GS 2025 Article 168 – Audit / Review
1. Material
- 1.1 Letter from Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) (8.2.2.1)
2. Admissibility
- 2.1 The letter was declared admissible
- Grounds: The letter pertains to reports submitted to GS 2025 and was received on time.
3. Observations
- 3.1 Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) expresses concern about the use of the term “audit” in several reports to GS 2025.
- 3.2 The submission notes that some committees describe financial reviews as “audits” or refer to reviewers as “auditors,” although no audit was conducted according to professional or legal standards.
- 3.3 Examples cited include:
- The Committee for Needy Students’ Fund Report (top of p. 4 and p. 15);
- The Guelph-Emmanuel Pastoral Training Program Funding Committee Report (top of p. 2).
- 3.4 The letter contrasts this with the Board of Governors of the Seminary, which uses the term “audit” properly and provides supporting documentation (pp. 7, 27, 28 of its report).
- 3.5 Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) urges synod to instruct reporting committees to use financial terminology that accurately reflects the nature of the review performed.
4. Considerations
- 4.1 The term “audit” carries specific professional and legal meaning. Using it for informal or non-professional financial reviews risks confusion and may create inappropriate expectations about the level of scrutiny applied.
5. Recommendations
That Synod decide:
- 5.1 To acknowledge as legitimate the concern of Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) regarding the imprecise use of the term audit in some reports.
- 5.2 To instruct all committees and reporting bodies to use terminology in financial reporting that accurately reflects the procedures performed. The term “audit” should be used only when a professional audit has been conducted. Other forms of review should be described using terms such as “examination,” “inspection,” or “review,” as appropriate.