have remained private and confidential.

As I understand it, the Church's attorney wrote a document that was not intended for public consumption, which was then surreptitiously leaked.  

Do you have evidence that the Church deliberately breached this woman's privacy?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, provoman said:

Can you show a breach of confidentiality? 

In your opinion what confidentiality did Greg Bishop agree too?

As I understand it, the woman's attorney included Greg Bishop in email communications with the Church's representatives.  That may have amounted to a waiver of "confidentiality" by the woman's attorney.  Hard to say at this point, thought.  We don't have much in the way of details.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Who "released" the name of her daughter?

As I understand it, the Church's attorney wrote a document that was not intended for public consumption, which was then surreptitiously leaked.  

Why did that document even contain the (adoptive) name of her daughter?  That is confidential and even the adoptive parents are not given the names of the birth parents. Where and how did the church’s attorney get her name (without accessing a file that was supposed to be confidential)?

I understand the church needing to gather information on a person who is suing them, but they should have just left it at she gave birth to a child and put them up for adoption.  They had no idea if the daughter knew who her birth mother was or if Mckenna knew who the adoptive parents were.  That was not right to even put the daughter’s name in the document.  

Edited April 6, 2018 by JulieM

[smac97]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Why did that document even contain the (adoptive) name of her daughter?  

I don't know.  Perhaps it shouldn't have been.  Attorneys who draft internal, not-intended-for-public-consumption memos can sometimes err on the side of providing too much information, rather than too little.

I do that all the time.  

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

That is confidential and even the adoptive parents are not given the names of the birth parents.

I understand the church needing to gather information on a person who is suing them, but they should have just left it at she gave birth to a child and put them up for adoption.  

Perhaps, but I'm not persuaded that the Church is responsible for the divulging of confidential information included in a letter from its attorney that was intended to be confidential, but then was leaked.

We don't really know who leaked it, but I really doubt the Church authorized it.  There is no apparent upside for the Church in releasing the memo, and plenty of downside.

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

They had no idea if the daughter knew who her birth mother was or if Mckenna knew who the adoptive parents were.  That was not right to even put the daughter’s name in the document.  

Perhaps.  Hard to say, really.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps.  Hard to say, really.

No, it’s not hard to say.  It was wrong for them to put the daughter’s name in the information gathered and it was a breach of her privacy (and the adoptive parent’s and the birth mother’s too).

Also, you did not answer this question and I’d like to hear what you believe:

”Where and how did the chruch’s attorney get her [the daughter’s] name (without accessing a file that was supposed to be confidential)?”

Edited April 6, 2018 by JulieM

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, juliann said:

The bishop was decades ago. The verification of the room came shortly after the tape was released. 

It is too bad this couldn't have happened when he was younger, although the victim blaming would probably have worked back then, but I'm afraid they will use his age now to excuse appropriate consequences. 

I agree and that's unfortunate.

(Thanks for the timeline help too....it gets confusing!)

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Who "released" the name of her daughter?

As I understand it, the Church's attorney wrote a document that was not intended for public consumption, which was then surreptitiously leaked.  

As I understand it (someone can correct me if I'm wrong...), the church hired outside legal counsel and they gathered information about Mckenna Denson.  This dossier (or packet of information) was sent to Bishop’s son acting as his attorney and it was leaked to the public.  

I believe it was very wrong to include Denson's birth daughter's name in that information.  

I would hope that is not something you would condone.

 

Edited April 6, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Quote

Perhaps.  Hard to say, really.

No, it’s not hard to say.  

Yes, it's hard to say.  We don't have all the facts.  Or anything close to the facts.  We are speaking largely from ignorance, both as to the facts and the law.

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It was wrong for them to put the daughter’s name in the information gathered and it was a breach of her privacy (and the adoptive parent’s and the birth mother’s too).

Perhaps.  Again, it's hard to say.

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Also, you did not answer this question and I’d like to hear what you believe:

”Where and how did the chruch’s attorney get her [the daughter’s] name (without accessing a file that was supposed to be confidential)?”

I don't know.  I could speculate, I suppose.  Perhaps the attorney just did a really good job at investigating the facts.  Or perhaps, as retained counsel, he was given access to confidential information held by the Church (that's standard stuff for lawyers).  But in the end, we just don't know.

As an attorney, I regularly represent banks and loan servicers, who in turn have access to all sorts of information about borrowers (name, address, SSN, DoB, extensive financial information, etc.).  This is not extraordinary.  It's part of our job, not unlike how accountants have access to sensitive financial data, or doctors to sensitive medical data.  To be sure, I would quickly run into some real trouble with clients or with the State Bar if I were found to have divulged confidential information improperly.  But the access itself is not necessarily unusual.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As I understand it (someone can correct me if I'm wrong...), the church hired outside legal counsel and they gathered information about Mckenna Denson.  This dossier (or packet of information) was sent to Bishop’s son acting as his attorney and it was leaked to the public.  

I believe it was very wrong to include Denson's birth daughter's name in that information.  

I would hope that is not something you would condone.

I do not condone the violation of the law.

I am not sure it was necessarily wrong to include ifnormation about the birth daughter.  Perhaps it was.  We just don't know enough.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do not condone the violation of the law.

I am not sure it was necessarily wrong to include ifnormation about the birth daughter.  Perhaps it was.  We just don't know enough.

Thanks,

-Smac

Did you watch all of the press conference, smac?

Edited April 6, 2018 by ALarson

[provoman]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As I understand it, the woman's attorney included Greg Bishop in email communications with the Church's representatives.  That may have amounted to a waiver of "confidentiality" by the woman's attorney.  Hard to say at this point, thought.  We don't have much in the way of details.

Thanks,

-Smac

Which is what I was thnking too.

Can you offer insight, as a praticing attorney, what if any confidentiality exist between yourself and communications with opposing counsel?

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

Which is what I was thnking too.

Can you offer insight, as a praticing attorney, what if any confidentiality exist between yourself and communications with opposing counsel?

I am obligated to disclose information to opposing counsel as set forth in state or federal statutes, or rules of procedure, or rules of evidence, or rules of procedure.

If opposing counsel requests information that my client does not want to disclose on grounds of privilege or confidentiality, I can refuse to provide that information, and instead seek a protective order from the court that, if granted, would eliminate the obligation to disclose confidential information.

Confidential information can include information protected by a privilege (attorney/client communications, priest/penitent, etc.), or because the information is not relevant, or is a trade secret, or is otherwise protectible for any number of reasons.  The Court would sort out such things in a hearing on the protective order.

However, here we had attorneys exchanging information as part of confidential settlement negotiations.  The disclosure of confidential information in such circumstances can get even more arcane and complex.

In short, it's a rather complex topic, far too complex to address here (particularly since we don't have much information).

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In short, it's a rather complex topic, far too complex to address here (particularly since we don't have much information).

Did you watch all of the press conference, smac? 

(Because there is more information given than what we knew beforehand.)

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Did you watch all of the press conference, smac? 

(Because there is more information given than what we knew beforehand.)

Nope.