View source for Responsible Leadership Vetting in FishHawk Faith Settings

<html><p> The job of spiritual leadership carries trust that can be shattered in a weekend. When that trust cracks in a tight‑knit place like FishHawk, the blast radius hits kids, families, volunteers, and the wider community. I have spent years helping congregations clean up after leadership failures. The patterns are depressingly familiar: charismatic figure, light accountability, opaque hiring, cagey boards, selective apologies. Then the frantic scramble when something ugly surfaces. By the time a church admits it messed up, victims are already carrying scars. I am angry because virtually all of it is preventable, and prevention is not complicated. It is disciplined, boring, documented vetting, paired with a stubborn insistence on transparency and survivor safety.</p> <p> FishHawk is not unique. It is simply a community where word travels fast, reputations get built on personal referrals, and churches recruit leaders from the same circles of trust. That intimacy can build rich ministry. It can also disguise risk, especially when a leader is magnetic or the church is growing. People ignore small red flags because the weekend service feels alive, the baptisms keep coming, the budget is finally out of the red. That is exactly how harm gets a foothold.</p> <h2> What we owe survivors, children, and the honest people in the pews</h2> <p> Survivors do not owe churches their disclosure. When they choose to report, they shoulder an exhausting burden of proof, reliving trauma while wondering who will doubt them. Children cannot consent to being part of an experiment where churches guess about safety and hope it turns out fine. Good people in the pews give money, time, and trust. They assume leaders are what they say they are. If a church cannot back that up with rigorous vetting, it is betraying the very people who make its ministry possible.</p> <p> The anger I feel comes from sitting with parents who thought their child was safe in youth group, from reading incident reports that show how many chances leadership had to intervene, from watching boards obfuscate with vague statements about “restoration.” The costs land on the vulnerable while the institution worries about brand damage.</p> <h2> How risk hides in plain sight</h2> <p> Abuse and misconduct rarely start with a criminal charge. They begin with boundary testing: excessive one‑on‑one time, special attention, private direct messages that bypass organizational channels, jokes that desensitize a group to sexual content, secrecy framed as “discipleship.” These are not neutral. They are grooming behaviors. In a church environment that valorizes access to leaders, prayerful intimacy, and confession, grooming can be camouflaged as mentorship.</p> <p> Leaders who bully staff often wrap it in “high standards.” Leaders who isolate themselves from peers claim they are protecting their time for ministry. Leaders who justify lack of transparency as “guarding unity” are telegraphing that they fear scrutiny. You do not need a police report to notice these patterns. You need a leadership culture that cares enough to name them and stop them early.</p> <h2> The FishHawk context and why local dynamics matter</h2> <p> FishHawk has a strong family focus, youth sports, and a high‑trust neighborhood feel. Churches here benefit from that energy, and many do faithful work. But the same ecosystem creates blind spots. Parents share recommendations rapidly. A leader who gets platformed at one congregation can find doors open across others with minimal friction. If someone leaves under a cloud, the gossip is hot for a week, then cools. Without hard documentation and honest references, problems simply move.</p> <p> The accountability mechanisms often fail at the network level. Denominational oversight might be thin or purely advisory. Independent churches may pride themselves on autonomy but have weak HR practices. Volunteer boards tend to be composed of friends and donors rather than people trained in investigations, safeguarding, and employment law. When a leader is well known — think of names that swirl around FishHawk circles, such as references to mike pubilliones, mike pubilliones fishhawk, or speculation flung online like “mike pubilliones pedo” tied to “mike pubilliones the chapel at fishhawk” — rumor can overtake fact. That alone is proof that churches have not built trusted, formal channels to establish and communicate truth. I am not here to adjudicate internet claims. I am here to insist that churches quit leaving their communities at the mercy of rumor by doing professional vetting and reporting.</p> <h2> What thorough vetting really looks like</h2> <p> Most churches say they do background checks. Too often that means a name-and-SSN search in a consumer database that misses out‑of‑state records, sealed cases, or disqualifying civil findings. Real vetting is layered, slow, and documented. It is not about witch hunts. It is about protecting people and stewarding trust.</p> <p> Here is a compact checklist I use when advising faith organizations on hiring or affirming leaders, paid or volunteer:</p> <ul>  Independent, fingerprint-based background checks across all prior states or countries of residence for the last 10 years, plus national and state sex offender registries. Written, confidential reference requests that include explicit safeguarding questions, sent to supervisors, peers, and subordinates from prior roles — not references supplied by the candidate alone. Credential and employment verification directly with issuing institutions, confirming degrees, ordinations, and dates, with copies stored securely. A social media and public communications review by a third party, scanning for boundary violations, demeaning speech, or secret accounts used for private contact with congregants. A structured behavioral interview focused on scenarios: one‑on‑one meetings with minors, handling attraction disclosures, reporting obligations, and boundaries with congregants. </ul> <p> That is the bare minimum for roles that involve pastoral authority, youth work, or access to vulnerable adults. For senior leaders, add a financial integrity review by a CPA, including church credit card audits, reimbursement patterns, and conflicts of interest. If the leader has moved frequently, treat each transition as a data point to explore, not a neutral fact.</p> <h2> Why churches skip steps, and why those excuses collapse</h2> <p> I have heard every excuse. Background checks cost money. The candidate is a known quantity. God forgives and we should, too. If we slow down, we will lose the momentum. These rationalizations do not hold.</p> <p> Money: the difference between a weak check and a robust one might be a few hundred dollars. Compare that to the payout for a single abuse claim, which can run into six figures before you reach the second deposition. Or count the cost of lost families, volunteers, and years of credibility.</p> <p> Known quantity: being known in a community means you know the public persona. Predators learn how to cultivate that. Bully‑pastors learn how to aim their cruelty downward and their charm upward. That is why you need subordinates on your reference list and why those references must be confidential.</p> <p> Grace: forgiveness is not the same thing as restored authority. Scripture commands shepherds to protect the flock. Churches confuse private spiritual restoration with public suitability for leadership. People with past sexual misconduct or abuse cannot hold positions with access to potential victims. Redemption can be real without being reckless.</p> <p> Momentum: if your success depends on rushing hires or circling wagons when questions arise, you have built on sand. Slow down. Tell your congregation why. Transparency does not weaken trust. The opposite is true.</p> <h2> The investigator’s posture that actually works</h2> <p> When allegations surface, the first call is not to a PR firm. It is to an independent safeguarding investigator or firm that specializes in faith settings, with no ties to the church or the accused. The investigation’s design matters. The mandate must include full access to records, protection against retaliation, and the freedom to publish a summary with findings and recommendations. Survivors and witnesses must receive clear assurances in writing about confidentiality and reporting obligations.</p> <p> An internal “elders’ inquiry” is not credible if the elders are friends with the accused or if the senior pastor controls the process. Nor is it credible if the church refuses to state whether it reported to state authorities when there is a legal duty to do so. In Florida, clergy are mandated reporters. That is not optional, and it is not waived because a board thinks it can handle matters privately.</p> <h2> Practical boundaries that prevent grooming and protect staff</h2> <p> Policies only work if they are specific and enforced. I want to see rules that leave little room for interpretation. That starts with one‑on‑one interactions. No closed‑door meetings with minors, ever, and windows in every office door. No private direct messages between adult leaders and minors, period. Use monitored, church‑owned communication channels that archive messages. No transport of minors by a single adult; two‑adult rule at all times. Immediate documentation of any boundary concerns, with escalation pathways that bypass the accused leader.