|
July 17, 2007
20.01:
Unethical or Unprofessional Conduct in General
Any provisions of the Code of Ethics of
the National Association of Social Workers, as adopted by
the 1979 NASW Delegate Assembly and amended from time to
time hereafter, to the extent that said provision is not
inconsistent with federal or state law;
4.04 Dishonesty, Fraud, and Deception
Social workers should not participate in,
condone, or be associated with dishonesty, fraud, or
deception.
On January 20th
2003 Most Reverend Bishop Daniel P. Reilly (per Brother
Alphonsus Maria MacGovern, see Affidavit attached) suggested
I contact Frances Nugent of the Office for Healing and
Prevention for support.
Within a day (or shortly
thereafter, cannot determine date legibility of my 2001
journal) I received a call from Frances Nugent and we spoke
for 12 minutes. She suggested I come in and fill out a
formal complaint to the Diocese. She said the Pastoral Care
Committee would discuss my case and see what can be done but
that I first must come in (to the Diocesan Office) and
complete the formal complaint.
I received a call again
within a short period of time and spoke with Patricia
Engdahl (At this point I was confused with who I was
speaking with because in the initial “inquiry” I was
speaking with Mrs. Nugent.) Mrs. Engdahl informed me that
since my case was involved in the criminal legal system,
that it would not be necessary for me to fill out the formal
complaint with the Diocese since I already provided a
complaint testimony to the State Detective Unit. Also the
Healing and Prevention Office informed me that since I was
already receiving counseling through State provision (at
that time, later I paid for my therapy out of pocket) that
they would not need to assist me with counseling
services either and apologized for not being able to assist
me.
In a later conversation
between Brother Alphonsus MacGovern and Mrs. Nugent I was
told that since I was involved in a case with the St. Joseph
Abbey and since the Bishop does not have any jurisdiction
over them that the Diocese could not assist me with my
situation. They gave me no other avenues of recourse.
After the trial Brother
Alphonsus MacGovern insisted that I speak with Mrs. Nugent
again with the hopes of renewing a healing relationship to
the Diocese through the Office for Healing and Prevention.
It was understood that since my case was now out of the
courts that I would have a better chance of attaining
pastoral care and an opportunity to revisit re-establishing
my vocational pursuit with the newly installed Bishop of
Worcester, Most Reverend Robert McManus.
Having agreed to Brother
MacGovern’s well intentioned effort, and believing this time
since there were no longer any seeming legal complications,
we moved forward with setting up a meeting to discuss my
needs.
The first meeting
we had was on February 22nd 2006 at
the Worcester Art Museum. Upon entering the museum Mrs.
Nugent introduced me to Elizabeth Reidy and asked if it
would be “ok” for her to be present as “two heads are better
than one”. I permitted it and shared with her that I was
expecting Brother Alphonsus MacGovern to attend as well. The
purpose for this meeting was for me to go through as much of
my story as was possible. Mrs. Nugent asked my
permission to take notes as there was much content to my
experiences. I agreed hoping that this would facilitate her
speaking with Bishop McManus and gaining me the opportunity
to have a meeting with him. So I shared most of my story
with her in about a 2-hour period with Br. Alphonsus
MacGovern present partway through that meeting.
After the meeting I
followed up with several electronic correspondences so we
could focus the next meeting on my requests and preparation
for meeting with the bishop. (If
Electronic Correspondences are needed I will furnish them.)
I received a message
from Mrs. Nugent on March 27th 2006 at 3:51pm
apologizing it took her so long to contact me, she said she
just found my number and that she will try again tomorrow.
(Exhibit A Tape Cassette Message 3)
Mrs. Nugent and I were
scheduled to meet for April 20th 2006 but called
and asked to cancel it so she could coordinate the meeting
time with Elizabeth Reidy schedule so she could be present.
The next message I
received on April 6th 2006 from Mrs. Nugent
stating she had been “out of the office more than in”. She
offered me condolences for the loss of my cousin and asks me
to call her to set up a time to meet. (Exhibit A Tape
Cassette Message 4.)
