Rev. Don Armstrong has been exonerated by an audit — paid for by his congregation.
The Rev. Don Armstrong was found innocent today of misusing funds at Grace Church and St. Stephens, according to an independent audit arranged by the parish.
Forensic auditor Robert Johnson’s findings refuted allegations that were first raised by the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado.
The diocese began investigating Armstrong in 2006 and found that Armstrong had engaged in fraud and theft of more than $500,000 in parish money over the past 10 years.
Note that this is another Jean Torkelson opus, so he’s “found innocent,” and the findings “refuted allegations.” (Note that the allegations were backed up by a separate audit, and he was found guilty by an elected board that’s hardly a rubber stamp for anyone. So more properly, the findings “disagreed with another audit performed by the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado.”)
Johnson is certified as a public accountant, a fraud examiner and a valuation analyst, according to his office. Crippen said he hasn’t any ties to the parish.
Well, aside from being hired by them. I’d have been more convinced if they’d had a neutral third party arrange for the audit.
And, of course, there’s the matter of what documents and records the parish provided for this audit.
According to Johnson’s audit, the Grace Church vestry hadn’t been properly advised by church auditors on regulatory issues and “certain accounting functions.”
The audit blamed much of the financial problems on an incompetent bookkeeper who was later fired. It found that Armstrong relied for his own decisionmaking on professional tax preparers as well as the church treasurer and vestry members.
So it was all other folks’ fault. Lack of “proper advice” from the church, an “incompetent bookkeeper” — and if Armstrong did anything, it was (unlike all the tales that have prevoiusly been told) with full consultatoin from the church treasurer, the vestry, and “professional tax preparers.”
What about the ongoing criminal investigation?
This summer, a diocesan panel, aided by the firm of Denver attorney Hal Haddon, used its fraud and theft findings to launch a separate criminal investigation by the financial crimes unit of the Colorado Springs Police Department. That investigation is continuing.
Get that? The police investigation was somehow “launched” by the diocese. Wow — such power they have over the Colorado Springs PD!
“We fully expect that Robert Johnson’s report will put that (criminal) issue to bed quickly,” said Alan Crippen, who is Armstrong’s spokesman.
Because, of course, the police always cancel criminal investigations when the accused hires someone who says he didn’t do it.
Once regarded as one of the diocese’s most prominent priests, Armstrong resigned from the Episcopal Church in March after years of battling with O’Neill over doctrinal issues and the future of the Episcopal Church. Nationally, more than 30 conservative parishes, clergy and lay members have broken away because of the church’s departure from traditional teachings on marriage, sexuality and scripture.
Rev. Armstrong was “prominent” because he set himself up as the “shadow bishop” of the diocese.
The “years of battling with O’Neill” is from late 2003 to late 2006. Hardly the Hatfield/McCoy feud implied.
30 parishes? There are over 100 dioceses, each with dozens to hundreds of parishes. It’s hardly the massive movement Torkelson spins it as.
Included in the news release is a statement by Armstrong which expresses relief for Johnson’s findings but also says, “For the suffering, embarrassment, and division my own missteps and faulty decisions have caused those committed to my own priestly pastoral care, I humbly apologize.”
Relief? That’s an odd emotion for an innocent man waiting for the conclusions of a hired auditor.
The official parish news release is here. Aside from places where Jean’s text mirrors that of the of the press release, it’s largely “no, really, everything was approved by the wardens and treasurers, the vestry rubber-stamped the budget but that still counts, the parish auditors never said anything, the book keeper was a dolt and was fired, and it was all on the up and up, and boy the Bishop is a mean and nasty guy, isn’t he?”
The official diocesan response is here.
That conviction followed an extensive investigation into charges of serious financial wrongdoing. As part of the established disciplinary process in the Episcopal Church, two elected diocesan bodies composed of clergy and lay people, acting independently of the Bishop – the Diocesan Review Committee and the Ecclesiastical Court – reviewed the evidence compiled by an outside forensic auditor and former IRS fraud investigator and a nationally renowned criminal defense attorney who were retained by the diocese. The Diocesan Review Committee found unanimously that there was adequate evidence to take the case to ecclesiastical trial, and the Ecclesiastical Court found unanimously that Armstrong is guilty of the offenses with which he has been charged.
