Phone: 865-748-3518
Email: susan8324@gmail.com
SNAP Reform Caucus
SNAP of Tennessee
Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
:"We will not tolerate the double standard. What is deemed disrespect and a breach of the code of conduct for the grassroots Leaders of SNAP is called "justifiable" for the Board of Directors and the Executive Director. This will not stand"
Call to Action #7 - Questions, Concerns, and Comments
Responses below to Call to Actioin #7 - These leaders gave permission for publishing here with NO NAMES given.
July 22, 2025 - Considering the significant issues SNAP is currently having financially, structurally within the organization and lack of transparency making good decisions with all the correct information is imperative. One of the ways a non-profit loses their status, is by political activity. If the Board President runs for office in their state. Is this considered political activity, even if SNAP hasn’t funded the board members campaign? Since a board member has run for office in their state and there could be other types of political activity we aren’t aware of. Should SNAP have the 990’s reviewed to make sure this wasn’t overlooked when responding to questions concerning this matter?
For 5 years the board hasn’t said anything to any of us about “vetting”. All of a sudden, to avoid having a conversation with leaders, “vetting” was weaponized against the “leaders.” Can the board clarify, how weaponizing “rules” or Bylaws against the organizations volunteers is healthy for anyone? How informed were all the board members about what has transpired over the last year? How many times has the board met since the last conference on Zoom or in person?
Why has SNAP made the board closed off from the rest of the organization? Yet, the organization wants the people in SNAP to just give money, not knowing where it goes. SNAP is asking people who are part of the organization to just, “trust” those on the board, when one of the biggest challenges for survivors is being able to trust others. Can the board see the problems this poses? If it does, why hasn’t the board done anything to address it?
July 21, 2025: .The new “working groups “ model was introduced to the leaders on April 15, 2024 in an email from Shaun. Then, a second email went out from Shaun on September 30, 2024, again discussing the working groups and the idea of “ sharing the load,” between the BOD and the leaders. In fact, one of the groups had filled up. Will the list of members of each of these working groups be published, and would it perhaps be best for these working group members to reach out to the leaders in an email in their quest for more leader participation? Leaders may be more comfortable speaking to someone in the group before committing their time and energy to it.
July 17, 2025: I support the following: Detailed explanation of the vetting process, Quarterly Zoom meetings with Leaders, Financial review by Leaders twice a year, and a yearly financial audit.
There is a need for regular communication.
After over 20 years of actively supporting SNAP I find the need to withdraw from active support to support on an as needed basis. I believe my efforts in supporting victims/survivors can be best served in managing and updating my website www.WolvesinCassocks.com which is dedicated to help victims/survivors heal.
Thank God for SNAP and for all the men and women who have reached out to support victims/survivors and fight for justice.
July 11: MY main concern is that I don't know if I'm still considered a Leader. Recent developments have made me unsure
July 11: The SNAP helpline used to be answered by a cadre of volunteers. Each volunteer agreed to check in on the helpline one day of each week. They would check the helplne several times each day and return calls made by any individual. They would help that individual ina any way they could. They would talk with them for hours, refer them to other leaders, help them find other resources etc. This gave these volunteers a sense of belonging and for some, it was the only way that they could help SNAP. When the helpline disappeared a year ago, it took months to restore and when it did, it placed the entire burden on one person and removed dedicated volunteers from the process of helping survivors. Will the helpline be returned to its former functionality that will allow volunteers to interact with survivors and give them a sense of purpose? If so, when is this expected to happen? If not, who is shouldering the burden and what will happen when that person needs a break or can’t answer a call?
July 11: According to the Bylaws of SNAP, there may be 11 members on the Board of Directors. Currently there are 6 members. Call to Action #5 (See this link: https://www.openthewindow.org/call-to-action) has been completed by 9 leaders of SNAP offering their services to be on the Board.. The Board received a report with the names. Has anyone from the SNAP Board reached out any of these leaders who are willing to serve?
