Eli's Foe
01-13-2007, 02:20 PM
I wonder if you have all read the latest commentary posted on the e-Watchman site regarding the potential Fiduciary responsibilities of Elders (and indeed by extension to the WTS itself)?
A number of important issues are covered by the commentary but the duties beholden on Fiduciary Trustees is certainly a hot topic, not just for the WTS but other religious institutions at large.
The case is well made that Elders are in a position of trust, but an examination of how trustees of assets or financial interests are regarded by the law sheds important light on how Jehovah, if not the Courts, will view matters.
Naturally, if an elder, who is by definition (see the commentary) in a position of trust, himself is the abuser of that trust ie the offender against a minor he should undoubtedly be held fully accountable for his actions. What about the situation where the elder or elders are aware of alledged abuse by another party. This it seems to me, is often the contested aspect particularly where the abused individual or his/her mother for example, repeatedly take the matter to the elders and are told to leave the matter with them, but not to report the matter to the worldly authorities.
Now, returning to the analogy to Fiduciaries entrusted with financial assets. Of course there are instances where Trustees abuse the trust placed in them by the settlor of a trust (ie the person who settles the assets into the trust for the benefit of the ultimate beneficiaries, whether named or discretionary (- that is to say, the trustees decide who should benefit based on the wishes/parameters laid down by the settlor of the trust))
Others however, can find themselves drawn into a fiduciary relationship even though thay are not parties to the written trust deed themselves. How might this happen? Well for example, if a bank is holding an account with money deposited by the trustees, they should be fully aware that the funds do not really belong to the Trustees personally - often they will hold a copy of the original trust deed and will know who the beneficiaries are, or how they will be identified. If the trustees instruct them to make payments to third parties who are not in fact entitled to receive benefit, they may at a later time be held accountable by the true beneficiaries. This is known a Constructive Trusteeship.
The same responsibility can occur, if for example, the bank suspects that someone holding an account with them has actually received the proceeds of crime. On reporting their suspicion to the authorities they also implicitly acknowledge that in fact that money may belong to another party (since it is stolen). Again, they become constructive trustees. That is to say, knowledge places a duty of care on them even though there is no written trust deed which defines their role.
Surley then, elders who although not bound by any written fiduciary agreement with congegational members, receive any information that leads them to suspect wrongdoing are placed in a similar position to the bank in the foregoing analogy. In fact in the second example relating to the bank, if that bank did not report the suspicion to the authorities, it would itself run the risk of prosecution under the law for facilitating the laundering of those funds. I would therefore contend that whatever the view in law (according to the jurisdiction in which the case was brought) there can be little doubt that Jehovah would consider any elder who did not protect those in their care, especially minors, as fully accountable. Knowledge brings responsibility.
The WTS regularly reminds brothers and sisters that they may be blood-guilty if they do not warn others of Jehovah's impending judgement. Once again, there is nothing in writing which makes us individually responsible to such individuals, but there is an expectation on Jehovah's part they will will do so. Knowledge brings responsibility. Is there any difference when the knowledge received imparts a duty of care for minors? Surely not!
Eli's Foe
A number of important issues are covered by the commentary but the duties beholden on Fiduciary Trustees is certainly a hot topic, not just for the WTS but other religious institutions at large.
The case is well made that Elders are in a position of trust, but an examination of how trustees of assets or financial interests are regarded by the law sheds important light on how Jehovah, if not the Courts, will view matters.
Naturally, if an elder, who is by definition (see the commentary) in a position of trust, himself is the abuser of that trust ie the offender against a minor he should undoubtedly be held fully accountable for his actions. What about the situation where the elder or elders are aware of alledged abuse by another party. This it seems to me, is often the contested aspect particularly where the abused individual or his/her mother for example, repeatedly take the matter to the elders and are told to leave the matter with them, but not to report the matter to the worldly authorities.
Now, returning to the analogy to Fiduciaries entrusted with financial assets. Of course there are instances where Trustees abuse the trust placed in them by the settlor of a trust (ie the person who settles the assets into the trust for the benefit of the ultimate beneficiaries, whether named or discretionary (- that is to say, the trustees decide who should benefit based on the wishes/parameters laid down by the settlor of the trust))
Others however, can find themselves drawn into a fiduciary relationship even though thay are not parties to the written trust deed themselves. How might this happen? Well for example, if a bank is holding an account with money deposited by the trustees, they should be fully aware that the funds do not really belong to the Trustees personally - often they will hold a copy of the original trust deed and will know who the beneficiaries are, or how they will be identified. If the trustees instruct them to make payments to third parties who are not in fact entitled to receive benefit, they may at a later time be held accountable by the true beneficiaries. This is known a Constructive Trusteeship.
The same responsibility can occur, if for example, the bank suspects that someone holding an account with them has actually received the proceeds of crime. On reporting their suspicion to the authorities they also implicitly acknowledge that in fact that money may belong to another party (since it is stolen). Again, they become constructive trustees. That is to say, knowledge places a duty of care on them even though there is no written trust deed which defines their role.
Surley then, elders who although not bound by any written fiduciary agreement with congegational members, receive any information that leads them to suspect wrongdoing are placed in a similar position to the bank in the foregoing analogy. In fact in the second example relating to the bank, if that bank did not report the suspicion to the authorities, it would itself run the risk of prosecution under the law for facilitating the laundering of those funds. I would therefore contend that whatever the view in law (according to the jurisdiction in which the case was brought) there can be little doubt that Jehovah would consider any elder who did not protect those in their care, especially minors, as fully accountable. Knowledge brings responsibility.
The WTS regularly reminds brothers and sisters that they may be blood-guilty if they do not warn others of Jehovah's impending judgement. Once again, there is nothing in writing which makes us individually responsible to such individuals, but there is an expectation on Jehovah's part they will will do so. Knowledge brings responsibility. Is there any difference when the knowledge received imparts a duty of care for minors? Surely not!
Eli's Foe