BGCT says controls in place to guard mission offering fund use

Updated: 9/14/06

BGCT says controls in place
to guard mission offering fund use

By Ken Camp

Managing Editor

DALLAS—Contrary to allegations, there is no indication any Mary Hill Davis Offering for Texas Missions funds have been mismanaged, Baptist General Convention of Texas Executive Director Charles Wade said.

Financial controls are in place to ensure the Baptist Building staff administers funds from the Mary Hill Davis Offering for Texas Missions according to plans approved by the Woman’s Missionary Union of Texas Executive Board, Chief Financial Officer David Nabors added.

One charge, leveled against the BGCT Executive Board staff by a source who asked not to be named, concerned Mary Hill Davis Offering funds being used to pay an employee’s salary without the knowledge or approval of the WMU and its board.

“It’s important to note that neither policy nor philosophy excludes salaries from being funded through the offering,” Wade said.

He pointed to River Ministry, Texas Partnerships and LifeCall as programs where catalytic funds from the missions offering were used initially to pay salaries and benefits to help launch the ministries, with WMU’s approval. But using missions offering funds for BGCT Executive Board staff salaries is the exception, not the rule.

“In general, salaries and benefits are among the first items picked up by the Cooperative Program budget, as soon as possible,” Wade said.

A source also alleged funds from the missions offering were used in the past to cover administrative overruns in the church missions and evangelism area.

“Controls are in place to prevent that from happening,” Nabors said.

Specific accounts are established for Mary Hill Davis Offering receipts collected and disbursed by the treasurer’s office, he explained. The mission offering funds are not mingled with the general fund, and the annual financial audit regularly tests receipts to ensure they are used according to the donors’ desired purposes, he stressed.

Texas WMU Executive Director Carolyn Porterfield and Texas WMU officers met recently with Wade, Nabors and Chief Operating Officer Ron Gunter to discuss the Mary Hill Davis Offering.

At the time, Porterfield said, she was unaware of any allegations circulating about mismanagement of funds, but as a matter of course, she and the officers made their expectations clear.

“We said we expect Mary Hill Davis funds to be used according to the allocations approved by our board, and we were assured by leadership that is the case,” Porterfield said.

The Texas WMU Executive Board approves allocations for each year’s Mary Hill Davis Offering, but BGCT personnel whose program responsibilities include areas designated in the allocations administer the funds, she explained.

“I have always trusted our leaders and felt they acted with integrity,” Porterfield said.

“We must have the highest standards of accountability. If our board ever felt that was not the case, we would take action.”

Wade also emphasized if any specific concerns are brought to the Baptist Building staff’s attention, they will immediately investigate them.

“If there’s a problem, we can fix that. We can correct it,” he said.

BGCT program areas such as Texas Partnerships, River Ministry, collegiate ministries and church starting—as well as various BGCT-affiliated institutions—benefit from the Mary Hill Davis Offering, but Texas WMU holds the trademark on the offering.

“It’s not a BGCT offering. It’s a WMU of Texas offering. Our reputation is on the line. More than that, God’s reputation is on the line,” Porterfield said.

Texas WMU—which receives no Cooperative Program funds and is dependent almost entirely upon the Mary Hill Davis Offering for its budget needs—recently approved its own financial audit, separate from the BGCT’s audit.

The move had nothing to do with recent questions raised about the management of Mary Hill Davis Offering funds and was initiated last spring, she explained.

“We needed to establish a clear financial identity as a 501(c)(3) (not-for-profit organization). It’s simply a matter of following best practices in our business operations,” Porterfield said.