2009 MAYAPUR GBC PROPOSAL:
TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF CHILD PROTECTION OFFICE
AND RE-ORGANIZATION
1. Originally, the stated intention of the child protection task force was to create the Child Protection Office (CPO) to develop a procedure for alternative dispute resolution, not a criminal investigation and adjudication procedure.
2. The CPO was created to be a body relatively independent of the GBC, and such independence has not been maintained.
3. The goal of adjudication is fairness and justice, but the CPO has taken minimal precautions to insure the rights of accused parties and to insure the procedures are fairly and impartially followed.
4. The CPO has often used junk science, and used science improperly during its investigation and adjudication of cases in order to get convictions.
5. The CPO has repeatedly and knowingly violated its own procedural rules and guidelines in order to gain convictions. In so doing, the CPO has consistently acted outside of its jurisdiction and domains of competence.
6. As a result of the above, the investigations, decisions, and punishments meted out by the CPO have often been faulty, having been unduly influenced by popular pressure, views of a particular influential leader, flawed procedures, and junk science.
7. As a result, the CPO’s adjudication cannot be trusted to achieve the desired results of fairness and justice.
8. Srila Prabhupada would not be pleased with the treatment of devotees that may have been unjustly convicted.
Resolved: The investigative and adjudicative activities of the CPO be suspended for a period of one year. The CPO’s educational activities will continue. During that year, the international GBC will appoint an independent review committee, comprised of professionals in the fields of law, child welfare, family, and child psychology to review the concerns cited above and make recommendations for implementation to the international GBC at the Mayapura meeting in 2010.
1. What prompts you to submit this proposal?: The conclusions contained in the resolution were drawn from taking a close and careful look at the Vakresvara Pandit Prabhu case, from discussions with ISKCON authorities when the CPO was being developed, and from facts available in the public domain. The information was sufficiently troubling that we found it our duty to make the current proposal. We have no personal vendetta against particular members of the CPO or the North American GBC. We are concerned members of ISKCON who find it spiritually and ethically irresponsible to stand by and witness what we believe to be a gross miscarriage of justice in the case of Vakresvara Pandit Prabhu, and perhaps others. We need a justice system that we can trust.
Srila Prabhupada used to give the example of testing one grain of rice to determine if the whole pot of rice is cooked. Our review of the actions of the CPO in the Vakresvara Pandit Prabhu case alerted us to a number of serious oversights, errors, prejudicial procedures, and marked incompetence on the part of the CPO. Were the CPO’s actions in the Vakresvara Pandit case just an or is there the danger of cases being wrongly handled? A close examination of the procedures led us to believe that the CPO does not understand some basic concepts necessary to the fair handling of such cases. That is why we are asking for the GBC to take a closer look at the CPO to increase its reliability and effectiveness.
2. What would be the implications of implementing this proposal?: There are already Child Protection Procedures in most parts of the world run by the civil authorities. Child protection cases would be referred to and handled by the relevant civil authorities during the upcoming year. Any civil penalties enforced by civil authorities would be in effect and observed by ISKCON. CPO decisions about cases involving devotees and a devotees’ ongoing relationship with ISKCON would be postponed at least one year and until an improved CPO system is in place.
SUPPORTING MATERIAL
1. The legal advisor for the creation of the CPO indicated the original intent of the child protection task force was to use mediation and alternative dispute resolution. He knew that the training and expertise required for fair and equitable criminal investigation and adjudication procedures were beyond the scope of the CPO. Despite his recommendations, criminal investigation, trials, sentences, and fines handed down by inadequately trained individuals has become the CPO’s way of doing things.
2. The CPO’s independence from the GBC has not been maintained: 1) An NA GBC member was the head of the CPO, 2) NA GBC decisions have changed CPO decisions by extending or increasing punishments, 3) NA GBC members have publicly and privately attempted to influence CPO decisions, and 4) Some NA GBC members personally fund the CPO. If CPO decisions have not catered to the views of a funding GBC member, the member has used their influence to change the decision by withdrawing financial support. Thus, there is no CPO independence from the GBC.
3. The CPO is not objective, for it has demonstrated bias in favor of the prosecution:
A. The CPO routinely withheld evidence from the defense (Vakesvara Pandit never heard the testimony against him).
B. Those selecting and training the judges have often already concluded guilt. For example, the judge trainer in the Dhanurdhara Swami case told Laksmi Nrsimha Prabhu at the time: “We (the CPO) are going to nail that bastard (Dhanurdhara Swami) to the wall.” That may be acceptable from the prosecutor, but never from the judiciary.
C. While CPO-assigned investigators were to be neutral; they showed bias for the prosecution during witness interviews. For example, in the case file of Dhanurdhara Swami, the investigator clearly attempted to get a witness to change his testimony and say what she wanted, thus tampering with the witness.
D. The CPO has often wrongly asserted that those accused of child abuse do not need representation.
E. In written statements on Dandavats.com, the CPO has said that false reports of child abuse are exceedingly rare. This uneducated belief has led to accepting claims unquestionably. For example, the request for appeal in the Vakresvara Pandit case indicated: “The judges simply uncritically accepted what was (the accuser) said without any consideration of her possible motives or the body of evidence.”
F. In a formal and public discussion of the steps taken by ISKCON to address child abuse, the devotee chairing the meeting on behalf of the GBC indicated: “We are neither interested in or concerned with the rights of the accused”.