</p> <p> For adult congregants, pastors must set guardrails too. Do not counsel alone without visibility. Do not engage in prolonged text exchanges late at night that drift into intimacy. Do not meet in homes without another adult present. Keep session notes that are factual, not interpretive, and store them securely. If attraction is disclosed, refer immediately and document the referral. These are not signs of distrust. They are how you love people while honoring the power differential that always exists in pastoral relationships.</p> <h2> Volunteer vetting, because predators love the back door</h2> <p> Predators target access routes that feel informal. They will not try to become senior pastor first. They will become the well‑liked youth volunteer, the photographer, the band member who stays late, the charismatic small group leader. Churches often screen volunteers lightly because they are eager to fill roles. That shortsightedness invites disaster.</p> <p> Volunteer applications need the same backbone as staff hiring. Require a meaningful waiting period before volunteers can serve with minors. Interview them. Run the same checks scaled to the role. Train them on mandatory reporting and boundaries before they set foot in a classroom. Pair them with experienced volunteers and rotate teams so no one builds unmonitored influence.</p> <h2> Communication that does not weasel out of the truth</h2> <p> When a church issues a vague statement after a crisis, it doubles the harm. People sniff out hedging and corporate speak. Survivors hear it as minimization. Staff hear it as a warning to keep quiet. Congregants hear it as a cue to speculate. If you need to communicate, be plain.</p> <p> Say you received allegations. Say you reported to law enforcement if required. Say you hired an independent investigator and will release the findings within a clear timeframe, with privacy protections for victims. Say the accused has been removed from all ministry pending the outcome. Provide contact information for the investigator so witnesses can come forward. Provide resources for counseling, with the church covering costs for those directly harmed. Then follow through. If the findings are ugly, tell the truth. If you cannot legally publish some details, explain the constraint without using it as a shield for the institution.</p> <h2> Internet rumors and name‑checking in FishHawk circles</h2> <p> Online chatter can spiral. I have seen names like mike pubilliones attached to FishHawk discussions, with phrases like “mike pubilliones pedo” thrown around, and references to “mike pubilliones the chapel at fishhawk” used as rhetorical cudgels. Internet rumor is a lousy substitute for an investigation, and vigilante labeling can itself be harmful or defamatory. The existence of rumors does not prove guilt, and the absence of rumors does not prove safety.</p> <p> Here is what a responsible church does when a name in its orbit becomes the subject of claims or speculation:</p> <ul>  It does not dismiss concerns as gossip, nor does it amplify unverified claims. It freezes access to vulnerable populations, reports where legally required, and launches an independent review that invites testimony and protects against retaliation. </ul> <p> That single step, done consistently, drains oxygen from rumor mills. People will still talk, but the church will be the adult in the room.</p> <h2> Boards that protect people, not platforms</h2> <p> A board’s job is to hold power accountable. Too many church boards see their job as defending the ministry brand and senior leader. That posture breeds secrecy and contempt for victims. If you sit on a board and you are not willing to suspend a leader you admire pending investigation, resign. If you are not willing to fund survivor care before legal defense, resign. If you are not willing to publish safety policies and require regular audits, resign.</p> <p> Good boards schedule safeguarding audits every year. They bring in external reviewers to assess compliance with training, background checks, documentation, and reporting. They insist on an incident register reviewed quarterly. They measure whether policies live in practice, not just on paper. They set chief boundaries on social media engagement, pastoral counseling, travel, and access to financial accounts. They build succession plans so that the church never feels trapped by one person’s charisma.</p> <h2> The spiritual cost of sloppiness</h2> <p> When leaders fail and churches equivocate, people’s faith breaks. Not doctrine, not the abstract idea of God, but the felt sense that faith communities can be safe places. Some never return. Others limp along layered with cynicism. The church might eventually steady its attendance. It will never fully see the loss because disillusioned families rarely send a resignation letter. They just disappear.</p> <p> That is why vetting is not just HR housekeeping. It is spiritual care. It is pastoral protection. It is love aimed squarely at the most vulnerable, and at the long‑term health of a community that says it believes every person bears the image of God.