MCC Cuts Facilitated Conversations Short, Leaving Full Story Unheard
by Anicka Fast, member of MAST steering committee
On December 2, 10, and 17, 2025, and February 10 and March 2, 2026, John and I had five online meetings with two MCC board members (one from MCC Canada and one from MCC US), two facilitators, two support people, and a survivor advocate. As agreed following months of negotiation, nothing said in these meetings was confidential.
During the first three sessions, we began sharing our story. Before beginning, we emphasized that we expected the board members to hear us out, and asked them to “respect us and recognize us as people of integrity who are being careful with details in telling our truth.” We told them that our experience with MCC had “caused tremendous upheaval and hurt in our family,” and said that “coming to you today has the potential to hurt us more, and it comes at huge cost to us. We are offering MCC a gift.”
Both of them responded with a commitment to “be here and listen deeply” and said they were “eager” to hear us out.
What We Shared in the First Three Sessions
We shared:
an overview of our assignment, the political context, the positive team relationships, and early yellow flags (such as the secrecy of worker policies prior to hiring, and tensions between international program and HR staff)
details about John’s efforts to raise concerns about racial discrimination in HR hiring, and the unexpectedly hostile response
details about a damaging and heavy‑handed complaint, and the ways in which we were dehumanized, destabilized, and harassed during the process – by not being informed of the content of the complaint, being isolated from supportive relationships, being humiliated, and given insufficient answers to questions about access to necessary health and psychological support and resources.
our efforts to get answers from HR Directors, which were met with gaslighting and refusal to answer questions
our efforts to get answers from Executive Directors, and their refusal to meet with us while expressing full confidence in HR
John said, “We were trying desperately to do our job, and every time we raised our voice to express concerns about fairness for staff, or about safety, or about our health, we got clobbered by HR.”
By the end of the third session, we had not yet reached the part of the story where Anicka received a preliminary PTSD diagnosis. We had not shared anything about the firing itself, the NDA, the withholding of our own funds, the boards’ refusal to accept a grievance, the flawed investigation, the threatening communications from MCC’s lawyer, the two‑year delay in accepting parameters for these conversations, the harmful public statements and “apologies,” and MCC leaders’ ongoing impunity.
During these sessions, the board members listened intently and said things like:
“I believe we should have listened sooner.”
“This is a really awful and shocking story.”
“If there are active abusers... this concerns me.”
“This should not have unfolded the way it did.”
“There is something wrong with the complaint process. It’s more about protecting MCC’s image and not the person who has been wronged.”
These meetings were emotionally exhausting. When a session went well, we thought, How is it possible that it took two years for this to happen? When hope poked up, we remembered all the times hope had been shattered before.
The Boards Cut the Process Short
In January, we learned that the board members planned to limit their participation to a maximum of three more meetings. We were blindsided.
Then, on February 4, we learned that MCC boards had curtly refused the facilitators’ request to extend their contract and would only fund two more sessions. We were shocked and flabbergasted. Just as we were making modest progress, MCC once again pulled out. This matched MCC’s pattern from the beginning: a systematic refusal to listen to people alleging harm.
We decided that since the commitment to hear us out had been withdrawn, we would not share more of our story. Instead, we asked the board members to respond to our questions based on what they had heard so far.
Fraught Final Sessions
As we approached the final two sessions, the cautious hopefulness that had helped us to make it through the first three was gone.
The board members arrived with carefully prepared answers. They continued to speak kindly and reflectively, but this caring now felt off‑putting and harmful because it contradicted their choice to walk away. When they said they were sorry not to “be able to” hear our whole story, it felt sickening. They referred to MCC’s response to our “story,” even though they had heard only a fraction of it.
The board members responded to the questions as follows:
1. Why were the conversations cut short?
The MCC Canada board member said she was “very disappointed not to be able to hear your full story,” and claimed they “had no awareness that it would go on for a year.”
The MCC US board member said, “I wish in retrospect that we had set our boundaries at the beginning so we could calibrate the story-telling within that time frame.”
No one acknowledged that most of the delay came from MCC boards’ refusal—over many months—to accept the facilitators’ parameters.
2. What went wrong in our case?
The board members generally agreed that many things had gone wrong. They said:
“I believe you. I believe your story.”
“Whole constellations of things went wrong.”
I regret that the EDs did not listen to you.”
“I regret that your termination letter didn’t say clearly the reason your employment was terminated.”
“I am sorry that the HR people did not understand the enormity of the pressure you were under.”
“Policies were not complete enough.”
“We didn’t have a board policy for grievances against EDs, and that is our fault.”
Their remarks indicated that they believed we should have been better supported; we should have known the content of the complaint sooner; HR directors should have responded to our questions and not left us in doubt about who we could speak to for support; EDs should have listened to us; we should not have been offered a firing letter that did not give a reason for our termination and that made support contingent on an NDA; there should have been a clear way for us to make a complaint about the EDs to the boards; and MCC should not have relied on legal counsel to communicate with us or to limit our access to board members.
Although this recognition felt significant, it was also destabilizing to hear these kinds of statements when at the same time:
They did not recognize that what happened was abuse.
They did not recognize that the EDs had violated Québec law.
They did not clearly say we should not have been fired (although the MCC US board member did concede, “If other right things had happened earlier, it would not have come to that point with a termination.”)
They did not propose accountability for those who abused their power.
In general, the board members recognized that many things had gone wrong, but seemed unable to make any useful steps toward repair or accountability.
3. How should MCC respond?
The board members said they would advocate to the full boards for:
more transparency about policies (making the policy manual available during the hiring process)
clearer expectations when hiring (no specifics were offered)
clearer policies for sick leave and medical leave
better support for rep workload
less heavy‑handed complaint responses (including opportunities for “conversation and testing first before action”)
clarifying confidentiality roles
consistent end‑of‑term support for all staff (the same package for all, fired or not)
proper care for those who become unable to work (advocating for long-term disability)
reviewing the board structure and staff-board relationship
creating a grievance policy for boardsto allow them to receive a grievance against the ED
We appreciated these ideas, but found it very disturbing that they planned to rely on individuals credibly accused of abuse to make these changes. Without accountability, we fear that such measures have no hope of success.
When asked what prevents MCC from admitting wrongdoing, the MCC Canada board member said change would be “cultural and policy‑related” and “not immediately light‑switch‑apparent.” When pressed about accountability, she said it was “tricky” because they “hadn’t heard your story,” and because boards “only hold one staff person accountable.”
The MCC US board member said that some actions taken “within policy and legal counsel” were not necessarily “right,” and said she was “hopeful there is a chance for accountability,” but that they “cannot make it happen.”
We felt overwhelmed by their inability to face the question of accountability.
4. What is the process by which an employee (or recently fired employee) can make a complaint against an HR Director and/or ED? Do you believe that this process is fair and was respected in J&A's case?
When asked about the process for making a complaint against HR or EDs, the MCC US board member initially suggested our complaints had not been taken as grievances at the time because we hadn’t used the template. After a timeout, both board members admitted MCC had “fumbled” and “did it wrong.”
It was valuable for us to hear a recognition that the EDs should have listened to our concerns in June 2023. But we were left wondering what accountability there would be for this abuse of power, especially since we are aware of other cases both prior and following ours where the EDs have minimized serious concerns about abuse (for one such case involving the MCC US ED, see here).
5. Do you believe MCC's senior leadership's assertion that there is no systemic abuse within MCC?
Before answering this question, the MCC US board member asked us for our definition of systemic abuse. We defined it as the combined effect of individuals, enabling culture, and organizational policies that together perpetuate and shield wrongdoing.
The definition of systemic abuse in MCC, according to Anicka and John: “Systemic abuse is abuse that involves people misusing their power in a systemic way, where multiple layers of the system help to cover it up, perpetuate it, and enable it. There are some malicious abusers who are acting with evil intent, there are active enablers, and then there's an entire system that feels like it's almost impossible not to participate in. This creates a web that is incredibly hard to take down. When abuse and harassment has been found at top senior leadership—which it has been—that is a sign that everywhere below that leadership, there's stuff going on, too. From the top down everyone knows it’s okay, because the top people are doing it.” (look for the full transcript of this section of the conversation in a forthcoming blog post)
The board members listened attentively and said they would take this definition back to the boards.
They also both stated clearly that they do not think everything is fine within MCC. “I do not believe there is nothing to see here,” one said. “I see that systemic change has to happen.” She expressed a goal of “MCC safe and free from abuse.”
6. Will you advocate for an independent external investigation of all allegations?
The MCC Canada board member said they “can’t really comment on MAST.” The MCC US board member wondered aloud whether an investigation of every case might be necessary. She also admitted that the Veritas investigation had been “clearly limited.”
We emphasized that in our view, an impartial investigation of all the allegations is necessary so that MCC boards stop relying on “facts” that are presented to them by those who continue to abuse.
7. Did board members really instruct MCC’s lawyer to tell John and Anicka never to contact them?
When asked about a threatening March 2024 letter where MCC’s lawyer told us that each individual board member had expressed the wish for us not to contact them directly, the MCC Canada board member said she had “never seen that letter.” The MCC US board member said she “did not approve that letter” and more generally regretted the use of legal counsel and the impact it had had on us. She said, “That is not... the way that I want to be represented as a part of MCC” and expressed concern about MCC leaders delegating “everything to legal counsel” and so abdicating “responsibility” and not following MCC’s own values.
I spoke about the pain of receiving numerous such threatening and condescending letters from the lawyer while going through PTSD, and described how sickening it was “that the organization that taught me about peace was sending me those kinds of letters.” John pointed out that the fact that the board members were not aware of such letters being sent on their behalf underscored the urgency of the need for an investigation.
8. Will you advocate for an end to the use of NDAs by MCC (ex. the Faith Pledge) as well as a general release for those who have signed NDAs?
I described the NDA we had been offered, which if signed would not only have prevented us from ever speaking about the agreement, but from saying anything negative about MCC ever, in any forum whatsoever. The letter also included a liquidated damages clause which would require us to pay back any funds received if we did not comply. I asked, “Will you advocate for MCC to stop using NDAs? And will MCC release people who have signed NDAs?”
The MCC Canada board member responded, “Yes, I think it is part of what [the MCC US board member] and I will be recommending.” She stated that they had both read our firing letter and that “it was horrible.” She said, “It made me ashamed that such a letter would ever be given to any worker” and recognized that the “NDA was part and parcel of that.”
She said, “I do not claim to understand all the nuances of the NDAs, but the extremity of which you speak of NDAs that are stronger than most NDAs sounds wrong.”
We wish that they could have clearly committed to advocate for the end of all NDAs that cover up abuse (not just “extreme” ones), following the clear template laid out by The Faith Pledge.
Closing Statements (read the full statements here)
At the end of the session, the board members expressed sorrow, regret, and a desire for change. They said they believed us. They said what happened to us was “appalling,” “horrible,” and “wrong.” They said they would recommend significant changes.
Our support people and survivor advocate spoke powerfully about the toll of the process, the visible shattering of our lives, the circular abuse system, the need for an independent investigation, and the harm to local workers.
John said he was thankful for the board members’ presence and efforts, but deeply troubled by MCC’s continued deflection and denial. “You haven't heard our story yet. You don't know the level of hurt that we've experienced. You also don't know the level of hurt that people who worked with us and for us experienced.” He described the pattern of MCC shutting us down at every juncture, refusing grievances, delaying investigations, ignoring church leaders, and allowing perpetrators to leave with honor while we suffered public defamation.
I said I was thankful for what had been said, but ultimately very sad and angry. “I cannot describe the betrayal I feel to know that I cannot finish telling my story.” I described the three options available to bystanders—believe fully, disbelieve, or find a way not to know—and said “I saw you leaning toward option one and ending up at option three. And that breaks my heart.” I concluded that “you do not have the information you need to be able to make a significant difference. You can have really good intentions—I believe you do—but you will not be able to fix it if you don't know what's actually happening... I’m still open to hear from you if you’re ready to go back to option one, but otherwise, I'm not.”
What’s next
The facilitators will submit a report to the MCC boards and to us. It will not be confidential. We plan to post it on the MAST website in coming weeks.
The board members will report to the national boards that are meeting (or have perhaps already met) sometime in March.
The board members did not propose any next steps or follow-up in conversation with us. We do not know if they plan to make any public statements of apology or if they will take any specific actions of repair. We do not know if they will keep us informed about any other steps they take.
Pain overshadows gain
We were partially heard. Some pain was acknowledged and some wrongdoing was admitted. Some awareness grew about the nature of the abuse within MCC and the possibility that it is systemic. We have some hope that our labor might contribute to the end of NDAs and better support for staff.
But new pain has largely overshadowed these gains because:
the board members decided they were not willing to hear our full story, backtracking on an initial commitment
they apologized for harm caused by lack of policy, but were not willing to hear about that harm
they couldn’t admit that what happened to us was abusive
they couldn’t clearly admit it was wrong and illegal to fire us
they did not take any actions to repair the harm caused to us, nor did they ever check with us to see what kind of repair would feel meaningful in our specific case (our grievance offers a list). Instead they unilaterally went ahead to propose policy changes in consultation with MCC leaders whom we had named as implicated in abuse.
they weren’t ready to commit to holding abusers accountable, or to an external investigation of all (or any) cases.
We entered these conversations hoping for truth, accountability, and change. Instead, MCC ended the process early, leaving us feeling exhausted and betrayed, our story unfinished, and the system unchanged.
Check out statistics about cases of abuse known to MAST on our home page at https://www.mccabusesurvivors.org/. Review the latest events in our struggle for accountability at https://www.mccabusesurvivors.org/timeline. Consider joining our teal ribbon campaign. Review our list of possible additional actions at https://www.mccabusesurvivors.org/get-involved.