Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Johann]

Abuse Prevention ?a Priority
for Adventist ?Risk Management
Insurance unit working to shield minors, fulfill church’s mission (Posted Mar. 8, 2012)

BY ELIZABETH LECHLEITNER, Adventist News Network

A new child protection program from the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s risk-management unit is galvanizing efforts to shield minors from abuse and misconduct.

Through training for adults and children, as well as background screening for employees and volunteers who work closely with minors, Adventist Risk Management’s (ARM) Child Protection Plan equips local leaders to make the church a safe place, said ARM vice president and chief risk management officer Arthur Blinci.

“It’s part of our mission to help protect the ministries of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” said Blinci, citing Children’s Ministries, Youth Ministries, Pathfinders, and Adventurers as a “core component” of those ministries. “Faith-based communities have a moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to protect children from harm when they’re in our care,” he said.

The church has made significant strides toward achieving that goal. In North America many church employees and volunteers are “mandated reporters,” Blinci said. This means they have a legal obligation to report abuse or allegations of abuse that occur within the church setting. By 2003 the church’s North American Division had drafted a protocol for dealing with sexual misconduct and child abuse. Late last year the division voted a new child protection policy mandating that every level of church administration implements training and screening programs for volunteers.

 PREVENTING ABUSE: ARM vice president and chief risk management officer Arthur Blinci wants to put tools and resources in the hands of local church leaders. A partnership with Shield the Vulnerable equips them to better protect children, he said. [PHOTO: ARM]
The Adventist world church has also been proactive about writing guidelines and voting policies to protect minors. Indeed, at the church’s General Conference session in 2010, delegates voted to add to the Church Manual specific language guiding the appointment of church employees and volunteers who work closely with minors. They agreed adults leading out in Pathfinders, Vacation Bible School, children’s ministries, and Sabbath school programs “must meet church and legal standards and requirements, such as background checks or certification.”

Still, Blinci said, policies, guidelines, and good intentions go only so far. Adventist Risk Management routinely handles a couple dozen cases of child abuse every year and has spent some $30 million on indemnity cases over the past two decades. Many U.S. states have open statutes of limitations, allowing older claims of abuse to be raised and litigated.

What the church needs are tools and resources to put in the hands of local church administrators and leaders, he said.

“We’ve heard for so many years from church members, ‘How do we do it?’?” Blinci said.

Now Adventist Risk Management is providing an answer. Through a partnership with Shield the Vulnerable, the organization’s new Child Protection Plan offers online training for adults on addressing abuse, neglect, predators, bullying, boundaries, and respect. It also provides age-appropriate information for children on recognizing and reporting abuse.

Shield the Vulnerable—a California-based service provider that frequently works with faith-based, nonprofit organizations—also offers background screening for employees and volunteers as a “critical” line of defense, Blinci said.

“So often, especially on the volunteer side, there’s typically no screening. You want to volunteer for children’s ministries? Great, come on, we can use you,” he said. “Now, when potential volunteers know before they even apply that you’re going to run a criminal background check, if they have a propensity, they’re not even going to volunteer.”

While creating the Child Protection Plan, ARM discovered that the church’s Lake Union Conference had already partnered with Shield the Vulnerable and piloted its training and screening programs in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and a portion of Minnesota.

Blinci expects all 59 of the North American Division’s conferences will follow suit in the coming months. Through Shield the Vulnerable, a conference or other administrative unit creates an account that tracks progress as they train volunteers and perform background screenings. “It goes all the way down to the local church and school level,” he said.

From Adventist Review, March 7, 2012

What does this have too do with my lawsuit? 

I posted this because I have the same question as you are asking. Even if this  might not apply directly to your lawsuits, this item, which comes from the the organization 3ABN seems to be promoting, and it reflects - in my opinion - on how this organization is reacting to what they are finding out about your lawsuit. This might help me to understand some of the mechanisms in your lawsuit. If not, it's isn't costing us a fortune to post it here for the edification of those who might be interested in how such lawsuits might be dealt with in the future, if not now. It seems to me that your lawsuit is shaping their thinking as expressed in this document.

Perhaps some experts read it differently than I do?

[Gregory]

I do not bleive that this program (and report in the Review) has much of a relationship with the current litigation against TS And 3-ABN.

