Reporting sexual abuse.

Regarding "The Color Purple" (March 11): I participated in the National Review Board audit of my diocese. During the process, it became clear to me that the audit system is flawed, perhaps fatally so. The auditors are not investigators. They simply review the material and interview the people who are presented to them by the diocese. In other words, the diocese controls the process. Furthermore, the auditors made it clear to me that they are only concerned with compliance with the national charter. If diocesan policies on sexual misconduct differ from the national charter, that is not their concern. So who insures compliance with diocesan policies? The auditors told me that any person in the diocese is free to challenge the diocese's actions. Bishops, however, can cite the compliance statement from the auditors as a source of authority supporting their decision in a particular case.

So much is left out of the auditors' mandate. The audit does not review issues of cover-up and misinformation, mismanagement of an investigation, and punitive behavior by the diocese against those people who made allegations, or reported abuse or diocesan neglect. It also does not review the effectiveness of the lay advisory board. In my opinion the church needs lay advisory boards with some teeth. However, if the role of these boards is to advise the bishop, then their actions must also be scrutinized.

There is a glaring need for an independent review board in each diocese. This board would review every case of sexual misconduct thoroughly. All the facts would be gathered by a private investigator to learn who did what, when, and why. The full report would go to the diocesan pastoral council and the diocesan clergy council (not just to the bishop). The review board would also be responsible for communicating to the people of the diocese the full facts of each case.

ROBERT FONTANA

Yakima, Wash.