June 2018 – Jane Speaks Up!

Police and DCS Response to Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Church Childcare Setting

Beginning in this post, I am going to start sharing my #churchtoo story. I plan to share the story in stages for specific reasons. To begin, this #churchtoo story demonstrates the need for new laws in Tennessee to protect children in classrooms and group childcare settings in which allegations of abuse or neglect arise against an individual in a supervisory role. The first is that a mandatory notice should be given to parents and/or guardians of minors who were under the supervision of an individual in which allegations of abuse have been reported.

Within this post, I am not going to name the church or the city of the church. The reason that I will refrain from doing so is that there still may be families unaware of the risks their children were exposed to in this church. I have contacted and shared the information with those families I know personally, but I personally did not know many families. I have asked all parties involved in this case to take action on behalf of the children in this situation without success. The church’s disclosure minimized allegations, downplayed the risks the very young children were exposed to, and provided false assurances of safety. We didn’t understand the risks our own child was exposed to, and I know others misunderstood as well. My hope is that those in positions of power and trust will take action on behalf of the vulnerable in this situation so that the families can hear this information in a kind and supportive manner.

For context, the criminal misconduct incident involved allegations of a violent sexual attack against a very young child by a male Sunday School teacher. This teacher pled guilty to a lesser charge and was convicted. From what I have been told, he received no jail time.

Once the parents of the disclosing victim learned of the incident, they called to make a report to DCS. A police investigation ensued. The police and DCS told the church not to inform families whose children were under supervision the alleged offender. The alleged (now convicted) offender held this supervisory position teaching toddlers and preschoolers for multiple ministry years. Despite the fact that the offender held a supervisory role over very young children for multiple ministry years, the investigation was limited to the one disclosing child and the rest of the children in his classes were completely ignored either as witnesses or potential victims. We consulted with the various leaders and learned that no one could provide us any assurance that our child was safe from harm while under the offender’s care.

Sometime later on, I did cross paths with a woman whose son was is the offender’s class the ministry year prior to the incident – which happened less than a month before the reported incident. She and her husband did not receive a notice prior to the court hearing. Church pastors did not respond to inquiries she sent to the church once she learned of the conviction.

We sought out legal and spiritual guidance. Initially I called up attorney Allison Bussell to ask her advice on the matter. I didn’t know if she could help since her husband worked for a church. Yet, I was looking for someone who had some familiarity with working in churches. She said something about representing the “criminal side” and referred me to Nick Tidwell. When I spoke to Nick, he repeated my concerns regarding the conduct of the church. Then he said, “Sounds like a cover-up.” He also asked me questions such as, “Are you sure you are not a victim?” and “What about your son?” He referred me to Larry Crain and said something about not working with the media.

When we met with Larry, he asked a lot of unusual questions such as, “Are you sure your email is secure?” He also advised that I archive all of my emails. I don’t delete my emails and shared this information with the attorneys. After asking a few questions and discussing the situation, he told me that I had a lot of sensitive information. He said that we are going to handle this one step at a time. I didn’t know what he meant by that.

Larry listened to our concerns, which he considered troubling. We discussed with him an upcoming meeting with church pastors. He said that he believed all of the children should be evaluated for harm. We pursued evaluations and consulted with him until we had tangible evidence of harm for our child. He said that he was hoping to be able to meet with the church board, but that was not going to be able to happen.

Prior to learning about the conviction, we had left the “incident” church and began visiting another church. Upon contacting this new church, we were put into contact with a care pastor who had past experience as a victim’s advocate for juvenile victims of violent sex crimes. We scheduled a meeting with the “incident” church pastors and this care pastor, Brandy Whitehead, came with us a witness/advocate.

After these conversations, we continued seeking medical, developmental, and psychological evaluations and treatment. We updated the church after we had tangible evidence of harm and asked them to notify families and the church. We also asked for their advocacy with DCS.

Shortly after we learned about the allegations, conviction, and that the various leaders could not provide us any assurance that our child was safe from harm, I called to report suspicions of abuse. I was transferred to the detective who was on the case. He told me that some people are in denial there are deviants. The onus of disclosure was on the church. They have a lot to answer for. He also told me that he would not be taking down a report and would not be asking what my concerns for my child were.

We believe our son did not have the cognition or communication skills to provide a spontaneous, unsolicited disclosure of abuse at the age he was in the classroom. In a later phone call with the detective on the case, I asked him on what basis did he consider there to be no additional victims in this childcare setting. He said it was because there were no additional verbal disclosures. This is a developmentally inappropriate standard for toddlers and young children. In our son’s situation, it is doubly inappropriate as he had been certified speech and language impaired by the state of Tennessee.

Shortly after the last communication with the detective, I wrote a letter to the police department, Representative Charles Sargent, and the city mayor detailing my concerns. The police responded promptly, and I met with the police chief, assistant police chief, captain of the criminal investigations division, and the detective from the case. I brought them up to date with my son’s issues, and we discussed the overall handling of the situation. They told me no laws were broken in the way things were handled following the original reported incident. They told me they were interested in seeing results from his next round of medical testing.

