Corporate scandals are nothing new. Enron, Bernie Madoff, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Jim and Tammy Bakker, sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, and the list goes on. While CEOs often go to jail for scandals, their boards typically use the “we did not know” clause.
But the questions for the board of the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP, formerly IBYC), past and present, are simple: Can they use this defense? Did they know nothing? If they say they did not know, then they ignored 35 years of history and obvious evidences of Bill’s harassment and abuse of female staff. Did they know, yet do nothing? If so, they are negligent.
Has the IBLP board (and the old IBYC board) been ignorant, or negligent? Either way, the board is culpable.
Let me first lay out my credentials for writing this article:
1. I joined Bill Gothard’s team in December 1974 and was part of the mass exodus of staff in August 1980.
2. My responsibilities included management of the paid and volunteer staff in our network of 34 regional offices.
3. I also traveled to 16 to 18 seminars each year. My role was equally split between two functions. I was Bill’s stand-in at video seminars. I was also team lead for managing the onsite logistics—overseeing 200 to 300 volunteers as well as local and national staff, and accounting for revenues that often exceeded six figures.
4. After leaving IBYC, I eventually earned an MBA and became a management consultant. In this capacity, I provide comprehensive assessments of internal operations, including boards of directors. My clients include state and municipal governments, healthcare, education, and nonprofit organizations.
Let me also say, to Bill’s credit, that I loved my job. Bill was always respectful of my career desires and did not force me into a role I did not want, even if I was qualified for it. For these reasons, I will always be grateful for the opportunities Bill gave me.
The question I would like to address is the culpability of IBLP’s board. To do this, I will measure the board against three well-established criteria for board performance:
1. Ensuring board independence;
2. Ensuring corporate and executive leadership’s legal compliance; and
3. Ensuring corporate and executive leadership’s ethical conduct.
A responsibility to govern independently
The ECFA (Evangelical Christian Financial Accountability), of which IBLP is a member, says this:
When a ministry encounters failure—or even worse, scandal—its difficulties can almost always be traced to a breakdown in governance.
Has the IBLP board of Directors governed in such a way that executive leadership of IBLP and ATI would not abuse its role in teaching, training, and mentoring minor children? Or of exploiting many of them as volunteers/employees?
Think of a local school board. If it were discovered that the superintendent had a 35-year history of sexual harassment and abuse that included staff and students, and the board had multiple opportunities to know of it, had been warned of it by past victims, the board would immediately be found negligent, if not criminally negligent.
Past experience
As the scandal of 1980 broke, two board members finally woke up to their failure. One was a kindly minister. Another was Dr. Samuel Schultz, a well-respected Old Testament scholar from Wheaton College who was stunned by the revelations. He would publicly confess that the board was asleep and was primarily a figurehead that did not function as a governing body at all. As Recovering Grace has reported, Dr. Schultz finally resigned in disgust in January 1981.
But even before this, there was a medical doctor on the board by the name of Dr. Ed Brown. He left the board for an assignment in the Middle East, and, upon his return, he was “disinvited,” by Bill, from rejoining the board. Determining who should be a member of the board is the responsibility of the board as a whole, not the choice of one man. The CEO has only one vote. Yet Bill had the power to “fire” board members if he so desired.
In addition, many of Bill’s family members were employees of IBYC. His brother was the senior vice president. His father was CFO and, at one time, the board chair; two brothers-in-law were employees, as were a good number of nieces and nephews. Did the board ever insist on reasonable separation of duties so that family members were not supervising each other? Did they insist on reasonable separation of corporate financial assets from personal assets? The answer is no. In 1980, it was well known that IBYC was using corporate assets to upgrade family personal property.
A responsibility to ensure legal and regulatory compliance
Responsible boards take seriously the expectation that they operate at the highest levels of legal and regulatory compliance. Think of a hospital and the laws and regulations that govern its record-keeping. Would we send our sons or daughters to a hospital that was known to routinely falsify records of hospital safety? Are we pleased with the recent Veterans Administration hospital scandal? Of course not.
Independent and proactive boards do not wait until the unthinkable happens. They set the example for the entire organization and insist that systems be in place to ensure compliance. If the unthinkable does happen, then they act to bring the organization back into alignment with those systems and policies.
