The only audited financial statement Gospel for Asia makes available is from 2012 and 2013. In that statement, Note H reports Related Party Transactions. Generally, organizations are expected to disclose transactions with other groups where there are common board members or other common elements. In Note H, GFA reports contributions of cash to five related parties, all GFA affiliates in Asia. However, GFA failed to report other related party transactions to Believers’ Church, Love India Ministry, and Last Hour Ministries. I assume that the $58 million GFA claims that it sent to GFA – India includes money sent to Believers’ Church, Love India Ministry, and Last Hour Ministries. It would be good for GFA to clarify this, especially considering the discrepancy between U.S. and Indian reports. Give notice to the first paragraph of Note H:
Believers’ Church, Love India Ministry and Last Hour Ministries are related parties, so why were donations to those organizations not reported? All are controlled by K.P. Yohannan which makes these resources under his control in India. More troubling is the fact that the American and Indian reports do not match up. Just looking at calendar year 2013 receipts (from GFA’s FC-6 reports to the Indian government), only $28.6 million in contributions to the four organizations controlled by K.P. Yohannan show up. This is a nearly $30 million discrepancy.
If one just takes this audited statement as written (GFA – U.S. gave $58.5 million to GFA – India in 2013), then the problem is much worse. In the reports filed with the Indian government for GFA – India, just over $6.5 million is reported as received from GFA -U.S, a discrepancy of $52 million. I assume that $22 million of that went to Believers’ Church, Last Hour Ministry and Love India Ministry but the audited statement omits those facts.
The practical matter is that donors dollars intended for GFA may be paying the salaries of bishops and clergy within Believers’ Church, or ordination services such as the one where those ordained were expected to kiss the ring of K.P. Yohannan. Some dollars indeed going to GFA affiliates in Asian nations but other dollars are going to a denomination with K.P Yohannan as Metropolitan with all the administrative, personnel, and other costs associated with it. Another practical matter is the millions of dollars which GFA claims were sent to GFA – India but don’t show up on Indian reports.
Legally, failure to report related party transactions can be a big deal in the for profit world, but not so much in the non-profit sector. The issue is about why GFA and/or Bland Garvey failed to report it. Is there some reason GFA doesn’t want donors to know the largest share of contributions go to Believers’ Church? Did GFA tell Bland Garvey about the other three related party transactions. Or did Bland Garvey omit that information? And where is the $30-52 million which doesn’t show up on Indian reports?
As always, if GFA has information which are relevant to this post, I invite them to present them. I will always present their side or information the organizational leaders believe to be relevant.
Month: June 2015
Thomas Jefferson Every Day Until July 4
For fun, and to promote Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President, I am going to post a quote or event from Thomas Jefferson’s life each day until July 4, the day Jefferson died in 1826.
To kick this off today, June 15, I have taken a brief section of a letter from Jefferson to John Adams written on June 15, 1813:
One of the questions you know on which our parties took different sides, was on the improvability of the human mind, in science, in ethics, in government etc. Those who advocated reformation of institutions, pari passu, with the progress of science, maintained that no definite limits could be assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand, denied improvement, and advocated steady adherence to the principles, practices and institutions of our fathers, which they represented as the consummation of wisdom, and akme of excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance.
Jefferson and Adams were political opponents on several matters after Adams became president. Here Jefferson described to Adams one of the matters of difference. In general, Jefferson’s party saw human nature as malleable for the better and sought to enhance education as a means of human improvement. Adams aligned with interests which were viewed by Jefferson as more traditional.
The series of letters between Jefferson and Adams give an insight into the political differences but also shows how time and mutual respect helped to blur those differences.
Phoenix Preacher Raises Red Flags Over Gospel for Asia
Last week, the Phoenix Preacher blog ran a post titled Red Flags over Gospel for Asia. The post describes a GFA donor’s attempt to get answers to questions which have come up in recent weeks. It is good to see donors asking questions but not so good to see the responses. The blog author raised some of the issues I have covered with this assessment.
