Does he have the best interests of victims in mind?

Share Button

Further to my blog of 19 November I Making the problem go away  regarding the latest on the St. Mary’s International School / Brothers of Christian Instruction sex abuse scandal, I started posting a comment on what was to be a little information regarding SMIS panel member Mr. Angus B. Llewellyn. Not much. A little.

As I posted I began ‘googling’ things which crossed my mind.

I have now decided to post this as a blog and will link it to the appropriate thread. I would like to keep the information on the panel members together and therefore easily assessable.

As I say, I have a little information. Not a lot. I will post what I have found and let you decide what it all means.

First, there are a number of articles related to Mr. Llewellyn’s years with the FBI. I decided not to link to any since none seemed relevant. We know that he is a 25-year veteran of the FBI.

We also known (from Mr. Kagei’s 15 November 2014 letter ) that Mr. Llewellyn “
has led 60+ compliance reviews in response to sexual abuse allegations involving children.“

What exactly does that mean?

Well, it seems that Llewellyn worked with an agency/organization which conducted audits for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Here we go…

In this 2004 article there is reference to an audit conducted by the Gavin Group of Boston.

The audit found that the Diocese of Kansas City–St Joseph was in full compliance with Charter for Protection of Children and Young People.

(The Charter/Dallas Charter is the procedures/guidelines set by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002 to address the burgeoning accounts of clerical sex abuse in the country. The Charter is applicable in the USA only. Annual audits for compliance have been mandated by the USCCB, however the bishops conference does not have the authority canonically to compel bishops to do comply. Several diocese do not comply and audits in several dioceses have therefore not been conducted. )

As you can see, Gavin Group of Boston conducted the audit. And, as you can see, Angus B. Llewellyn is identified as one of two former FBI agents who spent several days in the Diocese of Kansas City–St Joseph who “poured over hundreds of pages of diocesan documents relating to sexual abuse cases, and interviewed priests, response team and independent review board members and victims of clerical sexual abuse to judge how effective the diocese has been in implementing the 2002 U.S. bishops’ Charter.”

According to this 2004 article The Gavin Group was hired to conduct 191 of the 195 audits of Catholic dioceses in USA that year.   According to other sources the group is hired by the UCSSB.

The head of the agency, like Mr. Llewellyn and many if not all investigators with the agency are FBI veterans. The Gavin Group investigators are often referred to in articles as “independent investigators.|”

In the 2007 the Gavin Group audit found the Diocese of Kansas City–St Joseph in full compliance. The Bishop of the day was by then Robert W. Finn.

As most probably know, as of 2012 Bishop Finn became the highest ranking American Church official to enjoy the dubious distinction of being convicted for failing to report suspicions of child sex abuse.

I have hunted for the 2011 and 2012 audits of the Diocese of Kansas City–St Joseph to see if the diocese was found to be in full compliance in those years. I am sure the audits can be accessed online somewhere – I just reached a point that I decided I should, at least for now, give up.

I did however come across this blog from 2009 wherein serious reservations are expressed regarding the accuracy of the audit of the Diocese of Portland Maine

“…neither Mr. Gavin nor the bishops will admit that the financial success of Mr. Gavin’s company is dependent upon the goodwill of Catholic bishops across the country. If enough bishops become dissatisfied with the results of their child protection compliance audits, then Mr. Gavin will be shown the door …”

If you read the blog you will see that, according to the blog, despite the fact that a known clerical molester was living in a community “full of kids” and that “no one knows about the priest’s past history of abusing children” the bishop of the day, Richard Joseph Malone, received full marks for “ensuring the safety of children.”

In other words, the Diocese of Portland Maine was deemed to be fully compliant.

I could spend forever checking out compliance records alongside the cover-ups in various dioceses. I will leave that to others. I can tell you however that the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis was also deemed to be in full compliance, and that in that regard . questions have been raised as to how the Archdiocese has consistently been graded fully compliant with news from canon lawyer Jennifer Haselberger that auditors were not given access to certain clerical records

Indeed, many will recall that this same archdiocese has recently been rocked by allegations of cover-up

I will leave it at that.  Those who opt to research further please pass on your findings 🙂

How long Mr. Llewyllen worked with the group is unknown, but we do know that, according to the Kagei letter of 18 November, he conducted “60+” compliance reviews. Were all 60+ compliance reviews conducted by the Gavin Group for the UCSSB? I have no idea.

Do these 60+ compliance reviews put Mr. Llewellyn in good stead to serve on the SMIS panel and conduct an inquiry into whatever the inquiry is going to investigate? I truly have no idea.  Does he have the best interests of victims in mind?  That’s the question, is it not?
Enough for now,
Sylvia

This entry was posted in Accused or charged, Bishops, Brothers of Christian Instruction and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Does he have the best interests of victims in mind?

  1. prima facie says:

    RE: I believe the 2009 blog referenced is an opinion, however I believe the same. A business is a business, it must market its goods and services to earn money and survive. In addition, there is much expertise and competition to secure a “bid” or job for ANY specific product, business, organization or “operations”. I believe an “Inquiry” and similar, is where individuals are employed, during conciliation, to investigate the facts of a particular dispute and to submit a report stating the facts and proposing terms for the resolution of the differences. I was in a management position when I requested that a company be hired to conduct a thorough report/inquiry and “operational assessment” of the operations I was working with. I worked closely with the company that was retained, keeping within the boundaries of the stated objectives/mandate and similar definition described above. Well, I found the whole process to be quite uncomplicated. We had a good relationship. However, I believe I pretty well could have directed the “assessment” in either direction. What if I did or did not turn over all the “facts” (confidential, publication ban, ongoing civil litigation or other reasons)? What if I misrepresented the facts? Gee; does that ever happen? Based on the above, would conclusions and recommendations be any different depending on my representations or by my lawyers’ representations? “But listen, you can trust me!” In the end; the company took their cheque, said they appreciated my cooperation and that if I ever needed them again or could refer them to other similar “operations”, they knew they could help. Oh forgot; believe me, I was very satisfied with their “findings” and I would invite the company back anytime. And finally, the following question must be clearly answered Is this “inquiry” or “commission” an effort only to placate interested parties and is it really a “conciliation” process? Do people want a “conciliation” process? I believe conciliation is, in part, an action to stop someone from being angry. Furthermore, I see it as an action of mediation between disputing people or groups. Again, knowing the mandate, objectives or similar of this “mediation, conciliation” process, might reveal this. In other “inquiries” I have followed the process. Basically the “panel”, “commission” or otherwise, hears testimony and reviews evidence until people are so sick and tired they can’t take it anymore. Then some witnesses are offered money in the hours leading up to their testimony in exchange for signing a confidential, non disclosure, release of all claims, etc, agreement. In fact, I have seen some witnesses suddenly recant their testimony, for various undisclosed reasons. The “system” is consequently blamed and promises for changes within the “system” are promised.
    James P. Bateman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *