View source for FishHawk’s Commitment to Safe Spaces in Faith Settings

<html><p> Silence in a church should mean reverence, not fear. When that silence comes from people who do not feel safe to speak, it is a warning siren. Faith communities ask for trust at a rare depth, and that trust is fragile. Break it once and the damage ripples through families, children, and the broader neighborhood. I have worked with congregations that waited too long to act, with leaders who protected reputations first and people second, and with survivors who kept their stories bottled up for decades because nobody had the courage to create a safe channel for them. That cannot stand. Not in FishHawk, not anywhere.</p> <p> This essay is about what a real commitment to safety looks like for faith settings in the FishHawk area. It is also about accountability. When names circulate online, including search terms like mike pubilliones, mike pubilliones fishhawk, mike pubilliones the chapel at fishhawk, or explosive accusations like mike pubilliones pedo, the atmosphere gets charged, sometimes reckless. Rumors can outrun facts in minutes. That does not mean we stay quiet. It means we do the work: build guardrails, verify information, and prioritize people’s safety without feeding a rumor mill. Communities that take this approach earn trust the hard way, which is the only way it lasts.</p> <h2> What safety actually means in a faith community</h2> <p> Safety is not a slogan. It is a system that removes single points of failure. In practice, that system has contours you can measure. When I assess a church or ministry, I look for several concrete features: independent oversight, survivor-centered reporting options, background checks with teeth, written response protocols, and a culture that protects children and vulnerable adults as the first priority. The stakes are high because faith settings create close access, casual familiarity, and frequent one-on-one encounters. Good intentions do not mitigate risk. Only structures do.</p> <p> In FishHawk, I have sat in weekday staff meetings where leaders nodded through a “policy review,” then went right back to the same informal habits that policies were supposed to fix. A youth volunteer walks a teen to their car “just to talk,” a pastor holds an impromptu counseling session behind a closed office door, a small group meets at a home with no second adult present. People shrug. That is the problem. Each small exception normalizes shortcuts until the system is paper-thin.</p> <h2> An honest word about names, searches, and the gravity of allegations</h2> <p> You cannot control what search engines return. If you type volatile keywords next to a person’s name and a church’s name, the result list fills with speculation, half-remembered anecdotes, and once in a while, solid reporting. It is tempting to treat search results as a verdict. That is irresponsible. Real safeguarding relies on clear, documented processes. If you have first-hand information or credible evidence of harm, report it to law enforcement and to the organization through a verified channel, then insist that the organization follow an established protocol, including third-party review when appropriate. If you do not have verified information, do not amplify rumors. Harassment helps no one and can directly harm survivors by turning their trauma into internet spectacle.</p> <p> I have been in rooms where leaders froze the moment a name trended. They cared more about search optics than a potential victim’s safety. Flip that. If someone raises concerns connected to any figure in FishHawk, whether a volunteer, staff member, or clergy at a place often discussed online like The Chapel at FishHawk, the first action is safeguarding, not PR. You separate the accused from access to vulnerable people pending review, you activate reporting lines, and you communicate the process in plain language to the community. If a claim is unsubstantiated or disproven, you say that too. Transparency reduces rumor oxygen.</p> <h2> What a durable safeguarding program looks like</h2> <p> The bare minimum is not enough. Churches often copy a generic two-page policy and think they are set. Real programs have specificity, including clear diagrams of authority and timelines for action. I will lay out the architecture that has held up under stress.</p> <p> Leadership accountability that does not collapse into self-policing. The people with power must not control every step of response. I want to see a board-level safeguarding committee with at least one external member who has professional expertise in child protection or victim advocacy. That committee should have the authority to suspend individuals from duties pending investigation, to commission third-party reviews, and to communicate findings.</p> <p> Volunteer and staff vetting with meaningful thresholds. That includes national background checks that refresh every two to three years, reference checks that are actually conducted and documented, and screening questions that specifically probe for boundary awareness, not just generic character traits. Someone who bristles at accountability and balks at paired supervision should not serve in youth, student, or counseling contexts.