Throughout the investigation, Armstrong has refused to answer the charges in front of these elected bodies or to present evidence on his own behalf in direct response to the specific charges, in spite of the multiple formal and informal opportunities and invitations he has had to do so. According to the procedures laid out in the canons of the Church, the Bishop will formally pronounce sentence on Armstrong next week; the Ecclesiastical Court recommended the most severe sentence available to them – deposition from the priesthood in the Episcopal Church.
The Bishop has reported the results of the Diocese’s investigation to the appropriate legal authorities, has turned over all documents related to the investigation, and is cooperating fully with law enforcement officials. Bishop Robert O’Neill today expressed his confidence that the criminal justice system will respond appropriately.
Not quite as lovingly spun as Jean’s prose, but perhaps more credible because of it.
(via BD)
Mark Harris comments.
Oh, nice and informative post by Mr. Harris.
The CS Gazette reports. Much better than the RMN — it note that the audit found no evidence of, found no wrongdoing, etc., not that it found him “innocent.” The body of the Denver Post article does the same, though the headline uses the punchier “clears.”
Reading the comments in various places:
1. Huge vitriol remains against Rob O’Neill. I really don’t understand where it comes from.
2. Lots of demands that the diocese drop all the charges against Armstrong (and apologize vociferously) — ignoring the fact that (a) the Ecclesiastical trial is over and done with, and Armstrong’s refusal to cooperate in any fashion or provide any documentation (ditto for the vestry), or to respond after the verdict was handed down with any other information, makes it all moot. Not to mention the fact that, even if he was fiduciarily as pure as the driven snow, dropping out of the diocese and the national church and hooking up with CANA is grounds for disciplinary measures right there.
3. A surprising number of folks willing to accept technical innocence, but still more than a bit uncertain over the dodgy way the parish was financially run and how the audit showed some expenses were “approved.”
Even if you accept the audit (and while Armstrong and Vestry didn’t cooperate, it’s not clear to me what documentation the diocese did in fact have to reach its judgment), the boat (both the diocesan action and Armstrong’s ministry) has sailed. Armstrong (and his followers) cannot claim on the one hand that the diocese has no control or influence on him, then turn around and declare any disciplinary action a malignant injustice and nasty attack.
As to the fiduciary matters — I’ll wait on the criminal and IRS investigations to decide. Without having enough knowledge to question Robert Johnson’s professional abilities (which I ought not to have done), the fact is that a “defense” auditor is almost certainly going to come up with a favorable interpretation of events (assuming we ever get to see the actual report), esp. as he’s dependent on records provided and accounts given by the defendent himself.
The scanned audit report is here. A few points note:
1. p. 18 – The “bad book keeper” was 1999-2001 only. The particular issues at hand cover a much broader time frame.
2. p. 18-9 – Conclusion. “It is evident by tmanagement letters of the auditors the Vestry and Treasurer over the years failed to carry out their responsibiltiies fully and completely as to the internal control and accounting functions of the Church. The long-term historical management style of the Wardens operating form a Micro style and the general Vestry operating from a Macro style greatly contributes to a misunderstanding or a lack of full disclosure necessary to efficiently carry out the duties as a Vestry member. The Rector wearing too many hats and micro managing further contributes to the lack of management control necessary to efficiently operate a church the size of Grace Church.” It goes on to note how there was a lack of outside counsel and use of trained folks to do things like manage the scholarship fund, handle compensation issues, etc., and that the regular auditors really should have made a note of that, too.
3. p. 20 – I wonder how the auditor feels about his report — “intended solely for your use in giving legal advice to Father Armstrong and his tax counsel and should not be used for any other purpose without my prior permission” — being used for press releases to say that Armstrong is “innocent” and “cleared.”
4. One thing that is clear is that if the records and interviews that were requested as part of the investigation by the diocese had, in fact, been forthcoming, it is possible that some of the charges would have been cleared. Armstrong’s unwillingness to do so doesn’t let him now get a pass.
5. p. 16 – The personal loans to Armstrong were apparently not legal under Colorado law. This was not caught by the regular audits, but ought to have been known.
Etc.
The picture coming out is of a loosely run ship, where the Vestry essentially rubber stamped budgets and the wardens and Rector micromanaged everything without suitable help and advice. Doubtless there will be some very interesting reading that takes place now that the full report is online.