I contacted them again after that round of testing. I communicated with the captain of the criminal investigations division and a new detective.

After I sent in a few emails, I received an email from the captain of the criminal investigations division, which reads in part,

“I want to ensure you again that we are committed to giving the parents of children harmed the best possible information so they can properly care for their child. If this investigation reveals enough evidence for additional criminal prosecution, we will present the information to the district attorney’s office for prosecution.”

I continued communications with the next assigned detective hopeful that families would be contacted.

abbreviated police communications names deleted

Several months after the police closed the file, I began advocating for new laws. I sent in a letter to Representative Charles Sargent, Senator Jack Johnson, the city mayor, and Governor and First Lady Haslam. In it, I detail the need for a law mandating a notice of allegations against an alleged offender in a supervisory capacity over juveniles.

I received a reply from Senator Johnson’s office, and I met with him over the issue several weeks later. He agreed that families should know of allegations in various childcare settings. During our communications, he indicated need for legal research. I have followed up on this issue, but have not received a reply.

I also heard from Governor Haslam’s office.

Governor Haslam Reply Advocacy

Governor Haslam suggested that I take up my concerns with Department of Children’s Services.

I sent in a letter dated October 23, 2017, directed to Ms. Hommrich which stated that I had contacted multiple officials within DCS asking questions pertaining to the investigations of allegations of sexual misconduct. In a reply to my multiple communications, several of which Ms. Hommrich was included, Ms. Coble offered me sympathy but no answers.

I sent a record of my prior communications.

I re-stated my unanswered questions from these correspondences, some of which are listed below:

I have heard that DCS typically talks to parents and children in a setting where an alleged perpetrator has been in a care giving role with multiple children, such as a classroom setting. Would you explain to me why neither we nor our son were interviewed or contacted by DCS in this instance?
Should families in Tennessee with children exposed to an alleged offender come to expect no contact either as a witness or a potential victim if this exposure occurs in a church childcare setting?
Following a report to DCS, are each of the party’s(church, police, and DCS) responsibilities delineated in such a way that each party can meet the minimum requirements of the law and fulfill the function of their agency, yet classrooms full of children under the supervision of a convicted offender for a year or more are completely ignored as potential victims or witnesses?
Do you not feel that those knowledgeable that there were many children under the supervision of the convicted offender have an obligation to act on behalf of the health and well-being of the children beyond just removing the threat of future abuse?
Since that(#4) did not happen in this child care setting, do you think it is worth looking further into what led to this outcome?

I mentioned in a prior letter to Ms. Coble that because DCS works together with law enforcement and child care facilities, I believe it is important that DCS understands what is going on behind the scenes within these other organizations.

The church, police, and DCS all had prior ongoing relationships with each other. The city’s police officers were on the church campus every weekend providing security in the church nursery and children’s classes and traffic support. In addition, the children’s pastor had been involved with DCS with various foster care and adoption initiatives. If there were a situation I would have considered a “best-case scenario” for the three agencies to come together on the behalf of the health and well-being of the children in the class, this was it.

Perhaps each of the parties acted completely independently of each other and had no idea that institutions and offenders were effectively protected. Maybe one party expected one of the other parties or the individuals knowledgeable of the risks and dangers to these very young children to take some steps of care on their behalf. Instead, everyone was effectively relying upon the vulnerable children to speak up for themselves in order to receive help and healing and no meaningful care was provided to those who were potentially harmed.

Bonnie Hommrich 2017-10-30

This story demonstrates that we need new laws in Tennessee to protect children in classrooms or any group childcare settings in which allegations of abuse or neglect arise against an individual in a supervisory role. Examples of these kinds of settings can include sports teams, mother’s day out programs, Sunday school classes, and gymnastics and dance classes.

A mandatory notice must be given to parents and/or guardians when there are allegations of abuse against an authority figure. Parents need this information in order to make informed parenting decisions regarding the mental and physical well-being of their child. This is especially important when dealing with young children or those with developmental disabilities. Above all, the physical and mental health and well-being of the vulnerable children who have been under the supervision of an alleged offender should be the top priority. It is an unfair burden to place on a young child to verbally disclose abuse in order to receive help and healing. Compared to older children and adults, there is a shorter window of opportunity in which to administer a productive interview.

Adverse childhood experiences such as child sexual abuse can have a long term impact on a child’s mental and physical health and well-being. I believe the state has an obligation to act on behalf of children exposed to an alleged offender that has been in a repeated supervisory role over young children. After an initial report has been made alleging abuse against an authority figure, I am concerned that each of the involved party’s responsibilities may be delineated in such a way that each party can meet the minimum requirements of the law and fulfill the function of their agency, yet classrooms full of children under the supervision of a convicted offender for a year or more are completely ignored as potential victims or witnesses and parents and other caregivers are left completely unaware of the risks of which their child was exposed.