GFA has felt that Throckmorton has been unfair to them and takes them out of context and so they have chosen to stop communicating with him in any efforts to clarify the concerns he raises. In my phone conversation with the GFA rep, he did give me explanations to some of the concerns raised by Throckmorton. However, some of the explanations seemed to me more like trying to put a positive spin on things rather than giving good solid evidence and rationale. Meanwhile, Throckmorton continues to raise more concerns as he uncovers more and more suspicious looking information. Here is a link to all his GFA articles: /category/gospel-for-asia/
I plead not guilty to this charge. Up to and including the last email from David Carroll, I included the information Carroll sent on behalf of GFA. Here is what he said in his final email:
No, Gospel for Asia has not violated the law.
When you first contacted us, I mentioned that we would not be able to respond to every question you put before us. Now, with the increased volume and frequency of your questions, it has become clear that this back and forth has become a distraction from our mission work. For this reason, this will be my final response. We understand that you will continue to explore issues around Gospel for Asia and continue to be fed accusations from former employees, and we accept that.
We continue to remain accountable to all applicable laws and regulations, to the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability and to independent auditors.
In his email, Carroll doesn’t accuse me of being unfair or taking him out of context. He said I asked too many questions and for that reason, he was not going to reply. This reason should be of grave concern to donors.
As we now know, GFA did violate the law when they sent groups of students to India each with $4500 in cash in envelopes without declaring the cash to U.S. customs.
The Phoenix Preacher post shows that the questions have only multiplied.
Gospel for Asia, and the $9 Million Interest Play
In note H of GFA’s 2013 audited financial statement, GFA describes a $9 million transfer to India to take advantage of what is described as “favorable interest rates” (see the last paragraph in the image below).
The Indian FC-6 forms requires NGOs to report the amount of foreign contributions received and the amount of interest made on those contributions. It appears that GFA in India made about 6% on contributions in 2011-2012. According to the Bank of India, the benchmark interest rate peaked at 8.5% during the period.
source: tradingeconomics.com
While 6-8.5% sounds high compared to U.S. rates, the unfortunate thing about the move is the fact that Indian rupee continued to weaken. On August 15, 2011, one rupee was worth .02177 cents. By December, the rupee had declined to .01816. By August of 2012, the decline continued to .01796. The financial statement doesn’t say when the money was returned but even if it was January 2012 (.01889), GFA lost just over 13% due to currency devaluation.
What Kind of Woman is Caitlyn Jenner? Part Two of a Q&A on Autogynephilia with Michael Bailey
Yesterday, I posted part one of my interview with Michael Bailey on the topic of Caitlyn Jenner and autogynephilia. In that segment, Bailey covered the basics about autogynephilia and why he thinks Jenner manifests autogynephilic characteristics. In this segment, Bailey tackles what is known about outcomes for autogynephilic individuals, issues relating to minors with gender dysphoria and addresses critics of the concept. He also mentions one case where autogynephilia disappeared with the administration of leuprolide.
I also wrote GLAAD three times and asked for comment on autogynephilia generally and yesterday’s interview specifically with no response. GLAAD produces a tip sheet for journalists that doesn’t mention autogynephilia. Bailey addresses the media silence at the end of the interview.
I want to thank Michael for sharing his time and knowledge.
WT: What are the long term trajectories for autogynephilic individuals? What is the proper therapeutic response?
MB: Persons with autogynephilia often struggle, because of shame, lack of understanding, and the disapproval of others. Also, there is a real tension between achieving autogynephilic goals and maintaining conventional romantic relationships. Autogynephilic males who cross dress often go through binge-purge cycles, in which their cross dressing increases periodically, they get fed up and throw away their female clothing, and then later begin the cycle again. Some are fortunate to find partners (generally women) who accept their autogynephilia-driven behavior–some women even cooperate and participate. Some autogynephilic individuals never acquire partners, and they avoid the aforementioned struggle.