Note the the comment that in the past 20 years the denomination had spent 30 million dollars  due to this problem.  That figure has gotten their attention.

When I first took my son to Walla Walla college, I noted anexcellent policy that the University Chruch had developed in concert with the Conference as to how to deal with such issues.  The church had publicly distribued that policy to all.  It was very well written and protected people from abuse. 

I am personally aware of Conferences, going back as far as 10 years ago who have bent over backwards to be appropriate with people who came forward with claims of prior abuse.  E.g.  I am thinking of one Conference who notified the woman that they would fly she and a counselor of her choice to the Conference HQ and provide them with accomadations at Conference expense so that they could talk to her some more about what had happened.

Things are changing, even if slowly.  And continued pressure from litigtion will probably help.

 

[Artiste]

Abuse Prevention ?a Priority
for Adventist ?Risk Management
Insurance unit working to shield minors, fulfill church’s mission (Posted Mar. 8, 2012)

BY ELIZABETH LECHLEITNER, Adventist News Network

A new child protection program from the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s risk-management unit is galvanizing efforts to shield minors from abuse and misconduct.

Through training for adults and children, as well as background screening for employees and volunteers who work closely with minors, Adventist Risk Management’s (ARM) Child Protection Plan equips local leaders to make the church a safe place, said ARM vice president and chief risk management officer Arthur Blinci.

“It’s part of our mission to help protect the ministries of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” said Blinci, citing Children’s Ministries, Youth Ministries, Pathfinders, and Adventurers as a “core component” of those ministries. “Faith-based communities have a moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to protect children from harm when they’re in our care,” he said.

The church has made significant strides toward achieving that goal. In North America many church employees and volunteers are “mandated reporters,” Blinci said. This means they have a legal obligation to report abuse or allegations of abuse that occur within the church setting. By 2003 the church’s North American Division had drafted a protocol for dealing with sexual misconduct and child abuse. Late last year the division voted a new child protection policy mandating that every level of church administration implements training and screening programs for volunteers.

 PREVENTING ABUSE: ARM vice president and chief risk management officer Arthur Blinci wants to put tools and resources in the hands of local church leaders. A partnership with Shield the Vulnerable equips them to better protect children, he said. [PHOTO: ARM]
The Adventist world church has also been proactive about writing guidelines and voting policies to protect minors. Indeed, at the church’s General Conference session in 2010, delegates voted to add to the Church Manual specific language guiding the appointment of church employees and volunteers who work closely with minors. They agreed adults leading out in Pathfinders, Vacation Bible School, children’s ministries, and Sabbath school programs “must meet church and legal standards and requirements, such as background checks or certification.”

Still, Blinci said, policies, guidelines, and good intentions go only so far. Adventist Risk Management routinely handles a couple dozen cases of child abuse every year and has spent some $30 million on indemnity cases over the past two decades. Many U.S. states have open statutes of limitations, allowing older claims of abuse to be raised and litigated.

What the church needs are tools and resources to put in the hands of local church administrators and leaders, he said.

“We’ve heard for so many years from church members, ‘How do we do it?’?” Blinci said.

Now Adventist Risk Management is providing an answer. Through a partnership with Shield the Vulnerable, the organization’s new Child Protection Plan offers online training for adults on addressing abuse, neglect, predators, bullying, boundaries, and respect. It also provides age-appropriate information for children on recognizing and reporting abuse.

Shield the Vulnerable—a California-based service provider that frequently works with faith-based, nonprofit organizations—also offers background screening for employees and volunteers as a “critical” line of defense, Blinci said.

“So often, especially on the volunteer side, there’s typically no screening. You want to volunteer for children’s ministries? Great, come on, we can use you,” he said. “Now, when potential volunteers know before they even apply that you’re going to run a criminal background check, if they have a propensity, they’re not even going to volunteer.”

While creating the Child Protection Plan, ARM discovered that the church’s Lake Union Conference had already partnered with Shield the Vulnerable and piloted its training and screening programs in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and a portion of Minnesota.

Blinci expects all 59 of the North American Division’s conferences will follow suit in the coming months. Through Shield the Vulnerable, a conference or other administrative unit creates an account that tracks progress as they train volunteers and perform background screenings. “It goes all the way down to the local church and school level,” he said.