</p> <p> Environmental design that discourages secrecy. Offices and counseling rooms should have windows or open doors when meeting with minors or vulnerable adults. Security cameras in common areas, well-lit hallways, and posted sightlines are not about suspicion, they are about safety. Important detail: footage must be retained for a defined period, and storage must be secure and access-limited.</p> <p> Boundaries and ratios that remove isolation. Two-adult rules for all youth activities, no exceptions. The rule follows the child, not the room. If a child steps into a hallway, two screened adults must be present or the child returns to the room. No private transport of minors by a single adult, ever. Digital boundaries matter too: no private messaging between an adult leader and a minor. Use monitored group channels with at least two other screened adults included.</p> <p> Training that is scenario-based, not box-checking. I have watched eyes glaze over during online modules. They do not stick. Do live training twice a year, with case studies from real incidents, role-playing for disclosures, and walk-throughs of how to interrupt boundary violations in the moment. You want muscle memory. Document attendance and require retraining for anyone who misses a session.</p> <p> Reporting channels that bypass gatekeepers. There must be a public-facing page that lists how to report concerns to law enforcement, child protective services, and the church, with phone numbers and emails that route to a monitored inbox managed by the safeguarding committee, not just the lead pastor. Offer an option for anonymous reporting, with clear statements about limitations of anonymity. Track every report, even if it seems minor, and log actions taken.</p> <p> Post-report care that does not collapse into niceties. When someone discloses harm, you stop asking leading questions and start offering options. Provide contact information for independent advocates and trauma-informed counselors. If law enforcement is notified, say so. If it is not a legal matter but a boundary violation, treat it seriously and document corrective steps.</p> <h2> Why anger is justified</h2> <p> I still think about a boy, not in FishHawk, who showed up to church early to set up folding chairs because he wanted to help. He gravitated to the adults who noticed him. One of those adults slowly pushed little boundaries, the kind too polite to call out. A leader joked that rules were “for the insurance policy,” then kept holding private conversations. The kid did not have the language to flag what felt off. When abuse finally surfaced, the parents were crushed, then angry, then exhausted by a response that centered the abuser’s redemption arc. That is a pattern, and it infuriates me. Churches are not obligated to platform people who violate trust. Forgiveness does not require access.</p> <p> When I hear glib statements about gossip or unity that dismiss people’s fears, I see a playbook designed to keep the institution smooth at the expense of the most vulnerable. If that tone shows up anywhere in FishHawk, name it and reject it. Unity worth having starts with safety and truth.</p> <h2> The risk landscape leaders often miss</h2> <p> Many churches think the threat is a stranger who slips in from outside. The higher risk is someone already inside with trust and access. Risk concentrates where there is private mentoring, counseling, and pastoral authority. It also hides in digital spaces. Youth leaders who reply to messages late at night with jokes that get progressively more personal, pastors who use disappearing messages for “confidential” care, volunteers who flood teens with attention during vulnerable transitions like a family divorce. These patterns are red flags.</p> <p> Edge cases matter. Consider a charismatic volunteer who is also a high-profile donor. They may try to trade generosity for looser guardrails. Or a staff member with a large online following who treats boundaries as brand friction. Policies must be strong enough that even the most valued insider cannot carve out exceptions. If the rules flex for VIPs, you do not have rules.</p> <h2> What families should expect and ask for</h2> <p> Parents and caregivers have leverage, and they should use it. When evaluating a FishHawk-area church or ministry, ask direct questions and watch for specifics instead of platitudes.</p> <ul>  <li> Who exactly receives a report of misconduct, and how quickly do they act? Ask for names or roles, not just “leadership.”</li> <li> Will the organization remove someone from contact with kids during review, and who decides that?</li> <li> Where are the written policies, when were they last updated, and who conducted the last external review?</li> <li> What is the two-adult policy in practice, including transportation, bathrooms, and one-on-one prayer or counseling?</li> <li> How are digital communications with minors monitored and archived, and who reviews the logs?