Yesterday, I posted an email that Gospel for Asia donor services is sending to donors about the recent controversies, many of them disclosed on this blog. Today, the former staff have posted a response to the question: Is Diaspora willing to meet with GFA?
The letter from GFA CEO K.P. Yohannan did not address the questions about GFA’s financial dealings but did indicate that the former staff (now around 100) were to blame for lack of face-to-face meetings. This reply provides the other side of the matter.
To the question, is the Diaspora willing to meet? They say:
The short answer is: Yes.
However, we doubt there continues to be a reason to meet.
Diaspora had hoped from the beginning to meet with GFA leadership to address the concerns voiced in our first letter. As we moved forward through this process, we even chose a date with KP for such a meeting (October 2, 2014 and then October 13, 2014), but GFA’s leadership never followed through in actually sitting down to meet. Instead, we were told that Gayle Erwin was heading an investigation into our concerns and, as such, it was now out of KP’s hands and up to the board as to what to do next.
A part of the results of the investigation, according to the Diaspora, was a statement that GFA saw no reason to meet.
Several months passed until Gayle Erwin sent his final report in March stating that our claims were dismissed and that they would no longer be communicating with us. We took that to mean an end of any opportunity for a meeting to take place.
The Diaspora explain their reasoning for commenting publicly and deny that a demand for videotaping was the deal breaker:
We have been told that GFA is telling supporters that the only reason the meeting has not happened is because “Diaspora would not meet without it being videotaped” and GFA has been counseled against doing so by the ECFA. Therefore, they have accused us of not being willing to meet.
We think this is disingenuous, as it gives the impression that GFA did all they could to arrange a meeting and the only thing that led to failed negotiations was our demand that it be videotaped (see Aug 22, 2014). This is simply false. Again, see our Communications History for the whole truth.
The only meeting negotiations between GFA and ourselves were the emails and calls between JD and KP. If one reads, s/he will find that JD asked one time about it being videotaped and KP never even responded to that. Then KP announced the investigation. After that, the negotiations about meeting times simply stopped and KP never spoke directly to JD after that. We would not call that a failure on our part.
I encourage interested readers to examine the communications history and responses to other questions from the former staff group.
The GFA response so far appears to be to claim they want to be transparent but actually not be transparent. They have ignored calls to provide information which would address the many issues which have been raised. I hope that will change. The silence from GFA is very loud.