Sex Abuse Allegations Filed Against Salem Church

[John317]

It looks like the church is trying to do everything it can to avoid situations like the one that happened at the Salem SDA church. I especially like the idea of pschological evaluations, which hopefully would weed out people who don't have a criminal record of any kind but who still shouldn't be working closely with children.

I'm aware of the dangers because not only have I been in child care work myself for 20 years but my former father-in-law was involved in child abuse and served time for his crimes.

My former father-in-law was a church elder for many years in Olympia and during that time he was abusing young children, including his own sons. He was arrested in 1991 and finally had to do time in jail after his daughter-in-law found him trying to molest her son, his own grandchild.

He was great with children. He had a special talent for getting the parents trust and letting him "take care of them." He loved being with little children more than he liked being in the company of adults. He would call parents up and volunteer his services over the week-end if the parents wanted their freedom. I would say that if an adult male seems to be a little too interested in little kids, like always wanting to be around them whenever the opportunity arises, an alarm should definitely go off.

Also an alarm should go off if little kids throw up, etc., whenever they stay with someone. His daughter used to throw up when she had to stay alone with her dad, and now we know why. It was her self-defense against something he was doing or trying to do, but neither she nor I knew about it until he was arrested and charged. Then, too late, a lot of things began to make sense.

[Guest charis]

just an update note here.. the Oregon Conference has had a plan in place since the mid-90's for ferreting out suspect pedophiles who might work with kids in the church. People fill out a form from the Conference, which then gets sent back to the Conference. Not known what the Conference people do with the forms, i.e. take them to an *outside* source for investigation or if someone at the conference merely looks at the forms and makes a unilateral decision.

[John317]

I think that's very important. If a child says anything to a parent about somone's doing or saying anything that looks suspicious, there should be a way of letting investigators know without feeling that one has to make out an official police report for information to be looked into.

[darlene]

Education and Pathfinders require that a crimnal record check be done by the police on all of their employees/leader/helpers. Churches where a volunteer only helps with Sabbath School and does not take the children off site do not require a criminal record check be done though they do require three reference checks. At least that is what the Volunteer Screening requires. Some conferences do require a crimnal record check on on all leaders and helpers. That depends on local laws and requirements.

[Stan]

Too often we over stess strangers... when so often it is friends and family members.

Even so, come Lord Jesus Come..

[Dr. Shane]

Most often children are molested by friends or family. That was the case with me.

[Lil Star]

I see this has come up again about abuse. The persons criminal record is public. Anyone can check up on someones criminal background and can even be done over the internet these days. Just because someone says they have been molested by a "leader" of whatever type does not mean they are after getting into the deep pockets of the church.

While I feel that there should be a background check on everyone who is a leader in some sort of fashion I know that churches probably won't because that might just take up too much time, however, doing so may in the long run save the churches money due to the fact they would have less of a chance of letting an abuser around children. I know of many times I would go camping with pathfinders while I was young. While there was no molestation going on there were certainly plenty of times where children and 'leaders" could have had chances of doing so. What would be the harm of going online and check out the names of those in "leader" positions or even through the local police station? What is a little bit of time to save an innocent young child? Once molestation takes place there is NO way to get the innocence back for the child. Whether or not is law for the checks to be done, one would think it would be in the best interest of the church just to do so. To hand out papers of length and ask questions, does that mean that the person answering the questionaire are going to be totally honest if they are in actuality a molester of some sort? Anyone in their wrong mind trying to become a "leader" in whatever means will not answer the questionaire honestly if he /she really wants that position. There needs to be something done. Questionaires given to the person to answer I don't feel is a fair way of doing it. If one wants to be in a "leader" position should not worry about their "privacy" as it were. We are supposed to worry more about our children rather than adults. I know of a deacon that gave his 6 month baby a skull fracture and absolutely NOTHING was done to this man. In fact, he was able to keep his position as deacon. How fair is that to the child? Children are Christs children in which He has given to us to raise up and believe in God. If we let "leader" people take their innocence away, what does that say about us? The keeper of Gods children? However, I did forget to add that it must be a proven fact and not just one that has been reported. One should be convicted before actions be taken away or given,

[JeriAnne]

Thank you Lil Star! It is always amazing to me how there is ALWAYS time and money to be spent on the flashy and showy things that promote the church! But they aren't willing to protect their most vulnerable because it costs too much or will take too much time! Without that protection children will continue to be raped, sodomized and spiritually destroyed by perpertrators who KNOW that the fear and silence in THE Church community will allow them unlimited access to their prize and the opportunity to repeatedly get away with their perverted habit! It is because of the LACK OF PRIORITY that millions will not find God in church but instead all the powers of HELL ITSELF!

[Guest charis]

... .It is always amazing to me how there is ALWAYS time and money to be spent on the flashy and showy things that promote the church!

[Gregory Matthews]

Lil Star:

The denomination is making progress inthis regard, even if it has not reached perfection yet.

Official denominational policy is requiring background checks on certain classes of people. Is this policy being enforced uniformly. evenly, and totally in accord with policy? Probably not. But, progress is being made.