Past experience
Recently, Charlotte’s story gives us compelling evidence of the board’s total disregard for corporate legal behavior. According to her story, the board became suspicious of her involvement with Bill and insisted she be sent home (fired). While sending her back to her family was probably appropriate, there are at least two problems with the board’s actions:
1. Evidently there was no follow-up action by the board to discipline Bill or investigate him for the sexual harassment of a minor girl. Charlotte explains her understanding that the board “called Bill on the carpet.” From her story, it seems that the board feared Bill had intimate interest toward a minor? But was there any kind of investigation? Was Bill disciplined? We can only assume not. From subsequent stories, we learn that he simply switched girls. Their stories corroborate Charlotte’s in many ways.
2. Today, anyone who has responsibility for minor children is required to report suspicions of any abuse to the appropriate State authorities. If teachers, principals, medical professionals, or counselors suspect abuse, they are legally required to report it. While these laws may not have been in effect during Charlotte’s employment, it is hard to imagine a board—the board of a Christian organization—doing nothing but terminating the girl’s employment. How about reporting the suspicion to her parents? How about offering psychological counseling? How about reporting the suspicion to the appropriate State authorities?
Lack of any kind of action by the board to protect staff from sexual exploitation by senior leaders means that the board condones the behavior. It is hard to imagine a board of a so-called Christian ministry doing effectively nothing when they fear, or are at least suspicious of, sexual or romantic intent toward a minor employee—especially when the senior executive is in his late 50s?
A responsibility to ensure ethical behavior
One might think that a Christian organization that espouses Biblical values would seek to conduct itself at the highest levels of ethical behavior. One might also believe that the board of Directors would insist upon nothing less and proactively promote ethical conduct. Experience and evidence with this board suggest otherwise.
Past experience
In 1980, apparently a portion of the board knew of immorality among staffers and the abuse of young women prior to the scandal breaking.
After the scandal, Bill hired well-respected pastor Dennis Kizziar of Northwest Hills Baptist Church in Corvallis, Oregon, to conduct what was thought to be an independent assessment. The goal was to determine what went wrong. Sounds good, but the result was a foregone conclusion. The minister had no experience in assessing organizational behavior. He had no training or credentials in the delicate interviews of sexual abuse victims.
The pastor interviewed a few of the key witnesses and then wrote a report that determined the victims of sexual abuse were largely at fault for their own abuse. The absurdity was astounding! Furthermore, he found that the staff in general was allowing Bill too much control over their lives. This was laughable, as giving Bill control was a basic requirement for employment.
Current indications
I fear the current IBLP board is doing the same thing again; only this might be a worse breach of its ethical responsibilities. They claim to have hired “outside legal counsel” to conduct an investigation. Sounds good. Has the ring of sophisticated intelligence. But the reality is another sham. The board may even mean well, but there are two problems with hiring the firm of Mr. David Gibbs, Jr.:
1. Gibbs’s specialty is defending organizations from actions brought against them for sexual abuse. Instead of hiring an independent expert at investigating the sexual abuse of minors, they have hired a defense attorney. This is the equivalent of hiring the fox to guard the chickens. The conclusion is foregone. I fear that any of the young women who speak to Gibbs’s lawyers will only be used to make themselves perpetrators.
2. Gibbs is hardly an independent and unbiased investigator. He is a well-known speaker at ATI conferences and, if the truth be known, has accepted fees for speaking at these conferences. (Bill was always careful about paying handsome honoraria to speakers at our staff retreats. Such remuneration was part of his practice of buying influence). Thus, he is hardly one who can be considered independent and unbiased.
Summary
In summary, can we trust this board to act reasonably in executing their responsibilities? I fear not. The IBLP board has known for decades of Bill’s manipulation and abuse of his staff. They knew it in 1980. They knew it when Charlotte was a minor girl being targeted by Bill. They had to have known something was wrong when Bill, at the age of 59, talked with them about marrying Meg, who was not yet 21.
Unlike the boards of Bernie Madoff, Lehman Brothers, AIG, and Enron this board won’t be able to say “we did not know.” They have been informed for more than 35 years. If it is found that Bill has been sexually harassing his staff, or worse, molesting minor children, he may rightfully go to jail. The board will no doubt plead ignorance and go home. But over the last three decades, former staff have submitted hundreds of pages of evidence that has been ignored; therefore, the ignorance plea truly is unavailable to them.
The only other plea is negligence. In any case, they are “on the hook.”
