Loading...

資料庫

時代講場文章(至2017年2月14日)

正視機構的誠信

港基督教機構甚多,任何信徒或教牧對某項事工有「異象」,即可召聚志同道合者,以公司名義開設,並不斷向教會群體籌集所須經費。由於機構眾多,確實良莠不齊;本港一向缺乏某些具公信力的中介組織如Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability、Ministry Watch等。這些組織幫助教會與信徒在捐款的時候,對受惠的機構有某程度的保證。最近,Ministry Watch公開向捐獻者發出警告,不要向Trinity Broadcasting Network作出捐獻,因為此影音集團在財務方面拒絕作出清楚的交待。

庫澤斯(James Kouzes)和波斯勒(Barry Posner)經過廣泛而深入的研究之後,於《公信力》(Credibility)一書,確定領袖最重要的質素:誠實可信。機構的信譽也是如此,一旦「信譽破產」,就難以取得教會群體的信任。

可惜本港一向缺乏對機構作「監察」或作「問責」的中介組織,機構同行之間對某些失德與失見證的行為,不敢公開指正,只在閒談中月旦一番。假若機構不認真看待誠信問題,常假借「為福音緣故」而不擇手段,一方面不檢討其事工的得失,另一方面卻不斷要求信徒要為其市場佔有率而作出奉獻,這是值得我們深思的!

已故楊牧谷牧師曾形容本港若干機構發展如恐龍一般,盲目地擴展,發展其身量至四周生態不能供應食物而餓死。筆者曾有十六年牧養堂會,無論是擴堂或增聘同工,必然考慮會眾的奉獻承擔,才按實況作出「信心的行動」。為何機構的拓展,卻能漠視現實,而要求全港信徒為此作出財務的承擔?試舉一例作為說明,本港報章甚多以「色情」及「暴力」吸引讀者,筆者甚有異象開辦一分福音日報,而報章風格、宣傳與運作,完全與兩分暢銷日報相似。有明眼人一看,力勸筆者不要辦報,可改用其它方式,但筆者堅持異象是正確的,教會必須無限量支持。報章面世後,銷路不佳,但筆者仍不退下或改變運作,繼續拓展,招兵買馬,增置廠房,更花大量費用於宣傳攻勢,要求教會繼續支持此種「營運模式」。請問:這是否合理?

筆者認識一些機構,當面對經濟困難,同工或減薪、或借薪、或放無薪假,用無私態度共度困難。筆者作為機構負責人,誠信就是員工在其「作工得工價」有所保證,不能美其名為事工發展而不支付員工薪津。筆者的機構,也經歷過若干同工要延遲發薪的情況,但這不應是「常態」!假若有機構常常以此,博取外間同情而奉獻,值得捐獻者有所提問:「既然發薪緊張,為何還要增聘人手 ?」「該機構是否常以此手法欺負其敢怒不敢言的員工?」

也許是時候,堂會與機構一同探討機構的專業操守,防止毒害擴大!

(轉載自香港教會網站。作者為香港教會更新運動總幹事。)

www.christiantimes.org.hk,時代論壇時代講場,2005.3.24) 

 

Donationcall

舊回應118則


虞瑋倩 / 2005-04-20 23:51:36.0

to LP


I will only apologize for my words making you feel bad, but I will not take back the message I give you.


The arguments you presented shows you have not think thru enough nor have you considered your logic and I will not hesitate to point out errors in other's people's argument.


 

William / 2005-04-15 02:35:35.0

Anyone out there?


Did anyone try to contact ME regarding this?


I believed that ME must have read these e-mails but as I know, most organization will not get themselves involve in this kind of forum.


A direct mail should be send to them if possible.  I think this is something appropriate to do.


I think we all have the intention to have things done in the proper way and not wasting our time for nothing. Let's keep working on it and pray that good thing will happen in the coming months or years.

LP / 2005-04-15 02:34:21.0

Ms. Yu, pls respect others!


Ms. Yu, that's enough for you to use poor words (though you're used to this) in insulting others with different ideas with you. Pls respect yourself and others here. It's just a STANDARD and BASIC understanding of all those who participating in the discussion here! It’s a place for exchange ideas but not a place to scold and even insult others...