From Adventist Review, March 7, 2012

I think this is a very timely post, Johann.

I also think the timing of the release of this information in the Adventist Review is quite likely to have some relation to the current news coming out about Tommy Shelton's sentencing, and the upcoming civil lawsuit with him and 3ABN.

[Alex L. Walker]

Abuse Prevention ?a Priority
for Adventist ?Risk Management
Insurance unit working to shield minors, fulfill church’s mission (Posted Mar. 8, 2012)

BY ELIZABETH LECHLEITNER, Adventist News Network

A new child protection program from the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s risk-management unit is galvanizing efforts to shield minors from abuse and misconduct.

Through training for adults and children, as well as background screening for employees and volunteers who work closely with minors, Adventist Risk Management’s (ARM) Child Protection Plan equips local leaders to make the church a safe place, said ARM vice president and chief risk management officer Arthur Blinci.

“It’s part of our mission to help protect the ministries of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” said Blinci, citing Children’s Ministries, Youth Ministries, Pathfinders, and Adventurers as a “core component” of those ministries. “Faith-based communities have a moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to protect children from harm when they’re in our care,” he said.

The church has made significant strides toward achieving that goal. In North America many church employees and volunteers are “mandated reporters,” Blinci said. This means they have a legal obligation to report abuse or allegations of abuse that occur within the church setting. By 2003 the church’s North American Division had drafted a protocol for dealing with sexual misconduct and child abuse. Late last year the division voted a new child protection policy mandating that every level of church administration implements training and screening programs for volunteers.

 PREVENTING ABUSE: ARM vice president and chief risk management officer Arthur Blinci wants to put tools and resources in the hands of local church leaders. A partnership with Shield the Vulnerable equips them to better protect children, he said. [PHOTO: ARM]
The Adventist world church has also been proactive about writing guidelines and voting policies to protect minors. Indeed, at the church’s General Conference session in 2010, delegates voted to add to the Church Manual specific language guiding the appointment of church employees and volunteers who work closely with minors. They agreed adults leading out in Pathfinders, Vacation Bible School, children’s ministries, and Sabbath school programs “must meet church and legal standards and requirements, such as background checks or certification.”

Still, Blinci said, policies, guidelines, and good intentions go only so far. Adventist Risk Management routinely handles a couple dozen cases of child abuse every year and has spent some $30 million on indemnity cases over the past two decades. Many U.S. states have open statutes of limitations, allowing older claims of abuse to be raised and litigated.

What the church needs are tools and resources to put in the hands of local church administrators and leaders, he said.

“We’ve heard for so many years from church members, ‘How do we do it?’?” Blinci said.

Now Adventist Risk Management is providing an answer. Through a partnership with Shield the Vulnerable, the organization’s new Child Protection Plan offers online training for adults on addressing abuse, neglect, predators, bullying, boundaries, and respect. It also provides age-appropriate information for children on recognizing and reporting abuse.

Shield the Vulnerable—a California-based service provider that frequently works with faith-based, nonprofit organizations—also offers background screening for employees and volunteers as a “critical” line of defense, Blinci said.

“So often, especially on the volunteer side, there’s typically no screening. You want to volunteer for children’s ministries? Great, come on, we can use you,” he said. “Now, when potential volunteers know before they even apply that you’re going to run a criminal background check, if they have a propensity, they’re not even going to volunteer.”

While creating the Child Protection Plan, ARM discovered that the church’s Lake Union Conference had already partnered with Shield the Vulnerable and piloted its training and screening programs in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and a portion of Minnesota.

Blinci expects all 59 of the North American Division’s conferences will follow suit in the coming months. Through Shield the Vulnerable, a conference or other administrative unit creates an account that tracks progress as they train volunteers and perform background screenings. “It goes all the way down to the local church and school level,” he said.

From Adventist Review, March 7, 2012

I think this is a very timely post, Johann.

I also think the timing of the release of this information in the Adventist Review is quite likely to have some relation to the current news coming out about Tommy Shelton's sentencing, and the upcoming civil lawsuit with him and 3ABN.

After reading it, it is hard to see ANY relation as you state above. I fail too see the connection. 