Some persons with autogynephilia are content to remain male. Those who get their gratification primarily from cross dressing are less likely to want to progress than those whose fantasies involve having female bodies, especially genitalia. Those, of course, can acquire female genitalia via surgery. Those who go that route generally undergo electrolysis and hormonal therapy prior to genital surgery.
As for “proper therapeutic response,” this is surely best considered at the individual level. But gender dysphoria due to autogynephilia doesn’t merely go away. Again, autogynephilia is like a sexual orientation, and that doesn’t change. I suspect that if there were more honesty about autogynephilia, then those who have it would understand themselves sooner, be less likely to commit to romantic interpersonal relationships, and would be more likely to pursue earlier sex reassignment. Evidence suggests they would be happier doing so, and there would be fewer wrecked families; quite parallel with the case of men hiding their homosexuality and getting heterosexually married.
WT: In your answer about proper therapeutic response, you said autogynephilia doesn’t change. Is this based on research or on the classification of autogynephilia as a sexual orientation?
MB: Many men with autogynephilia would like not to have it. But I have never met a man who said his autogynephilia went away. Some transwomen say that it diminishes or vanishes after a sex change. Remember, the sex change also removes testosterone, which fuels male sex drive.
I should mention one other therapeutic approach that has not been widely used, to my knowledge. Still, I know one autogynephilic man who was on the verge of changing sex. He was, however, conflicted because he would have lost everything: his family fortune, his job, and his family. He was put on a course of leuprolide, a powerful drug that removes testosterone from the body. His desire to change sex virtually vanished. He’s happy and somehow able to have sex with his wife (viagra helps).
WT: I assume you are talking about adults. In other words, do you have different advice for minors?
MB: The controversy over how and whether to treat preadolescent children experiencing gender dysphoria is irrelevant to controversies concerning autogynephilia. These preadolescent children are not autogynephilic. Autogynephilia almost never manifests in an obvious way before adolescence.
Lots of autogynephilic transsexuals wish they’d transitioned earlier. I can imagine this would have been better for them. If only people were more open about autogynephilia and people were more honest about it–and here I include journalists along with people with autogynephilia among those who have conspired to keep it secret–we could collect better data and ideally learn the optimal treatment for autogynephilic individuals of various subtypes.
I worry when autogynephilic transsexual activists (this includes all who were born male who have not always been exclusively attracted to men) advise families of preadolescent gender dysphoric children. The older activists have completely distinct conditions from the children, and the activists’ experiences are not an accurate guide to what the youngsters feel or how they will turn out. As we have argued, most preadolescent gender dysphoria does go away, and it is at least questionable whether it is in preadolescent children’s interests to change sex, socially (because this may lead to persistence requiring serious medical treatment).
WT: Why is there so little media coverage of the autogynephilia angle?
MB: I think it’s a mixture of ignorance, political correctness, and fear. Most journalists know what they know from the media and from transgender activists — who do not mention autogynephilia. In fact, a few activists have managed to convince a lot of people that autogynephilia theory has been disproved (when in fact, it has substantial scientific support) and that anyone who agrees with it is anti-transgender (when in fact its major proponents, including me, have been quite supportive of transgender rights). As for fear, transgender activists (especially Lynn Conway, Andrea James, and Deirdre McCloskey) were so enraged by my writing about these ideas in my book that they tried to ruin my life. They were unsuccessful–their major success was to help Alice Dreger write a terrific article (and recently, a book) about the controversy–but I’m sure few people want to risk that. We will have made progress when Conway et al. are more ashamed of what they did to me than of autogynephilia.
WT: Is there anything else you would like to mention?
MB: I’ve noticed disapproval among some journalists–even Jon Stewart on the Daily Show went there–of the focus on Caitlyn Jenner’s attractive photographs in Vanity Fair. I can assure you (and Stewart): Caitlyn’s thrilled with that attention. It’s an autogynephilic fantasy.
Again, thanks to Michael for this information. Readers can leave follow up questions in the comments section which may form the basis for a return to the issue at a later time.