The notice needs to be within a designated time period and forthcoming. Waiting almost a year after an allegation and after charges have been filed is much too late. In addition, describing a violent sexual attack against a very young child as an “incident of a sexual nature” grossly minimizes the very severe allegations against our child’s teacher and the grave danger of which our child was exposed. It was not until after the teacher’s conviction that we learned important details such as the allegations, incident date, and age and gender of both the offender and victim.

Not only is the health and well-being of the young children at issue here. When an investigation is limited to considering only the one disclosing child, there is a missed opportunity to uncover the potential full scope of the situation. With young children, there is a limited window of opportunity to do an interview as their long term memory is not as developed as an older child or an adult. Parents learning of an incident one year or more after exposure is too long to wait. No one can say for certain the offender didn’t attack multiple children multiple times. Potentially, he could present more danger to the community than a one-time offender.

In addition, I have reasons to believe that the involvement of the three community organizations, the inaction of police and DCS, and the declaration of the incident as a one-time occurrence may have dissuaded some parents from considering their child’s behavior and/or physical signs to be potentially related to abuse. This messages came from the church, which many in our community put their complete and unquestioned trust in. This allowed some families to understand that the authorities were in agreement with the truthfulness of the church’s statements. It also gave the impression that the church, police, and DCS acted in solidarity and integrity.

Just imagine if charges would not have been filed in my son’s teacher’s case. I am not certain that we would have ever been given any notice regarding the allegations of abuse. That is precisely what I am concerned may be happening in other settings in Tennessee. Sexual abuse allegations are very difficult to substantiate and prosecute, particularly for young children and those with developmental disabilities, but that does not mean it did not happen and that the vulnerable were not at risk for abuse and in need of intervention much like my son.

I believe a mandatory notice would provide motivation for organizations that provide oversight to minors to shore up their abuse prevention protocol and training. If there are allegations of abuse and protocol was not being followed or an organization cannot say for certain they are, they should have to answer to parents and guardians regarding the lack of oversight within the organization. This is a reasonable minimal expectation for organizations that take on the task of providing care and protection over minors and the vulnerable.

I propose the following at a minimum for a notice:

A copy of the notice given should be provided in writing and a record should be made of it. All parties involved in a case should have access to these written records, including the dates, contents, the recipients of the notice, and the specific periods of time the children were under the supervision of the offender.
If law enforcement feels like a delay in the notice is warranted, that needs to be made in writing as well along with the specific reasons.
It is to be given to all parents whose children have been under the supervision of an alleged offender – whether the accused individual is a lead instructor, assistant, floater, or minor. If the alleged offender has held a position over children in previous ministry years, school years, semesters, or seasons, the parents of those children must be notified as well.
The ages and genders of the alleged offender, the incident date, and the allegations will be presented.
No false assurances of safety should be given.
No statements or conduct should follow the notice that would have a silencing effect such as directing concerned parents to individuals who have access to funds for counseling which would include confidentiality agreements.
The notice will be made as soon as possible. The first contacts should be made within three days, and the contacts should be completed within two weeks of the initial report.

I want to clarify that I am not proposing that the standard for criminal prosecution be lowered. I am proposing to change the standard for disclosing incidents to families whose children have been under the supervision of an alleged offender so that proactive action on behalf of the health and well-being of children and vulnerable be taken.

This has been a very challenging past couple years for our family. I am not the only one who was under the false impression that authorities would investigate the presence of additional victims in a classroom abuse situation with severe allegations. In the aftermath of discovering the allegations, the lack of involvement of authorities has been an impediment for our family in receiving treatment and support. As time went on and typical causes to my son’s symptoms were ruled out, my concerns regarding potential sexual abuse began to be taken more seriously – which I believe led to more appropriate evaluations and discovery of causes of symptoms. Having walked through this experience, I would not wish it on another family. I would like to make certain processes are in place so that there is not a repeat of what has happened to our family.

Handling Financial Misconduct Internally in an SBC Church

In this blog post, I am sharing my experience at a church where there was a financial misconduct incident. Rather than reporting it to the local authorities, the financial misconduct or “indiscretion” as it was described was handled internally and with very little transparency. Perhaps the leaders at the time felt like it was the proper way to handle the misconduct at the time. Maybe they would handle things differently now. For a more complete introduction, please read the prior post.

It saddens me to share this information. However, I feel like we have reached a season of time in our society and in the larger Christian community where these concerns might be heard, a fruitful discussion can be had from this incident, and unnecessary suffering can be prevented in another faith setting. On top of this, I have concerns outside of the church. My experience sharing the misconduct with the local police was difficult. It is difficult to confront criminal misconduct in faith settings when it is hard to get law enforcement to listen to concerned citizens.

First, I am going to share the timeline of events from the disclosure of the misconduct until the present time. I will include my experiences at the church and my attempts at reporting the incidents to the local police. Following the timeline of events, I will share some final thoughts.