[Gregory]

There is a truism in statistics:  Correlation is not cause. Don’t make that mistake here.  The two events are independent and not related.  Yes, there are people in the SDA Church who are interested in what happens with the litigation against TS and 3-ABN.  Yes, there are people who are looking at this litigation to see if there are lessons to be learned for the denomination.  I do not deny any of that.  But, the Review article (statement) is the result of years of effort and very slow movements on the part of the denomination which only coincidentally occurred in the same time frame. 

On a slightly different aspect of this:  The litigation against TS and 3-ABN is not a threat against the SDA denomination.   A fundamental issue in this litigation is the legal doctrine of ”ascending liability.”  3-ABN may very well become ensnared in this issue although they will attempt to escape.  But, there is very little likelihood that the SDA denomination will be ensnared by ascending liability.    The case for that is extremely weak and almost null.     

[Johann]

 

Abuse Prevention ?a Priority
for Adventist ?Risk Management
Insurance unit working to shield minors, fulfill church’s mission (Posted Mar. 8, 2012)

After reading it, it is hard to see ANY relation as you state above. I fail too see the connection. 

It does not apply to your particular case at all, but it shows how the church is now trying to prevent child abuse in the future because of cases like yours. How many is not the point, and as Gregory points out, this preventive work could have started several years back. However it is interesting, like others have pointed out, that this should be announced just now - a few days ago. That is the reason for bringing it up here.

[Alex L. Walker]

Abuse Prevention ?a Priority
for Adventist ?Risk Management
Insurance unit working to shield minors, fulfill church’s mission (Posted Mar. 8, 2012)

After reading it, it is hard to see ANY relation as you state above. I fail too see the connection. 

It does not apply to your particular case at all, but it shows how the church is now trying to prevent child abuse in the future because of cases like yours. How many is not the point, and as Gregory points out, this preventive work could have started several years back. However it is interesting, like others have pointed out, that this should be announced just now - a few days ago. That is the reason for bringing it up here.

That may be correct, but I do not feel it safe to presume that this announcement was directly involved with Tommy.  In fact, many other churches (denominations) are implementing similar procautions such as this.

[Bob Pickle]

On a slightly different aspect of this:  The litigation against TS and 3-ABN is not a threat against the SDA denomination.   A fundamental issue in this litigation is the legal doctrine of ”ascending liability.”  3-ABN may very well become ensnared in this issue although they will attempt to escape.  But, there is very little likelihood that the SDA denomination will be ensnared by ascending liability.    The case for that is extremely weak and almost null.

But ascending liability is not the only concern. If there were additional victims on 3ABN's premises after Tommy was rehired, and if those additional victims were elementary school or academy students, or church attendees, and if those additional victims decided to seek compensation, then the Illinois conference might have cause for concern.

What makes it sticky is that the (previous) IL Conf. president was reportedly involved in getting Tommy out of there in 1991, and the IL Conf. president and Mollie Steenson were on both the 3ABN Board and the conference executive committee. It would be hard for both of them to deny having any knowledge of the risk Tommy posed being so close to children.

What about in cases where the church or its leadership or ASI has promoted 3ABN to church members? What if those promoters knew or should have known of the risk that Tommy posed, say to kids on Kids Time? What if one of the member's kids went to Kids Time and became yet another victim? What then?

Or, what about where Tommy at the invitation of a local church was part of a 3ABN rally at that church? What about if leadership in that church or in that conference knew or should have known about the decades-long string of allegations against Tommy? What then if a child in that church became yet another victim, and now seeks compensation?

My understanding is that after the IL Conf. president in 1991 got Tommy out of there, top leadership in the church knew about the problems. Typically, problems are communicated down the line, back down to the conference and pastoral level, particularly when it deals with independent ministries. How then might any church entity defend itself against a Tommy-related suit by claiming that there was no possible way that they could have known of the extreme risk that Tommy posed around children?

I'm not saying any of this to be critical. I'm just saying that there is more to this than ascending liability. It is a real concern, and the expressing of this very concern in 2006 was what started the ball rolling until Danny and 3ABN sued me in 2007, trying to shut me up. But regardless of their ungodly, evil shenanigans, it still is the truth, that Danny's utter irresponsibility in covering up the allegations against Tommy has jeopardized my church. And I think that is wrong, and I think he should resign, pack up, and leave in consequence. He has proven himself morally unfit to lead out at 3ABN.