Dan B. Edds, MBA
Photos © Amir Zukanovic masterart “Corp. Gov.” and mindscanner (“Ethics”)/ 123RF Stock Photo
July 31, 2024
Well, that's good news that they are "on the hook", but who will hold them accountable? I am really interested in knowing if any of these young ladies plan to sue? Is anyone suing BG or IBLP/ATI? If no one sues, what will be done? I fear nothing. And that literally keeps me up at night, thinking this man and his "ministry" will go on...
Well said, Dan. Having served on the boards of a number of Christian ministries in addition to having worked as a Compliance Officer in the corporate world, let me "second" all that you have written. I'm glad to see the culpability of the board being brought to the forefront.
Great but horrifying point: "1. Gibbs’s specialty is defending organizations from actions brought against them for sexual abuse. Instead of hiring an independent expert at investigating the sexual abuse of minors, they have hired a defense attorney. This is the equivalent of hiring the fox to guard the chickens. The conclusion is foregone. I fear that any of the young women who speak to Gibbs’s lawyers will only be used to make themselves perpetrators."
" ... just good 'ol boys, never meanin' no harm ..."
Great article, Mr. Edds.
Does anybody out there know what became of Jim Sammons? Is he still living? If so, does he still support Gothard?
I was an ATI dad from 1994 to 1998. I always enjoyed listening to Jim Sammons speak. Being a dad of three like him, I always thought he carried more weight than Bill concerning the raising of kids.
Actually, I know that there were a bunch of very good folks on the Board through the years. That's one of the reasons IBLP has so much credibility. They tended to be good folks, but I wonder how much knowledge of inner workings they actually had. The group was scattered across the country. I'm sure they always got "amazing reports" when they gathered together.
I'd love to compile a list of Board Members that left under some kind of duress- it would probably be pretty long.
Dan,
Well spoken and thought out article, Dr. Brown and Dr. Schultz were honorable men who loved the Lord. But they like the others were kept in the dark, when presented with the facts they stood for truth.
Larne Gabriel
1980 Staff
You know, if IBLP doesn't get serious and clean up their act, the state or fed officials just may do what a "Christian" organization is refusing to do......AND -wouldn't be surprised if the IRS would be interested in the hiring and paying policies of ole bill,,,
Excellent article! Organizations like this are no better than any other secular or religious organization that hid sexual abuse for years. What a shame for those who name Christ as their Savior! No one of us is perfect and we all sin. But to knowingly allow this to continue is soooo wrong. If I were the parent(s) of one of the young woman targeted by Bill after the board first became aware of his actions, I would be furious that nothing was done. He continued to mistreat young woman after young woman. Let's continue to pray for those young women and Recovering Grace to continue to stand strong in the fight for what is right. And may we also pray for Tim Levendusky to see what is wrong and have the courage to do what is right.
"I fear any of the young women who speak with Gibb's lawyers will only be used to make themselves perpetrators."The IBLP machine,holding steadfast to" the end justifying the means".The "end":insecure male patriarchal figureheads on top of the fabricated pyramid not about to let go of their so called "established authority",vested upon them by Gothard himself,complete with misused misapplied scripture,all the way from the spectrum of "taking up an offense" to "speaking out against God's annointed"A few women may be thrown a sop for their cooperation in vaunting false, fallen and pagen authority,so that "fellowship" may occur in whatever repressed form from the caste system it was lifelessly conceived from.Just a hop,skip and jump away are the exploited;passively under the umbrella,being "shepherded,condemned if failed;on a treadmill of dead works.And the means...Bill G.having known that pornographic material was sent to the Retreat Center in Michigan,obtained by IBYC funding.The means...,Joy Wood and her husband being targeted for years after..Threats,hush money,Steve carrying a gun,the list goes on.The means still go on.
I have the same fear for any women undergoing investigation David. That what they have been through will be misconstrued by the current "investigator".
I can only imagine the shaming and stress and further trauma. IBLP does not have a history of handling things correctly.
I read this article with much interest due to personal experience. Dealing with some of these issues will be difficult for those of a religious persuasion, because the reasoning for not taking complaints to proper authorities was due to a belief that God was bigger than the legal system, so therefore it became an 'God v the Law' issue. Family abuse was not reported, because God could and would fix all situations if a certain formula was followed, and if it wasn't followed then it was known that something else must be wrong with the plaintiff's spiritual walk. Even now, the response from many in the pro-ATI camp is that the people who are bringing complaints to the surface are merely a particular brand of bitter sinner and that by going to proper authorities are not in compliance with God's laws. This is a fallacy. Bringing legal matters to legal authorities for proper legal punishment is not a sin, it is another tool of God's to allow us to learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others.