Announcement of Fund Misappropriation

On September 9, 2012, my family went to church at Clearview Baptist Church in Franklin, TN, like any other Sunday. Unlike a normal Sunday, there was an announcement in the services that the Associate Pastor John Duval was found misusing church funds. From what I recall, it had been going on an unknown period of time. This activity was discovered by another staff person who had noticed a pattern of unauthorized transactions from a “pot of money separate from the general budget” and reported it. The staff began monitoring the transactions as they continued, and John was confronted. He offered a confession to the church and resigned. There was a confidentiality agreement both for him and Clearview’s former Senior Pastor Mark Marshall. From what I understand, the church would be continuing to pay John his salary for a period of time and would be paying for his counseling. There was an evening meeting for those seeking more information.

I was sitting in the service a little shocked about what I was hearing. I was pretty confused about the disclosure as it was very unclear the scope and extent of the misconduct. I thought back to the Wednesday night before the disclosure. I remember Mark Marshall announcing that a Financial Peace class was offered that semester and “some people really need it”. I wondered if he was thinking about John Duval with that remark. Also, Mark preached on the parable of the unmerciful servant that evening.

During the evening meeting, there was a short Q &A. Attorneys Nick Tidwell and Allison Bussell were up front along with Mark Marshall and ordained lay leaders Micah Carter and Jed Coppenger. In this meeting, Mark shared that there was a two-way confidentiality agreement. So, there was information he could not share about John and there was also information that could not be shared about him. Mark was adamant during the meeting that “this cannot get out into the media”. I was really bothered by his statement and with the confidentiality agreement. For one, we felt there was an ongoing lack of transparency (a lot of changes in the church with little input or explanation). Secondly, though we knew what John had misused church funds as he had confessed, we wondered why there were two sides to the confidentiality agreement. What was the information that John had about Mark? Thirdly, it was the end of a giving campaign in which members were asked to give one week’s salary in order to pay down debt. The campaign started a year prior with the encouragement to take one year saving and then collectively bring in the money on September 16, 2012. I wondered if and how the information would be transferred to those who missed that Sunday service in which John resigned (I don’t think it ever was officially). The end of the giving campaign was the next week.

One Great Day Campaign

During the meeting there was a lot of emphasis on showing grace toward John. Mark Marshall shared that the church was going to take care of him. I think there were a lot of people concerned since John was a very active pastor and pretty involved in the life of the church and members. I remember asking questions about protocol and asked, “Aren’t we supposed to have processes in place and oversight of finances as a preventative to this kind of misconduct or to stop it from becoming an ongoing problem?” I didn’t get a response from anyone who was up front.

I also remember saying, “There is something wrong here.” I suggested that perhaps it would be worth an outside group coming in to provide feedback. I felt like the leaders up front had quizzical looks on their face.

The other thing that stood out to me is that one of the attorneys, Nick Tidwell, had a really uncomfortable look on his face. After that meeting, I never saw him or his family around the church. When I asked about his family, I learned he changed churches.

After the meeting I talked to Micah Carter twice. First, while inside the building, I mentioned that I thought funds(or I may have asked) were taken from the benevolence fund. John Duval officiated my mom’s funeral, and my dad asked that gifts be directed to the benevolence fund. I shared that John had specifically told me that one of my relatives gave a generous donation. Micah looked surprised but didn’t say anything. Later, on the way out to the car, I ran into him again. I am not sure how, but the preschool minister Connie Hartzell also came up. He mentioned that they were doing an investigation in order to help Connie do her job better. I asked if other people had trouble with her. He said there were others. He asked me to send an email describing our troubles – just not to his LifeWay account but to his personal account.

Given the confidentiality agreement and Micah Carter’s complete silence and this legal agreement between Mark Marshall and John Duval, I figured there wasn’t any point in asking any further questions about John’s misconduct as it was not going to go anywhere. They decided the way things would be handled, and that was that. Despite my discomfort in the way things were handled and the many unknowns as they were concealed, the fact that several church leaders were involved added to the perceived integrity and accountability in the situation. In addition, ClearView had local law enforcement in the church membership.

I worked on an email to send to Micah. My husband and I were regularly involved with the preschool and children’s ministry and had a vested interested in its health and integrity, so I was happy to share my thoughts and experience.

Sep 19, 2012 Email to Micah Carter

New Pastor Search

Shortly after John Duval resigned, Mark Marshall initiated a search to replace his position. Communication from the church reflected a wide search and involvement in the Personnel Committee. However, I was in Bible study with a woman on the Personnel Committee. When I asked her about the progress in the pastor search, her response reflected a lack of involvement.

Pastor Search

In addition, my husband emailed Mark Marshall to follow up on this, and he was concerned that there was a difference between what actually happened in the pastor search and how it was presented to the congregation.

New Hire Questions

So, we called up the church office and scheduled a meeting with Mark Marshall.

December 12, 2012 – Meeting with Mark Marshall

Shortly after John’s resignation, the church began a search for a new Associate Minister. This was a necessary and valuable position for the church as John was definitely the more “hands on” pastor in the church. John went the “extra mile” to provide pastoral assistance to individuals and families – including my extended family – and seemed to have intuitive people skills. The communications sent to the congregation communicated an extensive search by the personnel committee. I happened to be in Bible study with a woman on the committee and asked how things were going. Her answer reflected a lack of involvement in the process. We were concerned and perplexed.

