In a 2015 Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability report to Gospel for Asia founder and CEO K.P. Yohannan, ECFA Vice President John C. Van Drunen delineated a devastating list of findings from a lengthy and in depth investigation of Gospel for Asia’s financial practices. The end result of the investigation was the eviction of GFA from the ECFA. Due to the relevance of the investigation conducted by the ECFA to the current RICO and fraud lawsuit against GFA (Murphy v. GFA), I am highlighting pertinent parts of the report in a series of blog posts. Yesterday, I pointed out that GFA admitted that field partners didn’t track expenditures as precisely as they took donations. Today, I show that ECFA accused GFA of making false statements and withholding information.
Toward the end of the report, Van Drunen made an observation about the process of collecting information.
Certain information provided to ECFA by GFA that was crucial to our review was, at least initially, inaccurate.
Our review process has covered nearly four months. Certain pertinent information about the compliance issues was not revealed to ECFA by GFA until late in the review process.
We have learned significant information from sources unrelated to GFA that we should have learned directly from GFA.
Although I have been critical of the ECFA in the past, I must credit them in this case. Mr. Van Drunen and his staff deserve credit for persisting through initial deflection and distraction. Also, I am aware that information published here (“unrelated to GFA”) made it possible for the investigation to ask certain questions which might have come up otherwise.
I want to point out that GFA didn’t fully answer all of the questions nor was the ECFA able to verify all claims. Take this issue for instance:
16. Claims of inappropriate use of funds under an Indian tax assessment. ECFA received concerns that an Indian Tax Court case indicates that GFA India misused funds for purposes other than what they were intended. ECFA reviewed this matter for compliance with ECFA Standard 4. On July 27, GFA’s staff indicated that this matter was a false charge that was later remanded and that GFA India was absolved of any wrongdoing in this matter. GFA’s staff was not able to provide any documentation other than reports from field partners on this matter.
This concern was brought to light by my blog post from July 17, 2015. It appears from the court record that GFA was to pay a tax which they probably did. However, that doesn’t change the finding that GFA inappropriately used funds. GFA has never produced a court record absolving them of wrongdoing. They had a chance to do that to ECFA but did not do so.
GFA and Accountability: A Pattern
As Van Drunen’s reaction demonstrates, Judge Brooks is not the first observer to express frustration with GFA’s answers to questions about accountability. In one Court order, Brooks expressed his frustration with GFA’s response to discovery requests, writing at the time:
I feel like when I read the defendants’ answers and when I read their response that it is as if this Court had not already addressed and ruled on some of these same issues at least twice, if not more and, yet, here we are again.
Eventually, GFA’s delays led Brooks to sanction GFA and signal his intention to appoint an attorney (special master) to oversee discovery. Given the history, going back before Murphy v. GFA, oversight seems like a good idea.