July 10 - A healthy organization should have and be open to regular input from its worker bee leaders out in the field. This helps promote awareness of the Snap mission as it happens on the ground. In my three years as a facilitator there has been no outreach from the Snap board to get any input. This conference has been organized without any input from the groups to have a finger on the pulse. I come from a leadership background where input was sought out even if it was not given because the mission is important. The mission runs better with knowledge in the field area. We are helping others; not ourselves. Any improvements moving forward?
July 10 - In SNAP’s email of 7/3/2, Shaun specifically mentioned that traditional mediation to discuss these concerns have not achieved the desired results. This raises a few questions:
1) How were these concerns raised initially and why was mediation necessary?
2) Why did mediation not work? Were there partial results? What was discussed at the mediation? Who joined in on the mediation? Who was invited?
3) What were the concerns/differences that were raised?
4) Were any of these differences/concerns resolved? If so, what was the outcome?
5) How will differences/concerns be addressed in the future so that mediation becomes less likely?
6) In the opinion of the board, how should serious concerns be raised to the board?
July 9: In an email from SNAP dated 9/30/24, Shaun Dougherty wrote that SNAP plans to “…have a policy in place to properly vet and onboard leaders in accordance with our by-laws and donor agreements”. In another email to Teresa Lancaster dated 10/30/24, Shaun wrote ” Persons made leaders after 5/20 are not properly vetted and are not considered leaders in good standing. They must be vetted according to procedures in Bylaw.”(sic) And finally in the email to Frank Schindler concerning discussion with the board, Dan McNevin wrote “.We also won't be discussing the proposed new topic referred to as "leader vetting". It would be premature to discuss that procedure with your group prior to a community wide roll-out”.
This raises a number of questions. (There are certainly follow up questions that depend on the answers to these first questions and trying to anticipate all possible answers and all possible follow-ups would require pages of questions. That is why the leaders have asked for an open dialogue with the board that has been stymied at every turn). The starting questions are:
1) Why is the board suddenly generating a ‘new’ vetting process given that the previous board developed and documented an on boarding process that included mentorship, questionnaire and review of the leader’s manual? What were the shortcomings of the old process?
2) The by-laws make no mention of a vetting process other than that the board assigns the title of leader (Article III, section2, paragraph 2). There is no mention of a vetting process or actually any process whatsoever. If the board knows of a vetting process that is contained in the by-laws, please inform me of such where this is contained in the by-laws.
3) If the board decides that the old vetting process (on-boarding process) was inadequate, why does the new vetting process only apply to those leaders that became leaders after May of 2020? These new bylaws did not make any changes to the vetting process. Indeed, they do not mention anything about a vetting process.
4) While the by-laws do state that the board must resolve that someone is a leader, why does not the following constitute a de-facto resolution from the board as being approval for someone to be a leader?
a. Being posted on the SNAP website as a leader or as someone who facilitates a SNAP support group
b. A board representative recognizing an individual as a leader at the start of SNAP conference in front of the entire assembly
c. Being given a special green colored lanyard at a SNAP conference and announcing to the assembly that anyone with a green lanyard is a SNAP leader
5) Why does the SNAP board not wish to talk about the proposed vetting process before rolling it out? It would seem that obtaining leadership feedback would be a hallmark of an open and transparent organization
6) What are the donor requirements/agreements for vetting and why do they not apply to everyone? Which donor(s) required this?
Again, there are more questions that depend on the answers to these questions
July 9: In an email sent to Teresa Lancaster dated 10/30/24, Shaun Dougherty wrote the following (item 10): “the board treasurer recently authorized background checks of several unratified leaders in connection with potential litigation.” (emphasis mine). This statement raises a number of concerns and questions.
1) What was the extent of these background checks (BC).
2) Did SNAP receive prior authorization from the investigated leaders to perform this BCs.
