body-container-line-1

GHANA METHODIST FELLOWSHIP-UK – Episode II

Feature Article GHANA METHODIST FELLOWSHIP-UK – Episode II
AUG 17, 2014 LISTEN

It must be emphasised once again that most of what is publicised in these columns were contained in correspondence that was widely circulated both inside and outside the fellowship.

In October 2011, the new secretary of the fellowship sent out notice for the fellowship's Annual General Meeting scheduled for the following month. By that time, Luis and a couple other old members had stepped down from the management committee in line with the six year rule of the Methodist Church. Luis sent a memo to the secretary: “I remember that the former treasurer used to include the fellowship's assets on his financial reports. I hope the new treasurer will do the same. Some of our assets have started disappearing.” It is worth mentioning that a couple of years previously, the fellowship's Annual General Meeting failed to approve and/or accept the treasurer's report, and so instructed the Chaplain not to append his signature to it: however, nothing was done or heard about it again!

Luis continued: “Secondary, I remember the old executives decided that the treasurer's annual financial report should be circulated a couple of weeks before the annual general meeting, rather than 90 minutes into the two-hour meeting. I hope the new treasurer will follow that directive.”

Despite the suggestions above, the treasurer's financial report was circulated well into the second hour of the meeting, with the instructions: “Take ten minutes to read through the [6/8-page] document and ask any question.” And sure enough, there were no questions, because the meeting was running late! In fact, there was not enough time to discuss the appointment of auditors as proposed on the agenda of the meeting. And there was nothing about the fellowship's assets, too.

After the meeting, Luis circulated another correspondence: “Everything I had suggested in my previous email was in the interest of the fellowship, but it looks like management could not have cared less. How were those of us who are not accounting savvy supposed to take 10 minutes to read through a complex financial document and come out with any meaningful question? By the way, how come that for the past four years, the interest accruing on the fellowship's savings keeps dwindling while as the capital at the bank at the end of each year keeps increasing? Last but not the least, where are the fellowship's projector, combo amplifier and trumpets?”

For well over a year, these simple, innocent enquiries generated into a tug of war between Luis and a couple of the members of the 'self-appointed group' on one side and the fellowship management committee on the other side, with the majority of the fellowship members acting as indifferent bystanders. Though the fellowship's missing trumpets were located since the issue was brought up by Luis, the overhead projector and screen, a lapel microphone, a combo amplifier, and other items have all disappeared without trace.

It was this overhead projector that the previous fellowship secretary announced at the end of his term of office thus: “The overhead projector and screen went missing before the new chaplain took office”. What he declined to add was that: “Since I was the secretary at the time the projector and screen got missing, I have decided to replace them from my own resources”. What surprised most fellowship members about the secretary's parting announcement was why he had waited until the eve of his departure before making such a pronouncement. This projector had always been kept in the chaplain's manse, and we have had only two chaplains these last ten years, so it would not have been too difficult to make enquiries. But the highest lay officer in the fellowship decided to deceive the entire fellowship rather than help protect the group's assets.

Luis explained in some of the emails that were circulated widely both within and without the fellowship that the first executive committee of the fellowship had decided to open two accounts with HSBC Bank: one was a Current Account for normal everyday transactions, and the second was the High Interest Yielding Account (Central Finance Board), the idea being that the greater part of fellowship funds would be transferred into the latter for obvious reasons. There was a third account with the same bank, a Savings Account, but the High Interest Account was supposed to yield the most interest.

The following table shows statistics from the fellowship's financial reports from 2006 to 2011,

  2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Balance Brought Forward £ 18,024 10,446   11,552   14,381
Balance Carried Forward £ 10,446 16,219 11,552 14,381   22,239
Investment Income/Bank Interest £ 249 170 241 131 41 88

The figures in the last line of the table above are what attracted Luis' attention. This generated into further tug of war between Luis and the fellowship management committee. After a long battle, arrangements were made for Luis to meet the Finance Committee of the fellowship to cross-check the bank statements. After their meeting, the secretary to the finance committee reported that “all the statements for the Central Finance Board were made available to Luis for inspection”. However, according to Luis, due to time constraints the committee only provided current account statements for him to take a cursory look through, the idea being that arrangements would be made for proper scrutiny of the bank statements by Luis and a couple more concerned members. In subsequent correspondence, Luis challenged the finance committee secretary as to the validity of that report – especially the reference to the Central Finance Board statements which were not available at the meeting. But till date, the secretary pretends he has lost all interest in the matter.