I received a call from
Mrs. Nugent on April 25th 2006 asking to
reschedule the meeting.
The 2nd
meeting with Mrs. Nugent was May 18th 2006
again at the Worcester Art Museum. Elizabeth Reidy was
present and Mary Jean was there as well in support of me.
(Brother MacGovern was not able to be present.) First Mrs.
Nugent thanked me for the e-mails and let me know she was
able to read all of them. We then discussed my suffering
with having lost my job (I believed due to Abbey case
publicity and had evidence to verify my suspicion) and
facing the pains of not having my name restored as well as
the effects of being blacklisted in church circles. We
reviewed the desired implementations regarding the
relationship to the St. Joseph Abbey. (Will provide
“Abbey e-mails” with implementations if desired.) Mrs.
Jean expressed she rarely had victims interested in
continuing a religious vocation and said she would like to
see me embraced by the Diocesan community so as to attain my
original vocational goal and aspiration. Mrs. Nugent
commented that it was indeed remarkable and that she would
like to see the same restorative culmination materialize for
the Church) (and me as well. She and Elizabeth Reidy both
seemed to express true sympathy, compassion and cordiality.
Mrs. Nugent expressed that the Church would be in a position
to learn much from my experience and they both thanked me
for not giving up on my faith. Mrs. Nugent was frank in
describing that she would do her best to get me a meeting
with the bishop. She said she could not make me any promises
that he would see me, but that she would give it her best
effort.
On June 27th
2006 I had a meeting with the bishop. Here is what my
experience was like. (See attachment June 27th
2006)
Since this meeting with
Bishop McManus, neither Mrs. Nugent nor anyone from the
Office of Healing and Prevention has been in contact with
me. Even with the meeting with Bishop McManus being a failed
attempt to restoration, my expectation of the Office of
Healing and Prevention was to be offered assistance pursuing
other venues within the church for canonical recourse,
restorative justice or non-conflict resolution.
The deception (qualifying
this part of the complaint) is that what was to be
offered through the Healing and Prevention Office was not
sustained healing or prevention of re-opening
wounds, but further exacerbation of these wounds. The level
of cooperation I offered with regards to signing release
forms, producing the Case Chronology and other information
requested by Mrs. Nugent, seems to me to have been, on the
appearance of it, a means of gaining information for the
Diocese and not gaining results for my concerns. (See
Release Forms Exhibits B-E)
1.06 Conflicts
of Interest
Social workers should be alert to and
avoid conflicts of interest that interfere with the exercise
of professional discretion and impartial judgment.
Mrs. Nugent has
ultimately allowed me to be in an abusive situation. First
of all she insisted upon my being without an advocate at the
meeting with the bishop. She did not represent my interests;
she could not represent my interests. How can
Mrs. Nugent represent my concerns and interests if her
boss who pays her (for all intents and purposes) is the
Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester who is Corporation Sole?
1.01 Commitment to Clients
Social workers' primary responsibility is to
promote the well-being of clients.
I expressed to Mrs.
Nugent that I lost my job and that I was struggling to pay
for my own therapy. She never made an offer to alleviate me
of this burden even while the Office of Healing and
Prevention offers financial assistance to pay for therapy
for victims’.
I reached out to Mrs.
Nugent and I received an automated response. When Mrs.
Nugent returned on March 6th 2006 she did not
follow up with an e-mail addressing my concerns. When she
did get back to me (see her e-mail to me March 13th
2006.) Mrs. Nugent asks me to reach out to her. (See
Electronic Correspondence attachments)
Since the meeting with
the bishop, Mrs. Nugent has not been active in helping to
resolve the issues I expressed and no forthcoming efforts
have been made to initiate contact.
1.04 Competence
Social workers should provide services and
represent themselves as competent only within the boundaries
of their education, training, license, certification,
consultation received.