[Johann]

Abuse Prevention ?a Priority
for Adventist ?Risk Management
Insurance unit working to shield minors, fulfill church’s mission (Posted Mar. 8, 2012)

After reading it, it is hard to see ANY relation as you state above. I fail too see the connection. 

It does not apply to your particular case at all, but it shows how the church is now trying to prevent child abuse in the future because of cases like yours. How many is not the point, and as Gregory points out, this preventive work could have started several years back. However it is interesting, like others have pointed out, that this should be announced just now - a few days ago. That is the reason for bringing it up here.

That may be correct, but I do not feel it safe to presume that this announcement was directly involved with Tommy.  In fact, many other churches (denominations) are implementing similar procautions such as this.

I agree with you. Why not?

[Artiste]

it still is the truth, that Danny's utter irresponsibility in covering up the allegations against Tommy has jeopardized my church.

It is amazing that top Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership has known about this problem for the last 20 years, Bob!

[Artiste]

the Review article (statement) is the result of years of effort and very slow movements on the part of the denomination which only coincidentally occurred in the same time frame. 

Gregory, where is your documentation of your statement which you have worded as fact?

What proof do you have that there is no significance between the time frames of the accusations against Tommy Shelton leading up to his pleading guilty to four felony accounts, having his bail revoked and going to jail on January 18, 2012, and the publication of the Adventist Review article on March 7, 2012?

[Gregory]

I have no problem with you disagreeing with you.

Documentation:  What would you want.  Would you expect for the Review to post the following statement:

The publication of this statement in the Review has nothing to do with the sentencing of Tommy Shelton to a prison term and the associated litigation that has been filed against 3-ABN.

Or, would you think that you might find the following statement recorded in the minutes of some denominational meeting: 

The members of this Board voted 25-6, in view of the prison sentence given to Tommy Shelton and the associated lititagion that has been filed against 3-ABN, to protect this denominational organization from such attempts to litigate against it, that the following statemet should be printed in the next available issues of the Review.  (the Statement then follows.)

In reality, any statement that might be written would likely be based upon the personal knowledge and experience of the person who made the statement.

My statement wa based upon my person observation of how such issues have developed in the SDA Chruch and their development before the current situation with 3-ABN came to light along with my personal knowledge of some lindividuals who have made claims against the chruch and how those issues have developed.

If you disagree wiht me, I have no problem.  I do not know everything.  I have beee wrong before and I expect to be wrong again.  On this one, I do not believe that I am wrong.

[Artiste]

Thank you for clarification that this was a statement of your opinion, Gregory, not of fact.

[Gregory]

There is much in life that does not have objective documentation outside of the personal knowledge and experience of the person who makes the comment.

That is true in history.

It is very much true in archaeology.

Whenever one askes for documentation, which is a valid quesiton, the next question becomes one of what is expected of documentation?  The reality is that much of human knowledge is gained by personal experience. 

There are whole fields of science that reason from an observation of the specific to a generalization of the whole.

The elementary student in statistics learns that correlation is not cause. Two independent things may be directly.correlated, but that does not mean that one causes the other.

Allow me to illustrate that truism:   There once was a teacher in a 8-grade school who wanted to study the ability of children to read.  that teacher wanted to test the thesis that the ability to read was caused by the size of the large toe of the students.

So all students in the 8 grades were measured for ability to read and then ranked from lowest ability to that of the highest ability.   Then each student was measured for the size of their large toe. and ranked from the shortest toe to the longest toe.

When the two were compared it clearly demonstrated that there was a positive correlation between the size of the students large toe and their ability to read.

O.K.  Did the teacher prove the thesis that the ability to read was caused by the size of the large toe?

NOTE:  My illustration came from a textbook that I once used in a statistics class.  I did not origonate it.

[JustWondering]

When did DS move to California?  Is the link below referring to a different DS and TS? Perhaps since it has TS living in Miss. and not in VA where he currently lives.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/courierpress/obituary.aspx?n=patty-boone&pid=156443961