 


I am not interested in communicate with such impolite people and it’s wasting my time where can’t accept different points of views and even trying to “eliminate” all those with different opinions by insulting them


 


I am serious to request Ms. Yu to apologize for what she said which insulted me before I giving response again. Otherwise, I will feel very disappointed and it’s obvious that there’s NO point for me to be here again.


 


I would strongly suggest Christian Times to be more careful in reminding the people here must have to respect others even with different angles and prevent those “poor” words to be commonly used…it’s a CHRISTIAN forum in particular! Don’t make the forum here to be downgraded…that’s NOT our hope!


 


Lastly, Ms. Yu, if you don't think there's any wrong with your words then I would feel sad for those who's going to support the letter which is drafted by someone doesn't have much understanding for basic manner and quality...


 


*William, thanks for your sharing and glad to see someone who's fair and open for discussion. But, I may not be here any more as I said above...Im sorry but can't help!

車朗生 / 2005-04-14 23:19:01.0

Agreed, but watch out for the use of words


I think that it will be better not to use words with negative effects on others' messages. It may sound more soft if use a more natural wordings in responding others point of view.


 

虞瑋倩 / 2005-04-14 22:18:44.0

LP - then why does such "watchdog" organizations are necessary in US and Canada ?


1) First, the info. she provides is just piece-by-piece without complete pictures as well just like what William said. Therefore, do we all here have enough/complete info. to make judgment and do these pieces of info. is fair enough without any bias to lead us to take action?


 


Answer: I have said my article is a "Request for Comment" article, and it is expected to be "incomplete". I will follow-up in providing more information. Secondly, I am not "judging", I am just raising questions and concern -- if you say that by merely raising questions and concern, you will be using this as a shield and excuse for NGO to continue on ineffecive/inapproriate management and refuse accountability.


 



1) Second, as I reviewed the previous comment somebody called "Mic" has already explained the accounting info. of all NGOs can be found easily in the relevant government dept. so if ms. yu and all those are really concern about it can go ahead to check by themselves without going to take such "high-key" action in the very first place. Otherwise, it's kind of wasting government resources and also comes to 3 important questions: IS IT THE MUST AND ONLY step to resolve the “problems” you claim? AND HOW CAN YOU MAKE SURE TAKING SUCH ACTION CAN DEFINITELY RESOLVE THE “PROBLEM” COMPLETELY AND WITHOUT OTHER DRAWBACKS?


Answer: I am not only demanding those minimal accounting information. Anyone with management sense knows that "accounitng information" just tells you that the organization can "balance its books", that's all. Are you saying that anyone with LCC Accounting Level 1 can therefore run a NGO effectively, allocate resource effectively ?


Nor am I saying that our proposed items is going to solve every problem. However we must start somewhere, with something. It is not a question of "if" or "when" (it has to start, ASAP), but at this time how many good suggestions can be put together. If you cannot provide good suggestions to ensure NGO are accountable to donors/patrons, please PRAY that you can come up with at least one.


 


3) Also, IS IT REALLY GOOD FOR ALL NGOs if we’re proactively to arouse government's awareness for such their operation by interfering their financial as the first step? I am not going to say the government trying to "suppress" the religious groups but, again, is it the VERY MUST step to stimulate the government directly/indirectly to impose more kind of "censorship/ restrictions" to them?


Answer: Government has already started "intervention" on many charitable organizations, albeit minimal at this stage. Your concern is more related to how the Government up hold the Bill of Rights rather than the question if "regulate or not". If you take your argument, why would Government need all public listed companies to subject to so many regulations ? Do you mean Government want to intervene in the free market or commercial sector or suppress business ? Your logic is pathetically poor.



 


 



4) Okay! IF what you’re requesting was really good and had to be applied for every NGO then every church/ voluntary group/ charity/ foundation, of course, including Rev. Wu’s org. would have to follow this, right? THEN I would think your letter should be co-undersigned by significant no. of pastors/ organizations/ churches etc. (with their names opened) but NOT ONLY by many “hidden” and “nicknamed” web fans…frankly, it’s just too “兒戲” and people would take it as a joke!