Mrs. Nugent lost my
number and has allowed unreasonable time to lapse between
phone calls and meetings. Her asking me to follow up with
her at the end of the meeting with the bishop was reflective
of seemingly having a flippant view of “reaching out” to
victims/survivors.
20.08: Unlawful Discrimination
A social worker shall not engage in,
facilitate, or collaborate in any form of discrimination on
the basis of race, color, religious creed, national origin,
sex, sexual orientation, age, ancestry, marital status,
status as a veteran or member of the armed forces,
blindness, hearing impairment or any physical or mental
disability with respect to the availability, provision, or
performance of any professional function or service.
Since I am a religious
of the Church, Mrs. Nugent did not apply the same services
offering Healing and Preventative measures and resolutions
to my case. (Even after Bishop Reilly told Brother Alphonsus
MacGovern to go to Mrs. Nugent; for Bishop Reilly sent me to
Mrs. Nugent per Brother MacGovern. (See Brother MacGovern’s
affidavit.)
I know the Office of
Healing and Prevention has taken initial review statements
of criminal case victims. Since my interest was to seek
understanding and healing as well as revisiting the
possibility of taking vows within the Diocesan structure,
that need/ desire has been exploited and my true spiritual
and reconciliatory needs have been shunned during these
exchanges between myself and anyone representing the
Diocesan Office. Since a hermit sister (the vocation I
aspire to) is to embrace a life of stricter solitude and
diligence in prayer, this desire has been undervalued and
the desire for healing and reconciliation has been ignored.
My life has been put on hold (since Late 2001) and my
vocation (taking vows) has been taken hostage. Mrs. Nugent
was the remedy of recourse I had hoped would prove
successful and even ultimately beneficial for the Church.
Sadly, the interactions with Mrs. Nugent have indicated
otherwise.
20.11: Other Improper Use of Client
Information or Records
A social worker shall not use any
information obtained from a client in the course of
providing professional services to that client, including
but not limited to the fact that he or she has a
professional relationship with that client, for his or her
own private or pecuniary gain without the informed written
and voluntary consent of that client. 258 CMR 20.11
Mrs. Nugent did
NOT TAKE AN INITIAL REPORT for the Pastoral Care
Committee before or after the trial (March 13, 2003). At no
time did Mrs. Nugent present a consent form or client
agreement form for my signature in order for her to present
my case to the Pastoral Care Committee. I cooperated with
signing release forms for Mrs. Nugent to expedite a resolve
for my situation. Mrs. Nugent collected information from me
via electronic correspondences, meetings and telephone
conversations. Mrs. Nugent spoke with my therapist who was
Mr. Stephen Lundrigan at that time. (Mrs. Nugent would not
allow me to meet the bishop with this therapist.) I provided
this information with the understanding that my interests
would be represented by Mrs. Nugent.
From: Keri Burnor <keriwall@juno.com>
To: fnugent@worcesterdiocese.org
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 22:50:14 -0500
Subject: FW: Re: important letters/ (to) Sr.
Sharon Euart letter and (to) Abbot Damian letter and his
response
Dear Frankie,
This letter was from Sr. Sharon Euart who was
the president of canonical affairs (Canon Law Society of
America, apparently now our new appointed president is Msgr.
Pedone)
I was hoping to find a source that could
assist me with healing and being able to return to Mass at
the Abbey. (This letter was written at that time when
returning to the Abbey was on my priority agenda list.)…
From: "Fnugent" <Fnugent@mail.worcesterdiocese.org>
To: <keriwall@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:33:39
Subject: automated response
I will be out of the office from 2/24 until
March 6th.
Frankie
From: "Frances Nugent" <fnugent@worcesterdiocese.org>
To: "'Keri Burnor'" <keriwall@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:47:44 -0500
Subject: RE: Abbey E-Mails/
Dear Sister Keri-- I have received your
e-mails. Call me Monday the 27th
and we can make arrangements to meet.
Frankie
|