Excellent points. But remember that not all of this is subject to legal action. More valuable is the fact that RG is telling it to the church, making us all responsible for the knowledge of wrongdoing, including wrongdoing in the form of "investigating" and "discipline". If David Gibbs damages the emotions or reputation of any accuser, he will be personally liable. His loyalty to BG may make him willing to go to extremes to defend the "ministry" but the publicity of all of this will make a cover-up impossible. If they had real defenses, they would already be in court demanding these reports be taken offline.
We should give thanks that the Catholic Church coverups, the Doug Phillips fiasco, the Sovereign Grace turmoil and this have all come in a time that allows the church to clean up the mess. The day of sexual harassment and authoritarian leadership must come to an end. There is no future in it. And the church must become much stronger to endure the days ahead. Quit denying, quit defending, repent, all of us.
I appreciate the reply, but I would caution you about using the term 'grateful' in regards to the 'Catholic Church coverups, the Doug Phillps fiasco, the Sovereign Grace turmoil...' There are many people who read this site who have not shared their stories of abuse. I would be one of them. The statement reads callously to those who may be grateful that their abusers might/will be stopped, but still suffer from the effects of hiding abuse under the name of God.
My thanks is for the church's notorious opportunity to clean up the messes. As you state, the messes are all around us. If we don't start to clean them up, will they not get worse? And if the church does not clean them up, then I fear we shall be vomited out of His mouth or sent into exile. My thanks is that the light is shining in many places in a manner that we cannot be ignore. My sentence did not communicate that to you and I apologize. If this clarification seems callous, I must admit that I do not understand. But I sincerely desire an end to the hiding of abuse under the name of God.
I don't care if the girls were standing stark naked in front of this man, it was his responsibility to explain to them this was wrong and he should have left the room. He shouldn't have been in the room or any where else alone with any girl at any time! The closest staff had to be aware of these inappropriate relationships! Has anyone come forward with allegations from his past work in Chicago? Pedophiles don't turn that way over night.
I hope the accusers have supportive males with them when they are interviewed by the Gibbs team so that they won't be steamrolled! This is not to say that they are not strong on their own, but the males send a message to the investigators....
I hope the current investigative team does not find the current victims. I hope the current victims find the FBI.
That biker gang who goes to court with abused children to give them a feeling of security from their abusers... yes, they will do nicely.
Anyone interviewed should ask if the Gibbs team is representing either Gothard or IBLP or any other person or entity in a lawyer/client capacity. If so, they should not be interviewed without their own lawyer present. If not, that denial should be documented and it should be understood by all that the investigators' communications with the Board, officers or Gothard are not protected by attorney/client privilege and are subject to compelled disclosure.
Good point Don. The question of whether there exists a client/attorney relationship between the board or Bill Gothard and the investigator must definitely be disclosed. If there is such a relationship, this will speak volumes about any idea that this 'investigation' is independent. If there is no such relationship, then all communications between the investigators and the board or related parties would be subject to subpoena and discovery, should action be brought by one of the victims.
The accusers should offer to take a polygraph upon the condition that BG also take one. I work in a prosecutor's office and although polygraph results cannot be used in court without mutual consent, I have found them very reliable. Defense attorney F. Lee Bailey believed in them so strongly that he would not represent somebody who refused to be polygraphed by him.
In a huge ministry with so much at stake why was there not a rigid policy that prevented BG and others in leadership from being alone with a young woman at any time? Also, with Bg in such control of the Board it was a sham from the very outset.
Strongholds and blind spots.
You know there are seven steps to tearing down strongholds
Great analysis, with one exception: "Determining who should be a member of the board is the responsibility of the board as a whole, not the choice of one man. The CEO has only one vote. Yet Bill had the power to “fire” board members if he so desired."
Actually, in a nonprofit organization, the CEO has zero votes if he is a paid employee of the organization. This is one of the big differences between a nonprofit and a for-profit. The voting members of the board of directors must be 100% volunteer and cannot be employees or financial beneficiaries of the organization in any way. The CEO/ Executive Director may attend board meetings, but cannot vote.
The board of a nonprofit has the power to fire the CEO. That power does not work in reverse. The board chooses its own members, and the CEO has no say in the matter (except informally). And it is inherently a conflict of interest for any family member of the CEO to be a member of the board.