Answer: again, this shows your poor logic in thinking. The soundness of proposed items has nothing to do with who has to sign this open letter. This open letter is a petition and a 呼籲 addressed to ME。It is not a committment by church leaders or pastor, what is the reason for "requring" them to sign it ? Even if I agreed that what I proposed could be applied to  every NGO then every church/ voluntary group/ charity/ foundation, it does not mean Rev. Wu or pastors has to sign it !

 



5) Anyway, my last and most fair question to raise is why all those have queries NOT going to seek answer from the org. directly first? Did you tried? How’s their feedback? I do believe it’s just so easy to get in touch with them directly thru email/ letter/ fax etc…

Answer: I believe the discussion here is already enough for them to issue a response. For an organization to be so slow to response, so insensitive or ill-informed about how significant church people perceived them, is just a clear sign of how "unaccountable" this organization is.

 



6) After all, it’s so easy for us, nearly all to hidden our real identity, to take any action without seriously considering all the outcomes…because it’s just simple…if there’s really another problem raised and suffers the NGOs in a long run…it’s their own business!

Answer: You have neither quantify or justify in what way will NGO suffer in future. Nor have you provided solid suggestions like I do. On one hand you expected problems to be solved in one single blow, on the other hand you stop people from starting to tackle the problem. That merely shows you have not think clearly yourself.

7) Again and again, pls reconsider with clear mind and heart before taking action!


Answer: you may have a "heart" but you are guided by a murky mind/brain of yours.

William / 2005-04-13 01:56:29.0

I agreed with LP in a few points


I agreed that if we are going to do it, we should first try to contact ME directly before we issue such an open letter unless the attempt has failed.


ME is a pubic known organization and it is very easy to contact them. In addition, as Mic suggested, if we can get the reports from the government, why not get them first  and look at them before we move to this step.


If we are going to do it, does that mean we have to do it to all NGO? I don't think so, it is not that all NGO is OK and perfectly accurate and reliable in their financial management but it is just because of the high profile of fund raising and the questionable financial presentation of ME that attracts the attention and as a result, raise up the issue of looking into the matter more closely.


As in Canada, even the government can't afford to check every account of every NGO and company and church, but if something suspicious and catch their attention, then they will and might take some action to clear their suspicion.  The government will also randomly to pick some NGOs to check annually.  This is possible and workable but don't ask for the impossible.

LP / 2005-04-13 00:35:57.0

then all the NGO including churches should do this!


Honestly, I don't think ms. yu's request is strong enough.


 


First, the info. she provides is just piece-by-piece without complete pictures as well just like what William said. Therefore, do we all here have enough/complete info. to make judgment and do these pieces of info. is fair enough without any bias to lead us to take action?


 


Second, as I reviewed the previous comment somebody called "Mic" has already explained the accounting info. of all NGOs can be found easily in the relevant government dept. so if ms. yu and all those are really concern about it can go ahead to check by themselves without going to take such "high-key" action in the very first place. Otherwise, it's kind of wasting government resources and also comes to 3 important questions: IS IT THE MUST AND ONLY step to resolve the “problems” you claim? AND HOW CAN YOU MAKE SURE TAKING SUCH ACTION CAN DEFINITELY RESOLVE THE “PROBLEM” COMPLETELY AND WITHOUT OTHER DRAWBACKS? Also, IS IT REALLY GOOD FOR ALL NGOs if we’re proactively to arouse government's awareness for such their operation by interfering their financial as the first step? I am not going to say the government trying to "suppress" the religious groups but, again, is it the VERY MUST step to stimulate the government directly/indirectly to impose more kind of "censorship/ restrictions" to them?


 


Okay! IF what you’re requesting was really good and had to be applied for every NGO then every church/ voluntary group/ charity/ foundation, of course, including Rev. Wu’s org. would have to follow this, right? THEN I would think your letter should be co-undersigned by significant no. of pastors/ organizations/ churches etc. (with their names opened) but NOT ONLY by many “hidden” and “nicknamed” web fans…frankly, it’s just too “兒戲” and people would take it as a joke!