In one Conference of my knowledge, they spend an average of $200 for every person on which they do a background check, if my understanding is correct, and memory also. In any case, even if my statment of trhe amount is wrong, the point is that that Conference takes seriously its obligation to do such.

The University Chruch, of Walla Walla University, has in my opinon an excellent written policy designed to protect the innocent children. That policy is based upon the policy of the Upper Columbia Conference. It is extensive, and well done.

By the way: It is good to see you again.

[LifeHiscost]

Thank you Lil Star! It is always amazing to me how there is ALWAYS time and money to be spent on the flashy and showy things that promote the church! But they aren't willing to protect their most vulnerable because it costs too much or will take too much time! Without that protection children will continue to be raped, sodomized and spiritually destroyed by perpertrators who KNOW that the fear and silence in THE Church community will allow them unlimited access to their prize and the opportunity to repeatedly get away with their perverted habit! It is because of the LACK OF PRIORITY that millions will not find God in church but instead all the powers of HELL ITSELF!

I heard once that it takes a village to raise a child. There is always enough blame to go around to everyone. When I get perfect then maybe God will allow me to sit in judgement on others of whom I may never know their personal sense of guilt that despite their best efforts to stop the evil, it wasn't enough.

Sometimes we forget, it isn't city hall that commits the crime, and they shouldn't be blamed for it. It's the perpetrators.

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die....the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Eze 18:20 KJV

Regards!

[darlene]

Lil Star mentioned something about privacy of an individual being screened. Since I was the one who mentioned something about the privacy laws for an individual being screened, let me clarify what I was referring to...this is a government regulation and has nothing to do with the church. I personally do not feel that the privacy of an individual being screened is that important, however, I cannot change government regulations.

Yes, I will stand up for 'the church' as far as volunteer screeing goes. I do believe they are honestly trying to protect each child that comes in through the doors of a church/school to the best of their ability. When a person does not understand the whole process that is in place, how can it be condemned? We should first of all become knowledgeable about the process in place before we condemn it, shouldn't we?

[CyberGuy]

No one has pointed out the obvious.

If the person has no record he or she would not be in the data base. Also only if a person was convicted would that person be in the data base.

The church learns through trial and error. When these cases of abuse occur the church tries to see what might they do to ocrrect this so this type of thing can be prevented. Some people seem to think that the church seems to purposely places children in harms way without any regard or attempted safeguards. This simply is NOT THE CASE. ANd like others I also resent that insinuation by some people.

Just remember we are dealing with people who know the system as well. If they have a record do you think they would go into a job where they would have their background checked. Do you think they are idiots? COME ON PEOPLE most of these guys or gals are most likely offenders who have not yet been caught and therefore would not have a record.

The question should be HOW DO WE prevent first time offenders OR repeat offenders who have not been caught yet, not repeat offenders who would be in the data base.

[John317]

No one has pointed out the obvious.

If the person has no record he or she would not be in the data base. Also only if a person was convicted would that person be in the data base...

Actually I did make that observation a while back, and it is a very good and important point:

"Background checks should not give anyone a false sense of security that the children will now be safe or necessarily any safer. A great deal of the bad things are done by people whose checks wouldn't show anything at all."

I totally agree that the church is not doing things purposely to put children at risk. That, to me, is simply ridiculous.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Just remember we are dealing with people who know the system as well. If they have a record do you think they would go into a job where they would have their background checked.

Actually the answer is: Yes,they might. The system of background checks is not real good. People may be able to get through such with a clean slate. To do a proper check takes effort and money. People with a record may take the chance that they will not be discovered. They have nothing to lose by doing so. There is no criminal penalty--they simply are not allowed to take the position.

[CyberGuy]

They might?

That is the whole point. All we are doing is speculating on what an abuser "MIGHT" do. How much fact is actually given. How many times would a background check would have caught these child abusers. How many times would a background check have done no good at all. Second is the cost. A large church might be able to foot the cost of background checks but can small churches afford such a cost?. I know teachers or anyone working at schools are now required to get a police background check. At least in California anyway. I suspect that is the case in most states now.

I do not know if this is required for church workers who work with children. After all if you put a price tag like a police background check many just would not bother to volunteer to do Sabbath school for children. Only the most dedicated would who could afford the check.

The conference cannot be expected to foot the bill either. Most conferences are barely making ends meet as it is.

Nearly half of conference tithe moneies goes to support our schools already.

[Gregory Matthews]

And my point is:

1) If the background check causes convicted felons not to apply, it has been worthwhile.

2) If we catch a few, it has been worthwhile.

So, let us look at the cost:

You are well enough connected with the denominaation to know that in salary and benefits, many of our school teachers cost the Conference in the $50,000 to $60,000 range each year. Yes, some cost less.

On that basis, a one-time (at the time of employment) cost of $200 amounts to less than one-half of one per-cent of one year's salary! Very little. For esample, I am looking at a Conference roster of personnel associated with it's schools. That roster includes school-board personnel, elementary pesonnel, and high-school personnel. In includes teachers, and administrators. One might argue that school board personnel (all schools) would not need to be included. I included them as I wanted to have a large list.