Yes, that is my understanding as well! I'm sure the by-laws can vary among organizations, and I have no idea if that is a legal mandate, but it seems to be the commonly respected model for board structure among nonprofits of strong Christian integrity. I served on a couple of boards for nonprofit Christian ministries, and that is exactly how each of them functioned... the Executive Director was not given a vote.
This article is very interesting and cuts right to the heart of a VERY important issue. RG has been doing a great job of uncovering the problems in ATI/IBLP, exposing BG, and helping us understand how families can be so misled. Now, this article focuses on a crucial, newer perspective: Board accountability. How and why did the Board allow BG to get away with everything???? Where was the breakdown in accountability? This is HUGE, AND HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR MANY OTHER CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES EVERYWHERE.
If there was anyone in the world with the power and authority to stop BG, with the legal, moral, and spiritual responsibility to hold him accountable, it was (and is) the Board! I understand that there are many members who stepped down or were dismissed. I'm guessing these members attempted to speak out, expose problems, correct wrongs, etc. If more current and former Board members could break their silence it would have enormous impact on BG truly being held accountable. And it would help so many families as well! Thank you Mr. Edds for having the courage and conviction to speak out. I pray that we will hear from Board members as well. I pray that if they have courage to do so, they would be received with gratitude and grace!
If it's not an actual hard-and-fast legal requirement, at the very least your nonprofit can get in legal trouble with the IRS for the inherent conflict of interest. "Trouble with the IRS" = "at risk of losing nonprofit status."
http://cullinanelaw.com/nonprofit-law-basics-can-the-executive-director-serve-on-the-board-of-directors/
This outlines the situation very clearly and succinctly.
It may be possible that board members were kept in the dark about the abuse, but they can't have been ignorant of the harmful teachings that have been discussed in many RG contributions, e.g., adoption, generational sin. Did anyone on the board challenge these teachings? If so, what success did they have?
The IBLP Board of Directors apparently was aware that Gothard had made unauthorized payments to deparing staff members so that they would sign confidentiality statements during the 1980 scandal.
This sounds like it could have been embezzlement. The Board may have been able to have Gothard arrested. Instead, they gave him his job back.
Because these confidentiality clauses likely were made on behalf of the IBYC/IBLP corporate entity, the current Board of Directors could probably void these clauses to allow the former staff members to freely speak about their experience without fear of any legal reprisal from IBLP.
I believe the current Board of Directors could go a long way in demonstrating their commitment to the truth and to reconciliation by voiding these clauses and allowing these former staff members to speak freely.
Appreciate very much each comment. I was not aware that the CEO gets no vote on a nonprofit board. This might be an issue of individual bylaws or individual state requirements. The boards I have been on, the CEO always has had a vote. However, because of my experience with IBYC I have a deep dislike for family members having significant leadership in our Christian or nonprofit organizations. The opportunity for abuse is just too high. As an organization grows, the need for a truly independent board grows with it. When I was with them, it was abundently clear that it was really a Gothard family ministry. My personal admin assistant would have to help Mrs. Gothard do her personal Christmas cards each year. It was never good fighting it, but indicative of family control over the organization.
The point though, is that the board has never established its own independence. If I read Bill's resignation letter correctly, he is violating the board's own directive to be quiet. So much for chain of command. It is also doubtful that he has actually completely resigned. From what we hear, the organizaton is providing him with personal admin support.
Several comments suggest implications with boards in general and application to Christian organization. Could not be more true. In organizations that should be models of organizational behavior, structure, and oversight, I fear they are often the worst. One of my lessons of this whole mess is the love affair that evangelicals have with rich and "successful" organizations. Demonstrate the trappings of organizational power and success, and we assume God is blessing it. Frankly, this is sick. As we were getting kicked out of our homes, the like of Charles Stanley, John McArthur Jr, and executives from Bob Jones University were telling us to shut up and be quiet. The number 3 man from BJU actually stated: "this sort of thing happens at BJU and when it does, we shove it under the carpet and keep right on going".
When did John MacArthur ever help cover up Gothard's wrongs? I had not heard his name mentioned in any IBYC/IBLP matter.
Re: John MacArthur, I have personally heard him say that when Bill asked for letters of recommendation years ago he (John) refused said recommendation. I tried to find something on the web even gty site. No luck. It was years ago that I heard this. Most recent mention of BG by John was in the series on Fads in The Church. He mentioned Bill Gothard and Gary Ezzo as 'fads'.