Incidentally, the next financial statement showed an improved declaration of £345.00 as interest accruing on the fellowship's savings: this was 400% more than the previous year's interest declared: however, the balance brought/carried forward had not been more than double the previous year's amount, and the pattern of cash movements throughout the two years had not been that much different. No proper explanation has been given yet as to how the bank interests nosedived that far, except that the members of the finance committee maintain that unless one is a financial guru, one cannot understand such issues. The finance committee members went on to propose that anybody who wanted to understand the fellowships accounts should come for training on the calculation of simple interest as taught in primary schools.

There have been speculations that most probably the funds did not stay long enough in the Central Finance Board account to yield the required interest. For example, one of the treasurer's reports indicated that the May 2010 (or was it 2011) annual harvest proceeds did not hit the CFB account until August, resulting in a loss of more than the £41.00 bank interest declared for that year. It is funny the fellowship secretary, the fellowship treasurer and one prominent fellowship management committee member corroborated to accuse Luis of having claimed that he knew someone who was using the fellowship's funds for private business. The truth in this is also yet to be ascertained.

The one big problem in the fellowship is that though it is supposed to be a Christian group, there is very little trust among its members because of the lack of transparency within the leadership. A good case can be cited here: Murphy and his wife Natalie are both members in one of the organisations in the fellowship. Murphy had been regular at most of the organisation's meetings, while as Natalie showed up at meetings only once or twice after joining the group and relapsed. The organisation operated a benefit system which entitled fully paid up new mothers to a benefit of £100.00. A year after Natalie had had a child, the husband approached the organisation to claim the £100.00 as his wife's benefit.

At the time of making the claim, Murphy himself was six months in arrears of his dues, but the wife had supposedly paid the full year's dues, and this was supposedly paid by the husband because the wife never attended any meetings and so could not have made the payments herself. The payment record book told a nice story. All the twelve columns alongside Natalie's name showed that the recorder had inserted zeros against the lady's name, but somehow, someone had managed to turn the zeros into bloated ones(1). No other names in the whole book had any such 'paintwork' except this lady who had never participated in any of the organisation's activities. Murphy who most probably forged the payments in order to claim a mere £100.00 is one of the chaplain's top advisers. That is what raises so muck concern about the fellowship's finances.

Another top adviser to the chaplain had done a full term as the CEO (let 's say) of one of the fellowship's organisations. At the end of his (or read it as her) term of office, he(she) declared at the organisation's general meeting, in front of members and patrons: “I have decided never to speak to my successor as long as I live”. When this was brought to the attention of the chaplain, he remarked: “I do not want to get involved with the internal grumblings of any organisation in the fellowship”

I have used these first two 'epistles' to support a statement made in the maiden article “An Open Letter to the Bishops Attending the Ghana Methodist Conference”: that a minister is only as good or bad as the elders he meets at his new manse are. Over the years, the leaders who were appointed/selected/voted to lead the fellowship have failed to live up to the confidence and trust that were reposed in them. They have tended to see themselves as overlords, untouchables and no 'co-equals' in the fellowship, rather than as leaders who are supposed to use their good service to the fellowship as examples for the rest to follow. Worse of all, they are fond of telling too many unnecessary lies, knowing that majority of the members would be too occupied with other things to bother to check them out. It is rather unfortunate that the chaplain has allowed himself to be led astray by these rogues. However, because the fellowship is, in fact, more important than any individual member, these short-comings on the part of our leaders will always be challenged until sanity prevails.

In Episode III, we will discuss how other ministers, both Ghanaian and non-Ghanaian, have been drawn into the fracas – in most cases, they pulled themselves into it. Stay tuned!

body-container-line