G. An article about biased CPO procedures is below.
4. The CPO’s use of junk science is detailed in “Scapegoats”.
5. According to CPO policy, judges’ rulings were to be based on investigations done by local child protection team. In the Vakresvara Pandit case, the local government’s Dallas Child Protection Committee investigated the claim. They were familiar with the individuals involved and with the relevant circumstances at the time. The Committee’s report concluded that the complainant did not want to press charges and that there was not enough evidence against Vakresvara Pandit, but this was ignored by the CPO judges in their initial written decision, and again ignored upon the case’s appeal despite the CPO having been alerted in writing to their oversight.
The CPO took it upon themselves to take the place of the police and determine whether a crime had been committed. According to CPO procedures, crimes should be referred to the appropriate legal authorities. The CPO was out of its own guidelines and jurisdiction. This is vigilante activity.
6. CPO procedures require their decisions take into account evidence that supports and does not support that child abuse has occurred. This was not done in the Vakresvara Pandit case.
Specifically, evidence showed: 1) Vakresvara Pandit did not have access to the apartment where the alleged crime occurred, 2) The accuser’s description of the apartment at the time of the alleged crime was completely inaccurate, 3) The accuser’s version of the alleged events was inconsistent and lacked commitment. This evidence, which supported Vakresvara Pandit’s innocence, was wrongly disregarded without any reason given for having done so in the CPO’s initial written decision and appeal despite the CPO having been alerted to their oversight, 4) Vakresvar a Pandit did not get to cross-examine and present a proper defense.
7. We believe that Srila Prabhupada did not treat devotees in such a manner and would be very displeased.
Prejudice Against Those Accused of Child Abuse
Inherent in the CPO System
Several years ago, proposed procedures were developed for use in ISKCON child protection investigations and judgments. Comments and suggestions were requested. Many noticed some alarming problems:
1. No arrangements for insuring a fair investigation or protecting the rights of the accused during the investigation or trial.
2. Individuals appointed as “judges” have no legal training.
3. Procedures were fashioned to circumvent local child welfare and legal systems. The proposal seemed to allow for kangaroo courts aimed at quick, unopposed convictions.
These concerns were brought to the attention of the CPO head at the time and several GBC members. The CPO head did not consider the objections important. He countered he would train the investigators and “judges” to be impartial and unbiased. They would recuse themselves if they became prejudiced. He contended they would be neither part of the prosecution nor defense. We argued this was not sufficient. His view prevailed.
To consider an ISKCON-trained investigator of child abuse as impartial is wishful thinking. Below are excerpts from “A Guide for Foster Parents: When Facing Charges of Abuse” (Dwoski, 2004). This guide is distributed at child service agencies in Philadelphia. The excerpts are particularly relevant to allegations of child abuse involving Gurukulas since staff members of residential Gurukulas are essentially acting as surrogate parents for the students. Like children in foster homes, those students were often at Gurukula against their wishes.
Q: Against whom are allegations of abuse most often made?
A: For longtime foster parents it is almost an occupational hazard…This is not to say that in some situations the surrogate parent is not guilty. However, in many if not most of the situations, the charges have a definite pattern. Of greatest danger is when the child has been promised a return home and the return has been postponed or cancelled.
Q: What role does a social worker (read: CPO investigator) play in the investigation of abuse charges?
A: The worker plays the critical role but the exact nature of this role should not be misunderstood. Once an allegation has been made, the relationship the foster parent has with the worker changes. The worker no longer can assist the foster parent but must investigate the validity of the allegation to the exclusion of all else.
Q: Am I to treat the worker as a policeman?
A: Unfortunately, when a case worker is asked to investigate a report of child abuse, the worker is functioning as an agent of the law enforcement agencies (i.e., working for the prosecution).
Q: Wouldn’t it be better if I talk to the social worker, to try to work things out?
A: The worst thing a surrogate parent accused of abuse can do is to have an elaborate discussion with the social worker. The social worker is under no obligation to read someone Miranda rights. At the same time, because the social worker is an agent of the state, anything said to the worker pertaining to the allegations can be, and in fact will be used against the accused.
Since allegations of child abuse are an “occupational hazard” of surrogate care of children, great pains must be taken to insure a fair trial as not all allegations will be true. Yet, the first ISKCON “trials” did not allow representation for the accused. The guidelines above also contradict the notion that investigators are neutral parties, since they are like the police, part of the prosecution.
The use of the term “judges” to identify the panel who rules on the guilt or innocence is terribly misleading. In normal language, a judge has received thorough training in law and legal procedures aimed at producing fairness. A judge is supposed to be impartial, have no prior involvement in the caee, and be open to the arguments of both the defense and the prosecution. While sincere devotees, the CPO “judges” had no legal training. Their training involved workshops arranged and presented by the CPO. Thus recruited and trained by the prosecution, how could “judges” be impartial?
CPO “judges” have also been called “jurors”, another fallacy. A jury doesn’t attend seminars on how to be a juror. They come to a case with no prior information. They hear arguments from both sides and are instructed by an impartial judge, who conducts the proceedings by rules of law. What defense attorney would allow the prosecution to train the jurors? In the state system, a juror who has any contact with the prosecution is excluded from the jury.
There is clear evidence CPO members had concluded guilt before the “trial” and made their views known to potential “judges” in the Vakresvara Pandit and Dhanurdhara Swami cases. Such a situation turns on its head any notion of supposed impartiality by the CPO. A person must be innocent until proven guilty.
In times of fear, the rights of the accused are often compromised. Government documents reveal that shortly after alleged terrorists were incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, 2/3 were known to be innocent. Nevertheless, the US government has doggedly kept those innocents locked up for years, unwilling to admit their blunder. Similarly, after a history of indifference to our children, a lawsuit and its aftermath fostered a turnaround in ISKCON’s attitude. In ISKCON’s zeal to hurriedly convict alleged child abusers, how many have been unfairly condemned?
