Isn’t it time that the Legal Audit is revealed, or doesn’t the need for sunshine exist on Brown Road, Lawrenceville, Georgia (the present PCA denominational offices)? Mr. Porr said: “there was a lack of moral fiber.”

Not one person associated with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) as a member or an investor in Cornerstone Ministries Investments, Inc. (CMI), has written an article that I have read on its demise, therefore I believe someone with experience with both organizations should write about this mess.

I am deeply disturbed that Presbyterian Investors Fund (PIF)/CMI was founded upon the remnants of a PCA endeavor, Investors Fund for Building and Development (IFBD), that was faulty and I am disheartened that teaching and ruling elders in the PCA refused to exercise their responsibilities in 1994 to put the peace and purity of the church ahead of loyalty to other teaching elders.

At the 13th General Assembly (GA) of the PCA in 1985 a recommendation was made:

“that the Committee on Mission to North America be authorized …to form and implement a revolving building fund to operate as a trust for the purpose to receive monies and make loans for the primary purpose of church building construction.” [1]

At the 14th GA of the PCA in 1986, the assembly adopted the basic policy guidelines for revolving building loans. Furthermore:

“The trustees of the Investors Fund for Building and Development were directed to complete the policy manual and submit it to the 15th GA” [2]

That assembly also approved the articles of incorporation and bylaws for IFB&D, as well as the proposed FY87 budget and the Basic Guidelines for Revolving Building Loans. [3] At that same GA there was a report and minutes of the organizational meeting of IFBD attached to the minutes. [4]

Skip ahead to the 20th GA of the PCA in 1992. The minutes note:

“That the 20th General Assembly requires all committees and agencies to participate in the Legal Audit Questionnaire.” [5]

Why a legal audit? What was going on at Century Place (the denominational office building)? Notice that it was the General Assembly that ordered the Legal Audit.
The minutes of the 21st GA of the PCA 1993 state:

“That the AC [Administrative Committee] be directed to assemble the recommendations in and responses to the Legal Audit by the various committees, boards, and agencies and to present such reports through the appropriate committees, boards and agencies to the 22nd GA, and that the parts of the Legal Audit referred to each committee, board and agency be made to the Committee of Commissioners reviewing its work at the 22nd General Assembly and that the entire legal audit and responses be made available to the Committee of Commissioners on AC at the 22nd General Assembly.”[6]

See the difference? The results of the Legal Audit should have been given to the GA. The GA ordered it; the GA should have seen it.

However, only a relatively few members of the Assembly ever saw the Legal Audit, and those that did had to sign a confidentiality agreement, pledging not to reveal the contents of the Audit. As a result, the majority of the 1994 GA never saw what was in the Legal Audit.

I will now attempt to present what happened at the 22nd GA of the PCA in 1994. Here is what we read in that Assembly’s minutes:

Legal Audit
The working definition a Legal Audit of the Committee of Commissioners on Administration is as follows:

1.07 The End Product—the Legal Status Report and Chart
The legal status report should be designed to (1) give the status of the legal affairs of a business; (2) make recommendations for future action, and (3) assist management in evaluating the present legal risks in the business. [7]

The minutes go on to say that a report of certain matters can be prepared for public distribution but things that could be used in a lawsuit should be kept confidential. OK I’ll agree with that. Further on in the minutes it states:

“At present the legal audit is protected by attorney-client privilege and its contents may not be used against the PCA in a court of law. The very reason for having the legal audit conducted in the first place was to determine whether there are areas of civil vulnerability that should be corrected before being discovered by someone wishing to file suit against us.” [8]

Further on under “d” of the grounds it states:

“The legal audit report is copyrighted by the Christian law firm of Gammon and Grange…” [9]

However, when a law firm undertakes a job for a client, any material that is copyrighted is to be thus protected for the benefit of the client, not the law firm…

So what are the facts that have been kept from us for twenty-three years? You won’t find anything in the minutes of the 22nd GA other than a hint. Under the Committee of Commissioners on Investors Fund the statement is made:

“We are not allowed to discuss the details of the Legal Audit.”

Read More
Bob Wildrick is one of 3500 CMI investors still waiting to receive settlement proceeds from the February 2008 Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Cornerstone Ministries Investments, Inc., a.k.a. the “$140 million Ponzi scheme.”