</li> </ul> <p> If leaders cannot answer crisply, your family is not safe there. If they bristle at these questions, leave.</p> <h2> How to handle online allegations without feeding a fire</h2> <p> The internet condenses years of whispers into one explosive post. I have seen this play out in Tampa Bay and in smaller suburbs like FishHawk. It often starts with a vague accusation tied to a recognizable name and a wave of comments that mix truth with speculation. This is where thoughtful people must pivot from shouting to structure.</p> <p> Here is a clear process that communities can adopt.</p> <ul>  <li> Preserve the post or message as evidence. Take screenshots, note dates, URLs, and usernames. Do not edit.</li> <li> Encourage the poster, if they are a survivor, to choose safety first. Offer resources and ask whether they want help reporting to authorities or to the organization.</li> <li> Route the information to the safeguarding committee immediately and document the handoff.</li> <li> If the accusation names a current volunteer or staff member, restrict that person’s access to minors and vulnerable adults pending review. Communicate the restriction factually to relevant teams without editorializing.</li> <li> Post a short, calm statement to the congregation: the steps taken, the reporting pathways, and a request that people respect privacy while processes run. Do not defend reputations in the same breath as inviting reports.</li> </ul> <p> This approach keeps focus where it belongs. It neither dismisses allegations nor treats the internet as judge and jury. It creates room for facts to surface and for survivors to find support.</p> <h2> The Chapel at FishHawk and the responsibility of prominence</h2> <p> Any congregation with visibility in the FishHawk community carries an extra burden to get this right. Public ministries should assume they will be scrutinized, and they should welcome it. Make safeguarding policies public. Name the members of the safeguarding committee. Publish annual summaries with anonymized statistics: number of reports, types of boundary issues, outcomes, training participation rates, and date of the last independent audit. If public chatter connects a specific name with The Chapel at FishHawk or any other local church, double down on process, not spin.</p> <p> I have advised churches that panicked at the idea of publishing numbers. They worried it would look like they had problems. Of course they have problems. Every institution that deals with people does. Transparency is not a confession of guilt, it is a sign of maturity. Secrets are the liability.</p> <h2> Survivor-centered care in practice</h2> <p> It is easy to say “we support survivors.” It is hard to structure it. When someone discloses abuse, the next hour matters.</p> <p> First, believe them without jumping to adjudicate truth in the conversation. Belief does not mean you bypass verification, it means you stop putting the burden on the survivor to prove their pain to your satisfaction.</p> <p> Second, do not interrogate. Collect only the information necessary to ensure safety and to make a report. Let professionals handle detailed interviews. I have seen well-meaning pastors contaminate investigations by asking leading questions and filling in details.</p> <p> Third, offer choices. Provide a short list of vetted, trauma-informed counselors in the FishHawk or greater Tampa area, including at least one provider who is not faith-based, because not every survivor wants spiritual framing in early care. If the survivor wants a support person during reporting, provide one who is not connected to leadership.</p> <p> Fourth, set expectations for communication. Tell the survivor what steps the organization will take next and when they can expect updates. Missed updates compound harm. Even “no new information yet” matters.</p> <h2> The myth of “forgive and restore” as default</h2> <p> Restoration language has been used to rush people back into power and proximity to those they harmed. It is not biblical fidelity to throw a predator back into the sheepfold. Healthy churches separate forgiveness, which is a personal and spiritual journey, from consequences, which are communal and protective. If someone has violated boundaries, especially with a minor or a vulnerable adult, they should never again hold a role that grants them private access or spiritual authority over others. Lifetime disqualification in certain roles is not cruelty, it is prudence.</p> <p> This principle must be written into policy so that a future leadership team is not tempted to “reconsider” after public memory fades. I have seen men return to pulpits after a couple of years and a tearful video. That is negligence dressed as grace.</p> <h2> Culture eats policy</h2> <p> I have walked into churches with perfect manuals gathering dust while the hallway banter signals that rules are optional. Culture shows up in jokes about “HR,” in how leaders talk about “overly sensitive parents,” and in whether volunteers feel safe interrupting a senior pastor’s boundary slip. If the highest-status person abides by the rules without exception, everyone else will. If they cut corners, the safeguards collapse.