 


Anyway, my last and most fair question to raise is why all those have queries NOT going to seek answer from the org. directly first? Did you tried? How’s their feedback? I do believe it’s just so easy to get in touch with them directly thru email/ letter/ fax etc…


 


After all, it’s so easy for us, nearly all to hidden our real identity, to take any action without seriously considering all the outcomes…because it’s just simple…if there’s really another problem raised and suffers the NGOs in a long run…it’s their own business!


Again and again, pls reconsider with clear mind and heart before taking action!

William / 2005-04-12 16:46:35.0

I agreed with 虞


As in Rev. Wu's article, there are organizations such as the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability and Ministry Watch.  We also have the CCCC in Canada. These organizations are here not to give NGO a hard time but rather help them to better manage their accounts and finance.  They are constructive rather than destructive.


If there is none of this kind of organization in Hong Kong, I think it is about time to have one. They can also consult those in overseas as how they run it.  There are already existing ones and will make things easier for whoever wants to set up such an organization.


The only thing that I would suggest to 虞 is that you must make sure all the statements about figures of Media must have backups.  I believed most of them do but there is a couple places that may need some verification.


1. In the third last paragraph of the background, you stated that there is a 5 million liability for Media, is this annually or accumulative?


2. In the "Perceived Irregularities", you mentioned that in their annual financial statement, they listed their donation income is only 2 millions.  Do you have this statement or these statements? It is way off from what they actually need or have.  This will be a major point in questioning their financial reporting and credibility.


One more thing, as we all know, not all NGO is doing a very good accounting but not all have financial mismanagement, they just don't know how to do the reporting.  But, if ME is the concern, is there any way we can ask the government to check their accounts.  We have that in Canada and the government has professionals who can check the accounts of NGO to ensure they are not misusing the funding that they received from donors. If we can show them what we found, can we have the government who has so many professionals in the department to help us and ME to clarify this once and for all and might even help ME in the long run.


In the 80's, what brings the downfall of PTL club of Jim Bakker in the USA is the auditing of the government when someone brought up the financial credibility of the organization to the government;s attention.  At the beginning, Jim Bakker tried to deny and defend himself in every possible way, but he can't change the facts and as a result, he went to jail for it but thank God that he genuinely repent and now is still in the ministry helping those pastors who are in need. I am not implying or saying ME is like PTL, but what I want to point out is that a good and reliable report to the government will get the government involve in this.


Collect the evidences, find out the related department in the government, send it over and wait for their response. Due to the popularity of ME at the present time, I think the government should pay attention to their financial credibility. If ME can respond sooner in the appropriate way, this might be avoided.  After all, there might not be any problem at all. Without the proper response, the issue is still unsolved.


 

虞瑋倩 / 2005-04-12 13:23:41.0

To LP


None of what you say is actually going to offer direction. Those who supported this open letter is also guided by the Holy Spirit.


A "claim" of guidiance by Holy Spirit or a "claim" that the action is approved by God cannot be proven correct -- unless you see the result.


Sadly, along with "God is the only judge" proved to be another perfect shield for people to dodge responsibility and accountability.


Like Rev. Hu said, we can set up a monitoring body with certain monitoring powers which this body can be monitored by the Govt.


If you take your argument of who is going to monitor the body who monitor Christian NGO, it only reflects the sad reality -- you would rather give money than look into the workings. Donate and keep it out of your sight.


Christians are too hands-off and minds-off and rely way to much on leaders.


Initially the proposal will meet resistance from many NGO -- I do not believe it is a justification for NOT monitoring. Many NGO may have been too mismanged for way too long and have a lot of lapses in internal controls, record keeping and financial reporting.


All I am asking for is get them to open up themselves more so that all can access to their information if needed and can make informed decisions.


It is not "that" much to ask for, given that most churches has a fixed amount of money to allocate to Christian NGO.


It is inevitable that those who "get away" with sloppy practices is going to "suffer " a bit. I believe those NGO who are diligent will welcome this move and in the long run, they can provide even better justifications to ask for donations and thrive more.


 

LP / 2005-04-12 00:48:30.0

pls pray before and reconsider the result!


