Some Communication with Mediator/Moderator

There was much communication with the mediator turned moderator. There were only two meetings with the mediator - the first December 10 2003 at which he gave both parties the Duties of Directors document and instructed the Elders to come to an agreement to reinstate Barry & Jennifer. This took some heavy communication between the mediator and the lawyers representing the two parties. In part of the new agreement the elders insisted the mediator change his role to moderator.

Because of Jennifer's illness, vacation plans and a request to put the elders concerns into writing (which the elders took 6 weeks to reject), the planned 15th March 2004 meeting did not take place until September 2004. In the view of the Pendergasts, the elders and pastors did nothing to make them feel welcomed back and did everything they could to isolate, frustrate and harass them further.

At the second and final meeting, and after the Pendergasts had left the mediator/moderator encouraged the Board to take a careful look at themselves (and the Pastoral staff) and their process. Its unknown if they did that. They did act quickly to haul the Pendergasts in again and charge them with numerous unsubstantiated charges. Within days the Pendergasts were excommunicated a second time. The Pendergasts request to hold an independent enquiry into multiple abuse by pastors and some elders was rejected out of hand.

.
The Pendergasts view the mediation/moderatiion process used as very inadequate. Two meetings did nothing to bring the parties together. The comparison would be trying to bring a husband and wife back together after a very difficult separation. Asking the parties to get on with each other is unlikely to work and it certainly could not in this case. The elders made it clear they believed thy had only made a procedural error the first time and they would get it right the second time even if it meant using unnamed informers.

Meeting notes from the last two meetings will be added shortly.

From: Rolly Laing <rklaing@telusplanet.net>
Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 2:46:08 PM Canada/Mountain
To: Barry Pendergast <barrypendergast@shaw.ca>
Cc: Craig Edwards <edwardsc@cybersurf.net>
Subject: RE: Jennifer & Ladies time Out

Dear Barry and Jennifer,

Thank you for both of your recent e-mail messages. I have purposely delayed
responding as I wanted time to think about how best to respond.

As a result of our meeting last Tuesday, it became very apparent to me that
there is a great deal of healing of relationship to be done, both with
members of the Elders board (including staff) and with others in the SCCC
community not present at our meeting. While I may be able to be of
assistance in facilitating/mediating a meeting such as we had last week to
encourage a candid exchange between the parties, the truth is that I am not
capable of orchestrating the restoration of relationship. Only the parties
can do that. For us to convene another meeting or a series of meetings to
address a variety of outstanding issues would not, in my judgment, be
beneficial.

I don't see my role as that of an adjudicator or as a peacemaker, nor do I
consider it my place to get involved in spearheading a movement to address a
series of "grievances" that a variety of people may have with the SCCC
leadership. My only purpose has been to make myself available as an
encourager of honest discussion between well-intentioned people (yourselves
and the SCCC Elders) toward the mutual goal of restored relationship. Now
that we have started that process, I encourage you to continue that
discussion on a personal basis as you choose. At the end of the day, it can
only be through personal contact that relationship can once again become
"personal".

I encourage you and the SCCC Elders not to see this response as a rebuff,
but rather as an encouragement to move the discussion to where it should
really be i.e. to a place of personal face to face dialogue between those
between whom issues exist.

Thank you for allowing me to be part of this process to date. May God give
you courage, sensitivity and wisdom as you proceed.

Sincerely,

Rolly

From: Barry Pendergast [mailto:barrypendergast@shaw.ca]
Sent: January 11, 2005 9:39 AM
To: rklaing@telusplanet.net
Subject: Re: Meeting

Rolly
Thanks you for your note and the honesty of your observations.
Certainly the elders and pastors do not share your view that the
process ended unsuccessfully.
One question you may or may not want to answer: When we last met with
the elders you spent some additional time with them after we left. Did
you discuss anything that involved us or your
suggestions/recomendations for a future reconciliation process?
Certainly when we met alone they ignored our requests to start afresh
and both sides lay down their arms. Sure you have seen the letter we
gave them prior to this last meeting. They came our of the gate with
weapons drawn - naturally want to know whether your discussions
provoked this. Prior to that you gave us the impression that the elders
were sincere and genuine about a reconciliation process. We trusted
your impressions.
Barry

From: Rolly Laing <rklaing@telusplanet.net>
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:03:29 AM Canada/Mountain
To: 'Barry Pendergast' <barrypendergast@shaw.ca>
Subject: RE: Meeting
Reply-To: rklaing@telusplanet.net

Barry,

Thanks for your note.

As you know, I had no discussions of substance with the SCCC Board where you
were not present except following our last session together. Prior to that
my discussions were all with Craig Edwards and were all related to process.
I came away from those discussions satisfied that the Board was genuinely
committed to pursuing a process of reconciliation even though they had
reservations as to its likelihood of success given the history.

As for the discussion following our last session with the Board, with your
permission I did have a brief discussion with them regarding the substance
of the evening we had spent together. Although I took no notes of what was
said, I know that I encouraged them to continue discussions directly with
you and Jennifer as it was my view, and continues to be, that ultimately the
parties must come together directly if there is to be a reconciliation.
That was the same advice I gave to you and Jennifer at the time. There is a
time for intermediaries, but that time had come to an end. Those few
comments that I did make to the Board following our meeting together were
directed primarily at encouraging the Board to take a careful look at
themselves (and the Pastoral staff) and their process. All things
considered, I can only think that those comments should have been helpful to
you and Jennifer rather than harmful.

Rolly