A candidate was announced, and he came to preach in late November 2012. He was a former LifeWay employee who had worked with Mark Marshall in the past. He seemed like a nice guy who fit the job well and was voted in.

We were concerned about how everything transpired in the hiring of this new minister (Mark Satterfield) – in light of our concerns in lack of transparency in decisions. The lack of involvement of an actual Personnel Committee person concerned us. So, we requested a meeting with Mark Marshall. In it, we shared my conversation with this Personnel Committee member and asked about the involvement of the Personnel Committee. I don’t know if he answered our questions directly. Though, he shared some information about when pastors are recruited and hired in the SBC community, it can get a little nasty. Once a senior pastor knows that one of their pastors is a candidate for another job, they might just fire them. Also, he shared that he knew and trusted Mark Satterfield from his days at Lifeway. They would be working side by side, and they needed to be able to work together and get along. He also mentioned that he first had approached another Clearview member and Lifeway employee Brad Waggoner for the vacated position. But, he wasn’t interested in the position.

We also shared our concerns about feeling like changes at the church had been made with little to no explanation. We served regularly and participated in the life of the church but felt “we were just along for the ride”. I don’t remember the exact context, but he also mentioned that there was a “situation that made him want to commit suicide” and something about avoiding a lawsuit (or maybe making some changes to avoid one). He also said that he gets phone calls from places all the time looking for a new Senior Pastor – including a recent call from a church in Mississippi. We thought this was peculiar for him to mention. He had made it clear in the past that he wanted to serve out his working life at Clearview.

During this meeting another church member babysat our kids. I talked to her about the meeting afterward. We shared the reason for our meeting was to get clarification regarding the Personnel Committee – how the woman I knew on the Personnel committee conveyed a lack of involvement in the pastor search process. She said something like it appears that it is just Micah Carter and Mark Marshall making all the decisions. She said that Micah had told them that he felt that Mark had a right to choose his own staff replacement for John Duval, since he would be the one working with him so closely.

Following the meeting, we were still concerned and confused. My husband also reached out to Micah Carter over email several times to see if he could meet with us or him. Micah replied like he was willing to meet, but he never finished responding to my husband.

One thing we did notice during the time period is that Micah Carter spent a lot of time in meetings with Mark Satterfield. I had the understanding that it had to do with church related business.

Redemption City Church Plant

In Early January 2013, Mark Marshall announced Clearview Baptist Church would be starting and funding a church plant called Redemption City Church with Jedidiah Coppenger as the full-time Senior Pastor.

See video blog below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=3URMkfTeUvE

Later in January, there was a Redemption City Interest Meeting on a Sunday Evening – Mark Marshall introduced Jed Coppenger and the Redemption City church plant. Clearview was providing funds for the plant. Jed was the lead pastor/elder. Other pastor/elders were Brad Waggoner, Micah Carter, and Devin Maddox. The other pastor-elders would maintain their employment outside the church. The church would still be Southern Baptist, but would be elder led vs. congregational. Thinking back to our conversation with Mark Marshall in December 2012, we thought it was strange that he would ask Brad Waggoner to be on staff at Clearview, when he was already going to be a pastor at the church plant that Clearview was financially supporting. In addition, it felt like a precarious time both to be funding a new church venture and to be sending off a group of families, which would divert funding from Clearview to the new church plant. Just the month prior, Mark Marshall had sent a plea for financial gifts.

Plea for Financial Giving

Winter 2013

I spoke again with the family that babysat our kids during our meeting with Mark Marshall. They were close friends of Micah Carter and his family. We talked with them sometime after the church plant announcement. I mentioned to the wife that based on our conversation with Mark Marshall in December, it didn’t seem like he knew anything about the church plant. Specifically, why would he have mentioned that he had talked to Brad Waggoner about the vacated staff position when he was already going to be a pastor in the new church plant? This individual told me that she and her husband were asked to join the church plant, possibly to be a host home to a small group. When they were asked to consider joining the church plant, they were told to keep the information quiet when they were in the planning stages. She said that she and her husband approached the Children’s minister (Shane Pass) to pray with them about joining the church plant. Shane didn’t know what they were talking about – he was unaware of the church plant at that time. They assumed that Shane would have known about the church plant as he was and still is on staff at Clearview. When I spoke to my husband about this, he suggested that maybe the people planting RCC didn’t trust Mark Marshall or there was another reason they couldn’t tell him in the planning process.

Spring 2013

The church changed their financial reporting year.

Financial Reporting Year Change

My dad passed away in the spring. We decided to leave Clearview at that time as we were concerned with the ongoing lack of transparency.

Staff Turnover

The preschool minister position was eliminated. Connie was no longer on staff.

Preschool Staff Transitions

Jeremy Bussell was hired on as Church Administrator, which is the staff position that takes care of the church accounting. Jeremy Bussell is the husband of Allison Bussell, who is one of the attorneys for the confidentiality agreement.

