ATTN E360 MEMBERS - THE TRUE MISSION IS *YOU* NOT A FEW DISHONEST LEADERS!
IS ethnos360 MISREPRESENTING FACTS TO BE ECFA ACCREDITED?
IS THIS A CASE OF "BIRDS OF A FEATHER"? MINISTRY WATCH RECENTLY CALLED OUT ETHNOS360 AND ECFA for lacking FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY. Ethnos Truth Project learned that ECFA granted Ethnos360 an “unpublished exception” to Standard 2 in order FOR E360 to become "ECFA Accredited" in 2018.
To this day, ECFA cannot seem to cite any provisions in their "published" requirements that allow "exceptions" to any of the Seven Standards. In fact, the ECFA Website claims that "all ECFA Accredited Members meet all “Seven Standards”.
Since a side deal was made for "Accreditation" in 2018, how come neither Ethnos' nor ECFA's websites contains any *asterisks* to alert donors of unpublished "exemptions" being made to the "ECFA Seven Standards"?
ETHNOS BYLAWS PROHIBIT MORE THAN TWO INDEPENDENT MEMBERS ON THEIR EXECUTIVE BOARD.
ECFA and Ethnos failed (for many months) to voluntarily disclose that ECFA was allowing Current Ethnos Missionaries to fill the roles of FOUR supposedly "Independent Board Members" which is clearly a violation of the "intent" of the ECFA Standard 2.
Frankly, we think both organizations have some public explaining to do regarding what the Ethnos Truth Project views as extremely questionable use of the ECFA Accreditation Seal by Ethnos360 in their Fundraising Campaigns.
We support the work of Ethnos Missionaries worldwide, but we do not support HQ inviting controversy upon the Mission.
IS ETHNOS360 FULLY ECFA COMPLIANT? Not as PUBLISHED BY ECFA
HERE IS A LIST OF REASONS WHY WE DO NOT BELIEVE ETHNOS
1) The screenshot of the Ethnos360 Bylaws in the graphic above indicates that Ethnos has never met the governance requirements of ECFA Standard #2, since their bylaws "prohibit" compliance (by limiting the number of Independent Board Members to two as opposed to Six per the Standard 2)
2) We have demonstrated on this website that we believe Ethnos is also in violation of ECFA Standard 7.1 Truthfulness in Communication which states in part... "in securing charitable gifts... all representations of fact... or narratives about events must be current, complete, and accurate."
3) ECFA confirmed on August 26, 2022 that they are in possession of a substantial documentation package submitted in support of a formal challenge to Ethnos360's eligibility for ECFA Membership
4) As of August 30, 2022 ECFA confirmed in writing, "I (ECFA Jake Lapp) am currently in process of reviewing information related to Ethnos360 and the board structure."
5) On Sept 12, 2022 ECFA wrote a follow-up email, "I can confirm that ECFA is in contact with the ministry and is taking appropriate steps to review compliance with ECFA Standards."
Carefully read the 7 ECFA Standards from their website and ask yourself how the Ethnos360 Executive Board has managed to obtain and then 'keep' a 5-year membership in ECFA? We think maybe someone is at least "fibbing".
HOW LONG EXACTLY DID IT TAKE ECFA TO REVIEW THE PORTION OF THE ETHNOS BYLAWS IN THE GRAPHIC ABOVE?
SEVEN (7) MONTHS!
Ethnos360 prominently displays the ECFA "Accredited" logo on their website, despite ample notice that their "Accreditation" has been credibly challenged.
Related - inquiring minds are looking into whether or not Ethnos may be in violation of various IRS Regulations pertaining to the solicitation of Tax Deductible Donations by the use of potentially fraudulent "Accreditations" as an “inducement” to Financial Donors who might be relying on the ECFA Seal as proof of adequate outside Governance.
"ECFA ENHANCES TRUST" - TO OFFSET ETHNOS360'S LIES??
THE "GIVING" PAGES OF THE ETHNOS360 WEBSITE DISPLAY MULTIPLE "ECFA ACCREDITED" SEALS
On the Ethnos360 website there is a slick ECFA commercial with assurances of “Good Governance” along with a direct link to the ECFA "Seven Standards For Responsible Stewardship".
Do you think it is ‘possible’ that Ethnos360 might have broken any State or Federal Charitable Solicitation Laws by leveraging the "enhanced trust" they enjoyed after certifying for years that they meet all Seven Standards for ECFA Membership, which is a false statement? (we call this out as potential Corporate Malfeasance)
"Having" Member Status is not the same thing as being “in full compliance” with them.
ECFA responded to an inquiry by saying no-one has ever bothered to ask before which is hardly a ringing endorsement.