There were 122 names on my list. At $200 per person, that comes to $24,400. Folks, that is a one-time expense of about one-half of one teacher for one year. And, it is not a reoccuring expense. Some of the teachers on my list have taught in that Conference for 20 years.

No, the financial cost is reasonable.

[CyberGuy]

Gregory

Just remember Gretory costs are higher in california than it is in colorado. Also we have a whole lot more schools out here than you do in colorado. Our conference payroll is over 2500 people an the vast majority of those are school employees.

We have Eight senior academies with grades k - 12 and numerous K-10 and evern more just k - 8 schools. For math purposes let us assume 1200 employess for schools.

That would be $240,000 oer year. Granted the cost is less than that as only new teachers would have to get those background checks. It is estimated teachers shift around every five years so take 20 percent of that and you still get about $50,000 per year in background checks. Schools can pass on that cost to the student tuition costs but churchs who depend on offerings cannot do that.

Actually the gross pay is $50,000 to $60.000 here in california. If you include benefits like medical and tuition assitance for children and child and possible spouse medical coverage the cost goes up to more like $80,000 to $100,000 per teacher.

Just to point out that California is NOT colorado. Things are more expensive here than out in your conference.

But my chief point is what is the cost to the churches.

So Do you requre a background check for every volunteer worker who teaches and assists in sabbath school work with children?

Is so who foots that bill.

Now Gregory you seem to know a lot about these so let me ask this.

Who gets on that police record?

Do only people who have been convicted of a child abuse crime get on it?

What about those accused of child abuse but never charged or convicted?

Does every wrong doing get on that record like unpaid traffic ticket or a shoplifting conviction from 20 years ago when a person was a teenager? Do we deny anyone with a brush with the law from working with children or only the child abusers?

My point is how perfect is this record? If only convictions get on it and since statiscally only less then 10 percent of criminals ever get charged is this really that reliable.

Do not get me wrong. I am all for background checks. My point is we should not depend entirely on that and then feel complacent that all is well since everyone passed the background check and therefore our children are safe? That is a recipe for disaster.

[CyberGuy]

This subject of child abuse has always been a violitile subject. People with very strong feelings on both sides of the topic. Some feel everyone who deal with children should be checked and if they do not they do not care for children. Otehrs point out the high cost of doing that. Then others make insinuations that you do not care about children or worse that you may have child abuser tendenacies Yourself.

SO People be careful when you join a discussion like this. You may be accused of not caring about kids or having child abusers tendencies just for pointing out the cons to certain points.

This has happened to me on this forum. All total nonsence of ourse but it does sour ones view of the radical element on this topic.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Do not get me wrong. I am all for background checks. My point is we should not depend entirely on that and then feel complacent that all is well since everyone passed the background check and therefore our children are safe? That is a recipe for disaster.

As a statement of your position, I agree with the above.

In regard to your comments relating to the number of employees, and their salary and benefit package, I do not challenge you. I used the figures that I used as I did not want to be accused of using higher figures that some would say did not reflect most situations.

I agree that background checks are clearly not the whole answer, and that is because it is very hard for a non-law enforcement agency to obtain a good, comprehensisve background check. Most that are so done are actually partial checks.

[darlene]

I know that in several conferences ciminal record checks are not required for Sabbath School/VBS, etc. workers.It is only done for those involved in activities that take the children off the church grounds. Other requirements such as windows in the door of a children's division, etc. and 3 references are required. They rely on past history through the reference checks which might indicate if a criminal record check is required. Payment for the check is a local church expense. The required volunteer screening form that each person working with children and then the three references are screened by the Conference VP or Secretary. That is the way ours is set up due to our government privacy laws.

Will it catch all those focused on abuse of children? We certainly hope so but, there will always be those who try to slip through the cracks of any and every system.

[Gregory Matthews]

Darlene has given us the specifics from one Conference. Others may do it differengly.

[CyberGuy]

Gregory

My conference does the same. No backgroud checks for Sabbath school teacher or VBS workers.

However our church do supply name tags for sanctioned VBS and sabbath school workers so we can tell who is sanctioned to be with the kids or not.

No law requires churches to do background checks for All workers who work with chilcren. State law only requires that for schools in our state.

[darlene]

Our conference does require all teachers and people working in our schools to have criminal record checks. Our Pathfinders Clubs also require ciminal record checks.

[Gregory Matthews]

As to the law:

That will differ from State to State.

But, I agree with you. The issue is not what the law says. The driving force in this is insurance and liability. Many insurance companies exclude such cases from coverage. That leaves the institution totally responsible for any liability judgement against them. Within the Adventist Chruch the system exists to advise individual schools, congregations, and Conferences at to how to reduce the risk. While the advice is there, in individual situations it is not always followed in the same way.

The issue in liability judgements is what I will call "due prudence." An institution that fails in litigation that they have exercised due prudence is likely going to have a judgemenet made against them, and/or it will be increased due to that demonstrated failure.

Due prudence is not limited strictly to what the law requires. Thus, an institution is best served by going beyond what the law requires. If an institution can show due prudence the likely hood of a punitive judgement against them is much reduced, even if a judgement for real damages in obtained.