3) How did SNAP decide which leaders required a BC? Who were they and why?
4) Why are BCs being done now when they were not done in the past. What Changed?
5) Who decides which leaders requires BC?
6) Are all leaders subject to BCs?
7) Does SNAP intend to check the background of all leaders (vetted and unvetted)?
8) Who is considered a vetted leader? Who is unvetted? Who decides and what are the criteria?
9) If only unvetted leaders need to have BCs, does this raise the specter of a double standard?
10)
These final questions diverge greatly depending on the answer and the answer to questions 1-4. This is why a dialogue in this issue is so important rather than just submitting questions. The follow on questions depend on the answer to the first few questions and it would take pages to write out questions covering all of the possible answers and permutations of questions. There will be follow-on questions that depend on the answers to these questions
July 8: I am very unhappy about the way a group of leaders has been treated this year. While attempting to have a conversation with the SNAP Board of Directors, we were repeatedly shut down. Now, it is made to look like the Board is ready to address concerns. Where have they been since last August when we tried to initiate a conversation? Before any ""discussion" takes place, I believe an apology is warranted. The Mediation Day was not an act of good faith but instead a slap in the face. My husband and I cannot attend this year as we will be assisting a sick family member at that time. I hope a positive dialog can take place between the Board and SNAP leaders at this conference but I am not confident. Significant harm has been done.
July 8: Can the president and executive director be more receptive to leaders questions concerns / we need some guidance and leaders meetings training.
July 8: The mediation of March 1, 2025, initiated and paid for by the SNAP Board of Directors never occurred and is being misportrayed completely by the Board. When will the Board tell the truth about the mediation and the Board's obstruction of the entire process?
July 8 - Why has the SNAP Board of Directors been so afraid of the "Group of 12?" Five Leaders asked for a conversation at the last annual conference in Houston. You backed out twice and they left Houston confused by this noncommunicative stance. So we solicited leaders with similar concerns and the "Group of 12" was born. You were too afraid to have a Zoom meeting with us. You allowed the Board treasurer to barrage us with vitriolic emails and then the Board president could not understand our outrage at this.
Although we asked for a conversation with you, the Board has step-by-step turned it into a controversy. Is this how you interpret “Every voice can be heard?”
You asked for an agenda and rejected it each time we told you that our agenda was the September 19, 2024 letter from us to the Board. You set up mediation at SNAP's expense for two 4-hour sessions on March 1st and March 8th. We waited 3-1/2 hours in a Zoom waiting room while the four out of six Board Members who attended talked to mediators and could not agree to begin the mediation. One-half hour before the end of that first session, you told the mediatos that you would only talk to 4 out of the 12 of us because 8 of us were not "vetted" leaders. We were horrified by your disrespect
We, nevertheless, sent in our "agenda" for the next mediation session only to have it rebuffed yet again. It was then clear to us that every obstruction that could be put up in our way would be done by this Board of Directors. Hence, we have moved forward with making constructive Calls to Action and agendas to help SNAP be the best we can be.
Do not underestimate the lessons we have learned over the years while fighting corrupt institutions on behalf of victims of sexual abuse. Sadly, the Board of Directors has behaved shamefully towards an ever-growing number of us whose intentions are nothing but honorable. We have withstood vitriolic rhetoric, false accusations, and being totally ignored before. We will do it again with this Board of Directors.
Your "mediated session" is an excellent idea. It does not, however, take the place of the meeting we have requested. We will follow the Bylaws of SNAP as found in Call to Action #3 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd_eAv8u04Ci29iFSL-PbPUohPikInbNfVF_pLMOoPrTyZuEA/viewform
Please refrain from invoking the "every voice will be heard" mantra unless you truly mean it. So far leaders and members alike find that language suspect coming from a Board of Directors whose six members have steadfastly denied us a voice for nearly a year and counting.
Question: Why are you so afraid of your leaders and members of SNAP?