Recently the SBC Executive Committee announced that they had hired Guidepost Solutions to conduct an “independent process assessment” in response to “recent accusations of the inappropriate handling of sexual abuse claims.” Response was varied, from affirming to skeptical to critical.
The first question was about the firm they hired. Guidepost has handled some high-profile abuse cases recently. While some were skeptical, others praised the organization for its strong track record.
Rachael Denhollander, a voice I trust more than any other on this subject, affirmed Guidepost, but relayed serious concerns – that even the best organization cannot do the work they need to do if obstacles are not removed by the Executive Committee. I wanted to recount here, in simple, list form the steps she said were critical in conducting this investigation (Tweet thread included below).
- The scope of the commission must be broadened to include all paid, appointed or elected leaders or staff of the Convention.
- The EC must commit to waiving privilege so that Guidepost has access to all data and information. EC alone can make this move, and any firm hired would be inhibited by a refusal to do so no matter how good the firm.
- The EC must commission a public report on the findings and recommendations – a critical component of accountability and transparency.
In addition, Griffin Gulledge raised a strong point about funding: that the EC could have the ability to “starve an investigation through budget restriction.” In addition to Denhollander’s list, I would add a fourth concern that adequate funding somehow be guaranteed for Guidepost to fully complete its work.
- Funding available that allows Guidepost to thoroughly and completely assess all aspects of this work.
Short of these steps being taken, I consider the current Executive Committee plan to fall far short of what the SBC, and more importantly abuse survivors affected by this action, deserve. I would love to hear from advocates, survivors, or other experts if there are steps you believe that should be taken in addition to what I’ve included here.
Denhollander’s thread included below:
The EC has NOT included all paid, appointed or elected leaders or staff of the Convention in this commission. The scope should be broadened to include these official actors.
— Rachael Denhollander (@R_Denhollander) June 11, 2021
The EC has NOT commissioned a public report on the findings and recommendations. This is a critical component of accountability and transparency that must be included in the commission.
— Rachael Denhollander (@R_Denhollander) June 11, 2021
But the EC will only get the benefit of what they allow themselves to get.
Ask for waiver, an extended scope and a fully public report. Only the EC can make those decisions, and they are critical pieces of this assessment and training.
— Rachael Denhollander (@R_Denhollander) June 11, 2021