Summer 2013 – Phone Call from Children’s Minister

We got a phone call from Shane Pass asking where we had been. We talked about the church situation. I had mentioned the past scenario with Connie (allowing a male to teach preschoolers alone) and the Redemption City Church plant. I told him that it seemed like Mark Marshall did not know about the church plant when they were in the planning stages. I told him what I had heard from another church member about approaching him for prayer regarding joining the church plant. I told Shane that these church members had said that that it didn’t appear he knew about the church plant. Shane said that I was correct. I had wondered how Jed and Redemption City got the financial support from Mark Marshall when they planned the church plant without Mark Marshall’s knowledge. Shane said that he approached Mark Marshall to ask about the church plant. Mark Marshall said that when Jed had approached him, he said that he would be taking a bunch of Clearview members with him anyway, so he might as well financially support the church plant. Shane mentioned that he thought that was a pretty arrogant attitude.

Mark Marshall Resigns

There were several other staff transitions throughout the year. In spring 2014, Mark Marshall resigned. He secured two interim pastors to preach after his departure. The first was Thom Rainer followed by Eric Geiger. Eric Geiger eventually became Clearview’s next Senior Pastor, though he was part-time and retained his employment at LifeWay.

Mark Marshall Resignation Interim Pastors

More Information About John Duval

In May 2014, we hired someone to do some work at our house. I received a referral for this business from someone outside of ClearView. However, when the owner came to our house, she mentioned that she recognized us. We figured out that it was from ClearView. We also came to learn that we both knew John Duval. She told us about his new line of work. He was working in the field of mediation. She also told us that what he did was “no big deal”. He was only using the church fund as a personal line of credit.

I was a little perplexed by this. I don’t consider using church funds as a line of credit “no big deal”.

I am going to stop here and make a comment before continuing the timeline. I consider this a consequence of pastors minimizing sin and crimes. Breaking the law and breaking God’s commandments is not “no big deal”. But, when misconduct is whitewashed and leaders who are supposed to be held to a higher standard are not, it communicates from the top down that sin and crimes are not a big deal.

Hearing Issues Around the Community – 2015

Since leaving ClearView, we would still see people around the community. As we had recently left and other people were leaving as well, the topic of church attendance would come up. I would regularly hear about leadership concerns and questions and confusion about staff transitions. One thing that was troubling for me to hear was the lack of transparency in the way the preschool minister’s transition was handled.

I have run into Clearview members around town over the last several years. One thing I have noticed is that people have sounded confused and disgruntled with the preschool minister Connie Hartzell’s and Mark Marshall’s departures.

I also heard around town that most of the initial staff who left Clearview to plant Redemption City with Jed had left. Many of the lay families that helped start RCC with Jed had left, too.

There were other conversations that triggered a lot of memories regarding Clearview. I thought more and more about the situation, especially related to the vagueness of the description in John Duval’s “resignation” and the two-way confidentiality agreement. I thought maybe Mark Marshall was hiding things. I recalled a few conversations from the past fall where people were upset with how Connie was fired. I asked a few people if they knew anything about how Connie didn’t follow protocol such as two adults in a room in the preschool department. They didn’t know this.

I also thought a little bit more about the strange circumstances surrounding the church plant. When my husband and I had realized back in early 2013 that Mark Marshall probably didn’t know anything about the church plant while it was forming yet still financed it, it confused us. But, in light of the fact that Jed knew all of the information that Mark was trying to hide in the confidentiality agreement, it makes me wonder whether this had anything to do with the ability to gain financial support.

We also ran into Shane in 2015 at a park. I remember my husband talked to him for a while. Shane seemed confused about why Mark Marshall left the church – he made a lot of changes and did not stick around to see them through. He said they had been busy as there had been a thorough turnover in staff.

Spring/Summer 2016 – Contacted Shane Pass and Jeremy Bussell

I had a number of conversations and emailed both of them. I was concerned about the lack of protocol in the past and the lack of true resolution of concerns. In both departments, they explained that they had implemented best practices strategies and various checks and balances.

I called up the church and spoke to Shane about some of my concerns related what I had been hearing from people around town. I asked him about the preschool department. He explained that Connie and her practices were no longer part of Clearview. He said that Connie left Clearview in the manner in which she did because she refused to meet “demands”. He said that she left her keys at the church and walked out one day. Shane also told me that Clearview was still liable for what happened. I don’t know what he meant by this. I didn’t know if Shane meant to say that they were still in the statute of limitations. Or, did the two pastors make confidentiality agreements where the church would have to pay if it were breached?

Shane also explained that Mark Marshall handled Connie’s departure the way he did in order to maintain her future employ-ability.

During the time that I had conversations with Jeremy Bussell, he “acted” surprised when I told him that John Duval’s friend had told me that what John did was no big deal, he was using the funds as a line of credit. He said, “That sounds like stealing!” The reason I put quotes around acted is that his surprise seemed faked.

Jeremy stated that they purposely kept their distance (or something to that affect) from the events of 2012. I told him that I knew that Allison, his wife, was an attorney for the confidentiality agreement. Of course he would know about the information I was asking about.

Jeremy Bussell also told me that he and his wife, Allison, believe in prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law.

I had asked if my donations and those of my family’s were used in keeping with the intention of the fund. He told me that funds were converted to credit cards and more than the allowed annual amount was given to one person.

When I told him my experiences related to conversation with the ClearView member and Shane Pass pertaining to Redemption City, he sounded genuinely surprised. Jeremy Bussell said that Clearview provided $200,000 seed money for the church plant. I believe the money would have been transferred later in the year. I don’t know if it was one lump sum or contributed over a period of time. At the time of the announcement, Mark Marshall made it sound like it was a committee decision. I asked Jeremy Bussell if there was a neutral person who was part of that decision to fund this new church other than Jed and Mark. Jeremy Bussell didn’t answer my question regarding any potential misrepresentation, so he didn’t confirm there was an actual misrepresentation. Also, I don’t know if a misrepresentation would be criminal financial misconduct. Interestingly, before I had those conversations with him, Clearview’s website had a history section where it listed previous pastors and church plants, which included Redemption City. They don’t have that information on the website any longer as far as I can tell.

August 12, 2016

https://web.archive.org/web/20160812203405/http://www.clearview.org:80/about

https://web.archive.org/web/20160812193954/http://www.clearview.org:80/our-history

December 31, 2016

https://web.archive.org/web/20161231075757/http://www.clearview.org/about

Attempted Reports to Franklin Police Department

In June 2016, I attempted to make a report to the Franklin Police Department regarding John Duval’s financial misconduct. I had spent some time contacting ClearView, and I had confirmed my personal donation to the fund. In addition, I started archiving all of my emails pertaining to ClearView related to finances, staff transitions, and the church plant. During my search of emails, I found one in which John Duval shared that he had oversight of the Benevolence fund. When I first called the department, the woman on the phone asked why the pastor wasn’t making a report. I eventually went into the department and spoke to Officer Cary Bradbury. He listened to my concerns. However, he told me that I needed to come into the department at the time of the notice in order for them to investigate the situation.

I was confused by this visit and my interaction with the officer. I thought about it some more and wrote a letter to the Franklin Police Department Chief Faulkner. Note that at the time of this letter, I was not sure whether pastors at ClearView made a report to Franklin Police Department or not. I was not completely clear as to how things were handled.

FPD Chief Faulkner Emails

JDBenevolence.doc

JDR esignation.doc

Following the emails, I had additional conversations with Sergeant Morgan. He explained to me that when someone gives money to a church, then it becomes the property of the church. So, when someone embezzles money from the church or burglarizes the church, they are stealing from the church, not from the person who gave the money. He told me that he would make some phone calls if I gave him a list of names. So, I sent additional emails with names he could contact. Also, I provided him with information about any possible illegal or unethical activity that I knew of.

Sometime after I sent in all of my information, I emailed to follow up with Sergeant Morgan. He never responded to my inquiry. (I also went into the department earlier this year to see my report, and there was not one at the record desk.)

Shortly after I sent in all my information to the Franklin Police Department, I learned that the Senior Pastor Eric Geiger resigned.

Eric Geiger Resignation

Clearview eventually did hire a Senior Pastor in accordance with their constitution and by laws.

Mark Satterfield resigned and took a position at another church working with Mark Marshall.

Final Thoughts

Simply put, I believe misconduct in faith settings needs to be handled with truth and transparency. Best practices prevention protocol should be instituted for the various kinds of misconduct that occur in faith settings. Even with good protocol, incidents can happen. A response protocol needs to be made ahead of time. This information should be communicated with church members. Church members entrust their leaders with their children and financial resources and leaders have a duty to share this information. Members and visitors should know what to expect in various cases of misconduct.

In the situation at ClearView led by Mark Marshall, the misconduct was not handled with transparency. Both he and John Duval utilized sophisticated legal maneuvers to conceal the full scope of the misconduct. Not only this, but a group of members collaborated with them and provided support in keeping the information secret. Based on the course of events, it appears that sensitive information was being passed through channels of legally protected communications(clergy to clergy, clergy to attorney, attorney to spouse, etc.). I think this may be part of why Mark Marshall put so much effort into hiring people he personally knew from the past and trusted. In order to enact this plan, it appeared that Mark Marshall had to constantly promote facades as to what was happening, when the reality was much different.

At this point, I am left wondering, where did these pastors get their ideas? Is this a typical practice in SBC churches? The utilization of confidentiality agreements to conceal misconduct, whether it is criminal or not, is dangerous. Pastors could conceal anything such as the dangerous practices within the preschool department or worse.