It's sad that to see some christians here trying to do something seems to be for the sake of "righteous" of GOD. My very concern is what you’re now proclaiming and asking for will cause serious problem which may put many other NGOs in danger as well. As we all know the financial budget and figures of many NGOs are not that very organized (doesn’t mean they’re cheating) and presenting in a good way, some may even never exposed their figures as well (again, doesn’t mean they want to “hide” something). If there is really an “organization” which acts as an inspection and monitoring agent for these NGOs, the problem can’t be fixed as well.


 


First, how can one/ two or three agents can perform such laborious work and have the “real” power/ credible to monitor so many org. that may create another problem for their poor performance in their work…then, do we need “another” agent(s) to monitor their works on top? It’s easy to imagine that it doesn’t work!!


 


Second, it will definitely restrict the work and development of the NGOs. As it involves how much/ what areas/ how effective the NGOs spending their resources from mainly the monetary point of view. As we all mature to understand that there’re so many areas that a company/org. may have to pave way for and investing for the long term development e.g. the R&D dept. in most of the business firms even NGOs. Pls pay special attention that we’re now talking about “Christian NGOs” which should include not only monetary return/ well written financial report but also the spiritual “result” which can’t be measured totally and easily in simple black and white figures/words! It’s even easier to understand the situation of Christian NGOs by looking whether they have enough support to continue their ministry and whether their “future” is positive (just like to stock mkt) AND it’s even even simply to reveal by knowing what their donors think! Without enough supporters they can’t run! With enough supporters they can carry on! The NGOs can keep going that mean they have supports who agree in their ministry and I do think they’re mostly concern for their “spiritual result” and whether they have vision and plans for the “harvest” much more than they have wonderful “financial returns”, otherwise, they don’t need to support them and if their focus is on this…I am afraid there’re so many Christian NGOs can’t go any more very shortly…it’s the fact!


           


Lastly, I am not going to say it’s no need to have clear accountings and financial figures for them but as the government has already got a monitoring system for them and if this work can’t be well done by such large group of people…again, how can we make sure what such an “agent” you’re asking to set up can do it well?!


 


Pls pay very special attention that it really hurts to many many Christian NGOs if there’s such action taken and the result is destructive!


 


Can I request all those who going to back up such action to pray desperately and asking the Holy Spirit to speak to your heart to have the peace from the Lord and His “approval” before just saying “yes” easily! It’s a serious and dangerous action, pls note!!


Afterall, God is looking for all of heart every minute, every second. He's the one and only one be our judge!

以利達 / 2005-04-11 23:07:15.0

我支持

請落"以利達"一名啦~ 貓姐

虞瑋倩 / 2005-04-11 18:19:39.0

To 各路英雄 - 公開信 (徵求意見稿﹐最後一次)


抱歉﹐因為公務繁忙﹐今日才整理。


請把意見發去 readersct@gmail.com


也可以參與成為發起人﹐提供你們願意出的名字


 


背景



《時代論壇》在二○○五年三月轉載了教會更新協會的文章【正視機構的誠信】﹐引起了大量討論﹐特別有見影音使團近數年多次高調向基督教界籌款﹐而涉及金額巨大﹐但信徒沒有足夠資訊去了解捐獻的運用。



影音使團數次公開籌款﹐涉及金額數以百萬計。計劃之金額之巨大﹐足以等同一家中小企業的整年生意額。然而﹐影音使團多年來沒有特別向信徒主動交代他們如何運用籌募得來的奉獻﹐也沒有交代詳細財政狀況。



很少基督教服務機構能夠每年都有這麼大的籌款 (一般一年一次﹐影音使團有四次)﹐影音使團一季的籌款足以支付不少基督教服務機構的開支﹐若然影音使團使用款項不當﹑或者浪費奉獻﹐效果上等同是教會犧牲了其他基督教服務機構而影音使團浪費。



我們不希望看來好像特別針對某一機構﹐而希望最終可以令香港基督教成立正式的中介機構﹐作為要求基督教機構對教會「監察」或作「問責」的組織。



公佈數據混亂﹐令人難以掌握機構情況



例如﹕


2003年﹐天使心的行動﹐要700萬。


2004年﹐四月發表的報告﹐欠債400多萬。


2005年頭兩個月﹐就要600萬。



推算下﹐影音使團每年單對外籌款和向教會捐獻﹐要2000萬左右。


然而﹐今年我們發現影音使團在不斷高調開展事工的同時﹐卻拖欠同工薪津貼達120 (20051月﹐2)