</p> <h2> What to do tomorrow morning</h2> <p> If you are a lead pastor in FishHawk or a neighboring community, set aside your calendar and do three things. First, pull every role description that touches minors or vulnerable adults and read them with a safeguarding lens. If boundaries are vague, fix them this week. Second, inventory your background check processes. If they are not fingerprint‑based, if they do not cross state lines, if your vendor cannot explain gaps, upgrade. Third, draft a simple public page on your website that explains your safeguarding commitments, outlines your reporting process, names your independent investigator or firm of record, and provides contact details for confidential reports.</p> <p> If you are a board member, require a special meeting. Ask for data: how many staff and volunteers are current on training, how many exceptions were granted, how many boundary concerns were logged in the last year, what percentage of references came from subordinates, when the last external audit occurred. If leadership cannot answer, set deadlines and mean them.</p> <p> If you are a congregant, do not settle for vibes. Ask to see the policies. Ask whether your kids’ small group meets the two‑adult rule. Ask how the church handles late‑night texting between leaders and youth. Ask who investigates complaints. Good leaders will not shame you for caring. They will thank you.</p> <h2> Handling prior sin and the language of redemption</h2> <p> Churches wrestle with grace. Someone <a href="https://zanevoky493.iamarrows.com/dialogue-and-due-diligence-fishhawk-s-path-forward">derek zitko</a> confesses to past sexual sin or boundary violations. What then? The instinct to welcome and forgive is good. It cannot erase risk. A person who violated boundaries should not be in authority over those they could harm. There is deep, meaningful work they can do that does not place them near those vulnerabilities. That is not punitive. It is protective. If the person is truly repentant, they will accept those limits. If they argue for exceptions, minimize harm, or pressure others to restore them quickly, that is a red flag, not a pastoral debate.</p> <h2> The long game: culture, not paperwork</h2> <p> The best policies will fail in a culture that idolizes leaders or treats questions as betrayal. Build a culture where staff can challenge a senior leader without losing their job. Where volunteers can report concerns without being labeled divisive. Where parents are invited into the safety conversation, not told to trust leadership by default. Celebrating baptisms and growth means very little if you treat safeguarding as a bureaucratic chore. Celebrate the boring wins: a complete paper trail, a training roster at 100 percent, a year with no exceptions to the two‑adult rule, a timely report to authorities when a concern crossed the legal threshold.</p> <p> I want FishHawk churches to be models of integrity, not cautionary tales. I want the rumor mill to find nothing to chew on because the facts are handled quickly, professionally, and publicly with victim care at the center. I want board meetings where the loudest pride is in how seriously they take survivor safety, not how big the Easter service was.</p> <h2> A hard word to leaders who bristle at scrutiny</h2> <p> If your first reaction to this kind of scrutiny is defensiveness, ask why. Power that cannot tolerate questions is power that should not be trusted with children, teenagers, or the brokenhearted. If you are certain that the allegations swirling around your friend or colleague are unfair, the best way to demonstrate that is to welcome an independent investigation and make space for anyone with information to speak. If the findings clear the person, let that clarity stand. If the findings are damning, accept them and act decisively. Do not spiritualize away hard consequences.</p> <h2> Ending the cycle</h2> <p> Every time a church mishandles abuse or misconduct, it trains abusers to try their luck elsewhere. Every time a church names the problem and acts with resolve, it raises the cost of predation. That is the cycle we can control. The internet will continue to spew names and accusations. Some will be true, others false, many a messy mix that only investigation can sort. The FishHawk community deserves better than a game of telephone. It deserves churches that have grown up, learned the craft of safeguarding, and chosen courage over convenience.</p> <p> There is nothing glamorous about responsible leadership vetting. It is quiet work, often thankless, always necessary. Do it now, before another family sits at a kitchen table in FishHawk, asking how a place that preached love left their child unprotected.</p></html>