His refusal to provide a letter of recommendation and reference to Bill Gothard must have been post 1980. Before that he was a very willing speaker at two staff retreats. Even brought his entire family out for one.
Many of us were willing participants at seminars before 1980. After the addition of Advanced Seminars and other materials we personally had internal cautions and thankfully heeded them. In Acts 18 Apollos was promoting the baptism of John until Aquilla and Priscilla corrected him. I embraced abortion as a new believer but thankfully by instruction in the truth and understanding, I changed my opinion. I certainly hope that the people in that Sunday School class in 1971 where I boldly proclaimed my position as pro choice would believe that my understanding and position has since changed. Of course, notable people learn, grown, and change. I believe that John MacArthur once attended and promoted even spoke at retreats referencing BG, I also believe he would no longer do so. John MacArthur though certainly human and fallible has proved to handle the Word of God with reverence.
Dan,
It's not so much a matter of individual bylaws or state laws, but a matter of what is recognized as best practices in the nonprofit field, and the potential IRS pitfalls if a paid staff member has a vote in the organization's governance.
http://cullinanelaw.com/nonprofit-law-basics-can-the-executive-director-serve-on-the-board-of-directors/ This link I posted earlier explains it very well.
Of course on a for-profit board, it is perfectly normal for the CEO to have a vote. But nonprofit is different, because by definition a nonprofit cannot be governed for the profit of any individual. If the CEO receives a salary and is able to vote on his own salary (or on any matter affecting the terms of his employment, including the organizational budget), that is automatically a conflict of interest that violates the agency's nonprofit status with the IRS.
If you've been on the boards of nonprofits that let the CEO vote and don't require him to recuse himself from budget/ salary questions, then they are playing with fire.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, you are absolutely correct it would be very appropriate for a CEO to recuse him or her self from the discussion. The boards I have served on have all been mission related where the CEO was raising his own support. Excellent comments. I appreciate them very much.
Yes, if the CEO is raising his or her own support, that's rather different. But I don't think that was the case with IBYC/ IBLP.
Dear Don Rubottom,
I think using... "the like(s) of Charles Stanley, John McArthur, Jr. and executives from Bob Jones University..." may be an unwitting libelous statement, if it isn't the truth. It certainly needs correcting, if that's the case, as I trust there are many John F. MacArthur, Jr. fans out there.
Thanks. I'm not looking to build a bad guy list, but I am looking for whom to hold accountable for passive non-resistance to the deceptions. But really, I am responsible for not investigating. I was too interested in "joining" certain people, even though my "critical spirit" made parts of my participation uncomfortable. for me, MacArthur is like J. Vernon McGee: Bible only Bible always all Bible. It is hard to go wrong that way. And you don't have to proof text because you learn so much from the written word, you don't have time to become infatuated with your own ideas and meditation "rhemas". I'm sure he's not perfect, but I would be shocked if he helped cover up something like this.
The comment about BJU is absolutely true. I remember it clearly because I was stunned. I would not characterize John McArthur's comments to us as part of a cover up, but as part of the pressure from significant leaders of the day (there were many more) that the work had to go on regardless of what was happening internally. As for Charles Stanley, see Joy Wood's article.
I have to add those people who chose to send letters to the board instead of calling the authorities are also shameful. They should have reported it to the proper authorities, any adult knows this! How can so many people over the years just tell the board and not the police?? Either some of them are lying and didn't send the board a letter or Gothard got what 30 years of breaks due to the ignorance of these people not doing the tough thing and calling an outside authority?!
Good question TC. Sort of goes to the heart of the age old question - how is it that victims of abuse, whether it be emotional, physical, or sexual, so often never report it or just don't stay "stop".
Yes, it would have been best if victims or their parents would have gone directly to the appropriate civil authorities. However, there are two problems with this: 1) what is the victim suppose to do if parents do not believe you and 2) what is the victim suppose to do when the entire IBYC or IBLP infrastructure will turn on you and make you the perpetrator? One of the young women who was sexually involved with Steve, Bill's brother, once asked: "what is someone suppose to do if they are being defrauded (sexually)"? The answer: "go to your authority, they are your umbrella of protection". Response: "what if the authority figure is doing the defrauding (or sexual abusing)?"
These are the dilemmas the victims face. And this is to say nothing about Bill being a brilliant communicator who as the skills and power to make you responsible for your own abuse.