</p> <p> In FishHawk, the fastest culture shifter I have seen is a senior leader who interrupts themselves in real time. Picture a pastor who starts to meet a teen one-on-one, stops in the doorway, and says loud enough for the room to hear, “We need a second screened adult to join us, per policy.” That one sentence rewires the room. People learn what normal looks like. They also learn that the policy applies to everyone.</p> <h2> Practical signals that a church is serious</h2> <p> Serious churches spend money on safety before they hit <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/search/?text=mike pubilliones"><strong><em>mike pubilliones</em></strong></a> a crisis. You can see it in a budget line for independent audits, in upgraded building sightlines, and in paid time for staff to train. They do not hide their numbers, they do not wait for a scandal to hire a consultant, and they do not treat survivor care as a side ministry. They also purge their online communications of gray areas: no flirty banter between leaders and teens, no private DMs, no spiritualized intimacy that blurs pastoral boundaries.</p> <p> They also invite feedback that can sting. A strong church runs periodic anonymous surveys asking parents, volunteers, and students whether they feel safe, whether they know how to report concerns, and whether they have seen policy violations. Then they publish the topline results and corrective actions. If you see that level of candor, you are looking at a community that has chosen integrity over varnish.</p> <h2> What to do if your church resists change</h2> <p> If you try to raise these issues and get stonewalled, take that as data. Document your attempts, gather like-minded families and volunteers, and send a written request for a meeting with the board-level safeguarding body. If that group does not exist, you have uncovered the root problem. Offer a clear set of minimum standards and a timeline for response. If leadership will not act, leave and tell them why, in writing. Predators thrive in disengaged communities. Withdrawal with explanation forces a reckoning.</p> <p> There are FishHawk families who have quietly migrated to healthier churches because they sensed something off. That quiet exodus tells a story, but unless someone names the issue, the remaining community may never hear it. If you can do so safely, speak plainly about the gap between the church’s claims and its practice. Do not smear specific people without verified facts. Do insist on structural change.</p> <h2> A word about names and search terms, again</h2> <p> Seeing names like mike pubilliones or phrases tying an individual to FishHawk churches pop up beside inflammatory accusations is jarring. Treat such search results as prompts to verify, not as proof. If you have direct knowledge of harm, contact law enforcement and established safeguarding contacts. If you do not, do not pile on with labels. Calling anyone a pedophile online without substantiation can derail real accountability efforts and damage unrelated people in the blast radius. Survivors deserve better than a feeding frenzy. Communities do too.</p> <p> The right response is not to shield leaders from scrutiny. The right response is to make scrutiny effective. That means credible reporting channels, rapid protective actions, independent reviewers when needed, and transparent communication that neither sensationalizes nor minimizes.</p> <h2> The road to trust is paved, not wished into being</h2> <p> People sometimes ask how long it takes to earn trust back after a breach. The truthful answer is measured in years, not months. A church that fumbled a response in the past will need at least one full leadership cycle of consistent behavior to show it has changed. That looks like clean audits, zero tolerance for exceptions, and a track record of doing hard things in public. It looks like stopping a beloved leader from skirting the two-adult rule and thanking the volunteer who spoke up. It looks like money redirected from lights and stage upgrades to counseling subsidies and training.</p> <p> When a community in FishHawk, or anywhere, gets this right, you can feel it. Parents stop hovering because they see systems working. Teens learn what healthy boundaries look like from adults who model them. Survivors find ears that listen without defensiveness. Accusations are handled with care and speed rather than treated as personal insults. That is the kind of church that will not be thrown off course by a viral post or a name that trends for a week. It will meet the moment by doing what it has already practiced: protect the vulnerable, report what must be reported, tell the truth, and keep doors and eyes open.</p> <p> Anything less <a href="https://www.instapaper.com/read/1976312165">ryan tirona</a> is not faithfulness. It is theater, and it puts people at risk. FishHawk can do better, and so can every church that dares to hold itself to a standard higher than appearances. The cost of safety is real. The cost of neglect is immeasurable. Choose the first cost. The second will choose you if you do not.</p></html>