Clearview is an SBC church. Theologically, do the SBC leaders believe that criminal financial misconduct committed by a pastor should be handled “in house”? Does SBC leadership consider it sinful and perhaps unforgiving to report criminal financial misconduct to civil authorities and pursue prosecution of crimes? Clearview is not some outlying SBC church. There are high level Lifeway leadership at the church. When former Sr Pastor Mark Marshall had to take a medical leave, Ed Stetzer took over for him preaching. When Mark Marshall resigned, Thom Rainer was the first interim preacher. Eric Geiger (a Lifeway VP) was the interim following Thom Rainer. Eric Geiger eventually became the Sr Pastor while retaining his Lifeway position.

Also, it appears that at least one attorney (and I suspect both) for the confidentiality agreement and Jeremy Bussell believed in prosecuting criminal misconduct to the fullest extent of the law. So, why did they prop up the scheme by participating in it?

What does it take in Williamson County, Tennessee, for police to take complaints of potential criminal misconduct seriously? I had to keep on pressing the issue with the FPD. Based on when I went into the department to follow up on it earlier this year, the woman at the records desk said that my complaint exceeded the statute of limitations. Well, I do not believe it did the first time I attempted to bring the issue to the departments attention. Also, once I did finally bring my attention to the FPD chief and got a call back about the issue, why is there no record of my report?

I hope this experience has been helpful to read. My hope is that community and church leaders can come together to raise awareness of these issues and institute best practices protocol.

Introductions

I want to start of by saying that I refer to myself as “Jane” on this blog and on my twitter account. To be clear, I am not a “Jane” in this first story that I am sharing. However, I am a “Jane” in another Christian setting that I plan to share following this story due to my relationship to a minor child within the story.

Unlike many of the other stories that have been shared regarding misconduct in Christian environments, this is not related to a sexual offense or physical abuse. Similarities include that some of the misconduct was criminal in nature. Rather than reporting it to the local authorities, the financial misconduct or “indiscretion” as it was described was handled internally and with very little transparency. The lack of transparency from the church leadership caused a lot of confusion and created a sense of distrust among the congregation. While the church leadership was successful in protecting the offender from criminal consequences, I believe the congregation instead suffered the consequences. When an offender is protected from consequences, it doesn’t erase the debt that is created from the sin/crime. Someone will pay. If the misconduct is covered up through deception and obfuscation, an additional sin has been committed, compounding the wrong and thereby compounding the burden of the sin.

While abuses against the human body are far more damaging to the victims, misusing the funds that God has entrusted to the church is unethical, sinful, and may be a crime in some instances. Not only are churches and Christian leaders entrusted and tasked with caring for the souls of their congregation, the church is accountable to God for the proper stewardship of His funds.

While keeping up with the SBC annual meeting last week, I read statements from multiple leaders that it is Biblical to report criminal misconduct in the church setting. I don’t know if they feel the same way about reporting financial misconduct or not.

We know that Scripture says, “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.” A pastor or church leadership does not all of the sudden turn a switch and minimize and obfuscate sinful and potentially criminal conduct within the church. Scripture makes it clear that the practice of deception increases sequentially. When “big” deceptions have been found that includes the covering up of physical and sexual abuse, likely there have been other relatively “smaller” or less series deceptions in the past. Likewise, when deceptions of a lower consequence are not dealt with properly, it should not be surprising to find greater deceptions down the road.

Prior to bring this story online, I have brought this information to the attention to the local law enforcement. The first set of attempts were within the Statute of Limitations as far as I know. I was brushed off in my first attempts. Thinking that my interactions with the first officers were very odd, I made a second set of attempts to contact the local law enforcement. I did receive a call back from the department after I sent some emails describing my observations and concerns in greater detail. Though, when I went into the department to follow up, I was told it was past the statute of limitations.

In addition, I have communicated with current staff at the church and communicated all that I believed could be potentially improper conduct, whether it be illegal or simply unethical. The senior level staff from this church have all resigned and moved onto other churches or employment.

While it is difficult to share this story, my hope is that it will ultimately be redemptive. I wonder if the various people involved could go back in time, would they want to change how they responded following the discovery of the misconduct? Would they advise another congregation or set of leaders to respond differently? Maybe some are satisfied with the way events transpired and feel like the situation was handled appropriately.

There are several things I would like to highlight before I share the sequence of events. I am not sharing this story to shame the individuals involved. Instead, I think there is a lot to learn from the situation in terms of leadership practices both before and after the discovery of the misconduct. I believe it would be helpful for other churches to learn from this situation so that churches can find a better way forward both on the prevention and response side. Secondly, these events transpired in Middle Tennessee, which many endearingly refer to as the “buckle of the Bible belt”. When I made my first attempts in contacting the local law enforcement department, I was questioned and brushed off. The church is highly revered in my area and any scrutiny directed at a church or anyone associated with a church is looked upon with suspicion by many, and it appears that some in law enforcement have a lasseiz-faire attitude toward criminal misconduct in the church, particularly with respect to financial crimes. I would like to share how these factors along with various leadership practices within the church make it difficult to confront criminal misconduct in the church.

In my next blog post, I will be sharing the specific course of effects starting with the church’s first disclosure up until the present time.