MAST’s analysis of MCC’s internal statement about legal settlement and Veritas investigation findings
On January 23, 2025, Rick and Ann sent an email and FAQ to all staff as well as regional MCC board members. MAST finds this FAQ to be problematic, misleading, and inaccurate in multiple ways. Here is a systematic response to some of the pieces of that statement:
MCC statement
Did MCC conduct an external investigation into the allegations?
Yes. MCC hired a company called Veritas Solutions to investigate the complaints raised by John Clarke and Anicka Fast. However, since John and Anicka declined to participate, the investigation has limited value. A summary of the Veritas investigation report was sent to John and Anicka.
MAST response
Executive Directors call the Veritas investigation (whose summary report was released on December 31, 2024) an “external” one, even though it was an “internal third-party” investigation (a third party was hired but MCC fully controlled the scope, the choice of investigator and the distribution of the final report, making this an “internal” process; MCC used this terminology in earlier correspondence).
The investigation report by Veritas indeed has “limited value,” as MCC states. But this is not primarily because John and Anicka declined to participate. John and Anicka declined to provide testimony to the investigator (although they did provide some documentary evidence) because the Veritas investigation did not meet reasonable criteria for a transparent, trauma-informed, external investigation process. MCC retained full control of the choice of investigator and engaged in multiple delaying and deflection tactics. This undermined John and Anicka’s confidence that MCC was committed to getting to the bottom of what had actually happened. Anicka and John repeatedly explained to MCC and to Veritas why they did not feel safe giving testimony in this process.
MCC continues to refuse to commit to an external investigation, even just of John and Anicka’s case. They continue to demonstrate their lack of commitment to getting to the bottom of what has gone wrong, even in the face of more than 1500 petition signatures and reports of allegations from more than 50 people.
MCC statement
What were the findings of the Veritas Report around harassment?
None of the Veritas findings were related to any type of sexual harassment or any form of gender or age harassment or discrimination at MCC.
The definition of harassment in MCC’s policies is far more expansive than how harassment is defined under Canadian or U.S. law. The actions that were founded included failure to communicate in a timely and clear fashion, and failure to properly address and investigate a claim. The Veritas report also noted that the underlying claims – including claims of retaliation and criminal conduct – were unfounded.
MCC must respond and communicate better in the future when concerns are reported, regardless of whether those concerns are founded or not. MCC has made – and will continue to make – changes, so the system can be more responsive as we respond to concerns or conflict.
MAST response
The Executive Directors downplay the seriousness of the investigation results, making it sound like MCC’s only mistake was not to respond more quickly to concerns that, they imply, were unfounded anyway. They also imply that a conclusion of wrongful termination is not clear in this case (simply because Veritas did not conclude that criminal behaviour or retaliation occurred), and suggest that if there was a finding of harassment, this was only because MCC has exceptionally “expansive” policies that go well beyond legal requirements (actually, Canada’s laws about workplace harassment and violence seem broader than MCC’s Policy on Workplace Harassment and Violence to us; feel free to compare them for yourselves).
The Executive Directors imply that as long as the findings were not related to sexual, gender or age discrimination they must not be very serious, and imply that they have already dealt with any issues that there might have been inside Human Resources through “significant changes” that remain unspecified. They also imply that any problems are limited to Human Resources, even though allegations have identified the involvement of senior staff from every sector of MCC and even though the Veritas investigation summary report points to harassment by “senior personnel as a whole.”
MCC statement
Did MCC issue an apology?
In the past, MCC has issued apologies where wrongdoing or harm is clear. In this case, while there continue to be different perspectives on the events that occurred, MCC looks forward to a facilitated conversation with John and Anicka. Coming to a place of apology needs to be engaged with integrity, honesty and compassion, reflective of the facts, and acknowledging the experiences of everyone involved.
MAST response
Most of the “facts” of Anicka’s and John’s dismissal are already in the possession of MCC. Given the findings of the Veritas investigation as well as the allegations made by Anicka and John in their grievance, which are easily verifiable by MCC, it is concerning to MAST that MCC continues to imply that wrongdoing or harm might not be “clear” in this case.
MAST agrees that any apology from MCC must be “engaged with integrity, honesty and compassion, reflective of the facts, and acknowledging the experiences of everyone involved” and looks forward to seeing John and Anicka engaging with MCC in a facilitated conversation, well over a year after they first invited MCC board members to meet with them.
MCC statement
What are the next steps between MCC and John and Anicka in this process?
In the coming weeks, MCC is hoping to participate in a facilitated conversation with John and Anicka, arranged by two Anabaptist sister organizations.
MAST response
We hope that MCC leaders come into the facilitated conversation with at least some desire to understand the harm that has been caused, some willingness to take action to make it right, and openness to change the harmful public discourse they have been using. This latest internal communication weakens that hope, but we are not going to stop inviting and expecting MCC boards to do the right thing.
MAST insists that these conversations must address the question of the need for an external investigation, not just of John and Anicka’s case but of all the allegations that have been brought forward. We believe that a credible investigation should invite testimony from anyone who feels they have had a “bad ending” of their employment with MCC because of mistreatment or abuse and from anyone who has reported to MCC experiences of violence, sexual or psychological harassment, bullying, or threats and believes that MCC responded in a harmful way to their reports.
We continue to call on MCC to commit to a full external investigation in which the choice of firm and the mandate of the investigation are approved by the MCC Abuse Survivors Together (MAST) steering committee.
MCC statement
MCC acknowledges the deep pain in the stories that have been shared online by former employees. We continue to seek dialogue with those willing to engage further. We also are making plans for a listening space where further engagement can happen with those who desire it. At the same time, we continue to make changes to our systems, policies and processes as we identify gaps or shortcomings. The MCC of today is not the organization it was five years ago – or even a year ago. Significant changes have occurred, particularly in Human Resources. We look forward to sharing more about this in the near future.
MAST response
We also look forward to hearing what significant changes have occurred in HR. So far, it sounds like those changes mostly involve hiring more people, creating more layers of hierarchy in HR, increasing HR presence in International Program (this may have positive aspects depending how it is handled), moving the MCC US HR Director position into a new position, and hiring a new MCC US HR Director.
Regarding a “listening space”: the creation of a “listening space” that is controlled by MCC is a classic divide-and-conquer tactic, and way to contain the problem so that MCC is not held publicly accountable. Such a space does not prevent abuse from continuing and can cause more harm to those who come forward.
Stephanie Krehbiel, Executive Director of advocacy organization Into Account, spoke to an earlier mention of an MCC “listening space” in a September 24, 2024 Facebook post:
“It's true that nothing gets better without people listening to each other, but "listening space" sets off so many alarms for me in a Mennonite institutional context. "Listening" is a beginning, not a destination. One fear: the "listening space" becomes an exhaust valve to manage the problem of institutional abuse by making people believe they are being cared for, without fundamentally changing anything else.
If the main positions in executive leadership and Human Resources are still occupied by people who enact and enable abuse, it's not going to matter whether or not there's an institutionally-mandated space for "listening." It will create the illusion of care where there is none, and that in and of itself is harmful.”
MAST shares these concerns. We long to finally share our evidence and our stories in the safe space that a fully external investigation (with firm and mandate and scope approved by both MAST and MCC) can provide. An MCC-controlled “listening space” is not that place.