An independent forensic audit requested by a breakaway Episcopal congregation found no wrongdoing by the Rev. Donald Armstrong, accused of stealing nearly $400,000 from Grace Church and St. Stephen’s Parish.
There was no theft or tax fraud found, according to a statement about the audit released Tuesday. The audit, conducted for Grace Church CANA vestry and Armstrong’s attorney Dennis Hartley, was done by Robert D. Johnson, a Colorado Springs certified public accountant.
His audit found that six counts against Armstrong presented by the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado in an ecclesiastical court had reasonable explanations and that financial transactions had been approved by parish officials.
“I am grateful for this report, for its clarity and completeness in addressing the false accusations against me and our vestry by the Diocese of Colorado, its Bishop, and their representatives,” Armstrong said in a statement.
The article states:[blockquote]At least one Grace Episcopal Church member is skeptical of Johnson’s audit. “If there was not sufficient evidence to indicate problems, police and IRS (Internal Revenue Service) investigations would not have proceeded,†said Clelia de-Moraes, Grace Episcopal senior warden.[/blockquote] What is the status of those investagations?
Can’t get to the article anymore
[i] I got to the article. Try again. [/i] -Elf Lady.
More importantly, #1,, is that if the parish’s auditor’s findings are accurate (and we have np reason to believe they are not), who will the police get to support any charge they may level at Armstrong+? It would seem that every transaction can be found to have been approved, no?
So an audit initiated by the Grace Church CANA vestry finds no wrongdoing ? Oh, well then…everything must be kosher now, eh ?
NO – just because an auditor says there was no problem does not mean full exoneration. But it does mean that based upon the parish records received and reviewed by the auditor and the records of Fr. Armstrong, the transactions were approved and reported properly. Lest Planonian be confused, we should not forget that the Diocese proceeded without the parish or pesonal records. Now, they may have been justified in their suspicions based upon the incomplete records they had, but no independent CPA is going to risk his license and reputation and issue a bogus report just becasue he was hired by the Vestry. If that were the case, no audit would ever be worth anything since someone with an interest in the outcome paid to have it done. As for police and IRS investigations, if the Diocese (or some disgruntled former parshioner) reported an apparent crime, they would investigate. I am sure they will be most interested in the audit and the documents upon which the audit report rests. It may be more than enough to close the investigation.
Can anyone post the original auditor’s report issued by the diocese. This auditor would have appropriately qualified his/her report to indicate the records examined, tests performed, and reliance placed upon the evidence reviewed. The second audit was a forensic audit which requires even more testing and skepticism than a normal audit. In forensic audits there is often a presumption of wrongdoing at the very beginning which means an extremely thorough audit.
The only way that two different auditors will be assured of reaching the same conclusions is if they examine the same evidence and apply the same tests. Even audits have areas of professional judgment in them.
No doubt the local civil authorities will review this latest audit report very carefully. I am not a lawyer (but I am a CPA) so I do not know the legal implications of this new report, but I think the diocese may be a wee bit overconfident in their latest press release. Can you say “slander?!”
This is very good news for Father Armstrong.
I am sure it will not be the last word but it certainly should mean that Bishop Minns has won his bet – and that although Grace could have made better decisions or been more thorough – a criminal prosecution will be very difficult. Also appears that Bishop O’Neil may end up with a black eye.
If this auditor is right, then it looks like Bishop O’Neill will have to eat a lot of crow, and he’ll owe Father Anderson a very humble and public apology.
Oops! I meant Father ARMSTRONG!
How wonderful to hear this news. Our parish hires an auditor every year (per diocesan policy) and I never remember the auditor asking “what do you want us to say?” It seems cynical to imply that this audit is dishonest…. I am thrilled for Don Armstrong who is wonderful priest and I am so sorry he and his wonderful wife went through all this. God be glorified!
As I have not read the report and perused all of its exhibits – something which the authorities will do – I do not know all the facts, and only know what I read in the paper. But as I said when O’Neill and the Standing Committee made their accusations, it is very serious to accuse anyone of a crime. They’d better be able to back it up, for the Diocese, the bishop, the individual members of the Standing Committee and the spokesperson for the Diocese have all put their personal assets on the line. When this is all over, the way the Diocese has handled it, there will be a Diocese of Colorado or there will be a Fr. Armstrong. Only one of them will be standing.
I have a hard time believing an audit paid for and commissioned by M Minns could in anyway be considered independent.
#14 – Just to enlighten you about audits in the U.S. The organization being audited pays the auditor’s fees. The audit is independent by being done by a licensed CPA adhering to all relevant professional and governmental standards for the type of audit being conducted. If the independence of the auditor was in any way impaired by Bishop Minns, or his work was restricted, he would be bound by professional ethics to withdraw from the audit. Since that did not happen in this case, you can be assured that the audit was independent and objective.
I am not hostile to Fr. Armstrong, but wasn’t Enron audited, too?
The bishop took every transaction that was unclear (and he did not have the complete details) and viewed in the worst possible light, theft. Then he made these allegations of theft very publically known. That, in my book, is called bearing false witness.
Whoopee!! Someone turned on the light. Nuff said!
Yeah, I’m glad somebody turned the light on, but can O’Neill and his friends in TEC stand the glare? I don’t think so!