總計﹐在 liabilities 上看﹐影音使團經常有約500萬的債務 (欠薪 + 向信徒舉債)



收入方面也很混亂﹐例如不同的基金的收入(「天使心」、「嗎哪」、不同項目)﹐有些有目標﹐有些以基金形式運作﹐有些是為特別事工等奉獻收入﹐都很難區分。每月財務報告列出的所謂收入﹐到底是斷月﹐還是累積﹖



當按月的報告奉獻收入是一百萬﹐但如果通訊是不定期出的﹐你miss 了一兩個月﹐那兩個月又如何﹖



 


缺乏透明度



信徒一般都依賴影音使團的宣傳通信﹐知道部份影音使團財務狀況。例如一個呼籲成立「影音使團嗎哪基金」的通信﹐就列出一個2005年一月財務狀況。


然而﹐此簡單財務狀況並不能夠全部反應機構的財務和管治是否健康。



以影音使團的規模﹐要認真確定他們財務狀況﹐最起碼要看見﹕



1) 每年的資產負債表 (Balance sheet)


2) 每年的進益表 (Profit / loss statement, income statement )


3) 每月財務狀況外﹐應該要有一個 to-date 的累積收入/支出報告﹐例如三月應該有一個包括一月﹑二月的累積收入/支出報告﹐對比去年同期狀況﹐對比今年預算狀況﹐並且配合一個全年計劃﹐什麼時候做什麼projects, tasks 並有關預算開支


4) 每一個大型項目需要有獨立的 project account (例如超過一百萬必須獨立有一盤數)﹐完成 project 必須有 project income statement (項目獨立財務報告)


可是以上﹐一個中型﹑大型教會都會有的報告﹐我們卻不能夠從影音使團得到。我們不能夠具體了解財務狀況﹐項目實施是否按計劃進行﹑有什麼超出預算﹐有什麼突發的支出等等。



而信徒只能夠被動的「響應」一次又一次的呼籲﹐而未必知道奉獻的用法是否恰當﹐有沒有浪費。



疑似異常情況 (perceived irregularities)


例如﹐有信徒投訴雖然特別為影音使團員工薪津奉獻﹐卻驚見他們居然可以拖欠員工薪水﹐並同時又開展事工。


每年所謂的財務報告﹐列出從奉獻所得收入﹐每年不超過200萬﹐但幾年的公開籌款﹐影音使團呼籲捐獻的遠超此數目。


每次籌款並不清楚列明那些是營運開支﹐那些是硬件﹑設備投資﹐那些是 overheads﹐那些是利息開支等等。


而涉及“挪亞方舟驚世啟示”的預算﹐突然增加50% (200萬變300)﹐到底是事前計劃不週詳﹐沒有比較精準的預算﹐還是因為事工實行出問題導致超支﹑還是因為事工成功所以添食﹖但我們無從得知﹐因為影音使團提供的資訊實在太少。



 


可能的隱懮



我們不清楚影音使團到底債務有多大﹐多少是長期債項。影音使團因為債務導致財政問題﹐眾教會有沒有義務替他們承擔﹖



又或是原來部份項目沒有經過謹慎計劃結果“爛尾”﹐那些奉獻了的如何得知呢﹖



我們對影音使團的呼籲


為釋除大家的疑慮﹐影音使團﹐以後仿傚上市公司一樣﹐公佈﹕


1) 每年工作報告﹐並有定期財務報告


2) 經過核數師核實的資產負債表﹑ income statement


3) 每年預算


4) 核數師報告


5) 內部程序的審計報告 (internal process audit report)


6) 未來展望



突破機構在他們網頁有一份內容很好的年報﹐實在比美上市公司的年報﹐而且內容實在和清楚﹐一目瞭然。大家可以參考一下。



 


 


我們期望如何長遠改進對基督教機構的監管



 


長遠而言﹐為了避免基督教機構良莠不齊﹐善用信徒的捐款﹐應該建立一個完整的監管機制﹕


1) 立法


可以推動在香港首先立法規範基督教機構無論是什麼形式﹐只要透過教會或信徒任何形式籌集經費﹐都需要受到規管。


參考加拿大的方法﹐政府可以隨時對基督教任何機構抽查﹐特別是向機構外的信徒或公眾籌集經費的作為社會服務組織﹐防止籌集的金錢被誤用﹐要求他們提高透明度﹐仿傚上市公司一樣﹐公布 每年工作報告﹑ 經過核數師核實的資產負債表(balance sheet) 收支表 (Income and Expenditure account)﹑每年預算﹑來年計劃﹑核數師報告﹑內部程序的審計報告 (internal process audit report)



2) 基督教成立法定中介組織監察和進行審計



獨立於基督教機構﹐由毫無機構背景的平信徒專業人士組成﹐可以考慮基督教教內直接選舉產生﹐並請邀請社會非信徒人士參與。



中介組織接受公眾﹐包括非信徒和信徒監管﹐公開會計賬目。


中介組織提供審計服務和引入守則﹐幫助機構改善運作。但為了避免角色衝突﹐絕對不會提供咨詢服務 (Consultancy) 也不會牟利。



3) 引人良好管治規範 (best governance practices)


例如﹕


a) 有一個類似小憲法的原則文件規範


b) 機構管治的 operation manual / quality manual


4) 舉辦鼓勵性的活動﹐表揚機構管治水平高並且用榮耀神﹑服務人群的機構﹐領袖等等﹐鼓勵事工拓展 (例如新意念﹑擴大受眾等等)


選舉最佳管治基督教機構 (Best Christian Organization Governance Awards)


選舉最佳事工拓展 (Best Christian Organization Venture Development Awards)


選舉最佳基督教機構領袖(Best Christian Organization Leadership Awards)



總結


香港的社會發展已經和數十年前不少機構初出來的時候複雜﹐而服務需求和資源分配比以前更加重要。同時由於基督教開始在公眾有更加高的 visibility﹐機構誠信﹑基督教機構作為 corporate citizen corporate witness的功能﹐更加明顯﹐故此更加要完善管理﹐以防發生羞辱神的事情。

KP / 2005-04-10 18:15:23.0

Waiting eagerly for the open letter


As the title suggests, a letter to ME seems to be a right thing to do. Whether the letter should be sent to ME first in private, and then, if there is no reasonable response, to the public, can be discussed. But the issue of accountability should indeed be address.

cindy / 2005-04-06 13:02:38.0

to 山:


那是分段問題,我以為用不同字體己表明了。


而我的意見是︰影音使團的作風引起教會公眾關注機構的運作、財務及誠信。


但不應只針對一個機構,因為胡牧師指出的是一個基督教機構的現象。

William / 2005-04-06 09:14:58.0

Waiting to see the open letter


Regarding Cindy's quotation of Rev. Wu's article, it is a matter of paragraphing problem.  I think she knows well what did Rev. Wu said and what he didn't say.


The paragraphs after the quotation of Rev. Wu's article is Cindy's comment  as 山said.


I am waiting to see the open letter. We need to address the issue not just to Media but then Media should get more attention since they are getting the public attention much more than any other organizations.  It is not because 樹大招風 but one should be responsible for what he or she did. You sow what you reap, this is the principle from the Bible. They are reaping what they sowed.


 


 

山 / 2005-04-05 12:31:30.0

胡牧師並無指出


胡牧師並無在這文章中指出以下言論:


影音使團之作風,暴露了這個事實。而影音使團作為一「影視傳媒」,它一貫之作大、誇張、失實的宣傳手法,如不自稱為「基督教機構」,並向教會及個人籌款,我們不會追究。我也不會發言表示不滿。


以上言論相信是Cindy姊妹的意見。


 

cindy / 2005-04-04 16:04:34.0

支持kp等的行動,但矛頭不應單指向影音使團


支持公開信,但矛頭不應單指向影音使團。正如胡牧所說︰


港基督教機構甚多,任何信徒或教牧對某項事工有「異象」,即可召聚志同道合者,以公司名義開設,並不斷向教會群體籌集所須經費。由於機構眾多,確實良莠不齊。


 


影音使團之作風,暴露了這個事實。而影音使團作為一「影視傳媒」,它一貫之作大、誇張、失實的宣傳手法,如不自稱為「基督教機構」,並向教會及個人籌款,我們不會追究。我也不會發言表示不滿。


其實有其他所謂「基督教機構」,也有問題,只不過並沒有影音使團「樹大招風」而過了骨。


所以,表示支持,希望眾教會注意。既然基督教機構協會沒有監察作用,教會就要小心,監察了。


 


 

虞瑋倩 / 2005-04-04 12:54:14.0

To KP


KP, the open letter is being drafted and I will finalize it within these 2 days and post it.


However, the open letter should not restrict the audience to Media Evanglism only.


It should also heighten awareness among Christians as to how to make Christian organizations to be accountable and know what to look for before committing funds to any particular Christian organizations (e.g. not just terms without solid programs such as 傳福音, but also clear tasks, plans and directions).


We should have pass the age of merely donate by the so called "moved by Holy Spirit", which in addition, should be complimented by sound and shrewd judgement, so that in such a "competitive" playing fields of so many Christian organizations, those really deliver will get the needed resources, and those "fluke" will be driven to improve themselves.


 

KP / 2005-04-03 19:07:12.0

An Open Letter to ME??


As I follow the discussion in this board, there seems to be some strands emerged. For examples, how much exactly ME has raised for staff salary and different projects, the need of financial accountability, their way of minsitry,etc.  On the other hand, I begin to worry that the good comments and suggestions (or even some demands) here may be in vain if ME has not listened and then respond to these valid concerns.


The summary issues listed by 虞瑋倩 in "To Cindy / LYL / 車郎生 / William / CG" is a good foundation to begin, and I think these concerns represent the voice of many of us who are not as articulate.


I wonder if some brothers and sisters are willing to draft something in form of an open letter and post it to ME and ask for a response. This will consititute a form of (friendly?)  request for accountability. If an open letter is too severe a form, is there any other way to ask for ME to have some response??


As long as ME remains silent and without response, the one who speaks out may not keep on speaking (and sooner or later this discussion will run out of steam), but the way they projects and finances are handled will remain unchanged.


Let the brothers and sisters who are capable keep on leading this good work.


 

車朗生 / 2005-04-02 09:56:36.0

I doubt the numbers


If the ME balloon explodes, it is a shame to the Christianity. I think that immediate corrective measures should be done in order to stop / prevent any possible disasters, even close down ME or sell its products copyright to other firms in order to fix the accumulate problems arise these days.


As you can see from other organizations, if they do not have enough resources, they will shrink their scope of development, as well as lay off employees in order to keep the budget balance. However, you can see ME is still expanding. You can read from job recruitment web site that ME is still hiring 4 - 5 people. In addition to it, from what Andrew Yuen said, they are planning to develop the theme park. I want to ask, where is the source of resources ? Can they predict any profit / loss of these projects ? Unless they are sponsored by enterprise like Sun Hung Kei Proporties Ltd. ? Anyhow, their deficit is growing, and they need more money for further projects, As I predicted, they need at least 20M to survive. However, the accumulated deficit is 8M. I seriously doubted their ability to manage their business.


On the projected numbers ME stated on their advertisement, I heavily doubted it as there is no audited report from them. Everytime they promote their projects, they will use "We want XXX people to believe in God, we want XXX people to know the Christ, we want XXX people to buy the products." Then, ME will say, "This project is of extreme urgency, so please donate. - "我們現處於危急關頭, 有重大事工, 沒有奉獻就不能繼續, 就要停止", then ME said, "我們的同工沒有薪水, 在事工與薪水中間我們要作出決擇". They always link these things together. However, if ME cannot fulfill the most basic requirement - salary, and cannot receive enough donation for projects, that proves the project is not supported by Christians. Then they will ask for people here (USA) and Canada, as well as Australia as the people may not know the real situation ME is now facing....Agenda Setting I can say. Luckily that I receive much news from Hong Kong Christian circle, so I started to know ME's bad reports and fame now.


So, no matter what comes next, I still hope someone in Hong Kong could make ME to deal with this problem as soon as possible.