THE GCAS INVESTIGATION

We [the EXCOM] have an audit being done by GCAS to verify that the previous mining contracts were implemented correctly and the correct income was received by the Church.

       – The EXCOM, open letter to the church boards, 16 March 2022, p. 5.

Since 2017, when the mining operation started again for real, an increasing number of church members have raised questions as to how the mining operation was conducted. Gradually, these ponderings turned into questions and then into criticism, especially due to the fact that the EXCOM did not answer these questions. Instead, the EXCOM decided to ask the General Conference Auditing Committee (GCAS) to investigate certain aspects of Eden’s operation. The EXCOM made the following clear (in private conversations, emails, Hafnarfjörður church board meetings, and in their own 16 March 2022 open letter): The EXCOM would not take any action regarding the mining case nor make any comments until GCAS completed its investigation. The conclusions of GCAS would include final answers pertaining to the mining operation and thus it would serve as a final verdict. [1] 

In the eyes of the EXCOM, this investigation by GCAS was of such importance that the EXCOM postponed Session until GCAS had delivered its verdict. Session should have been held in May 2022 but was postponed until the subsequent autumn to ensure GCAS would have delivered its report before Session would begin. 

However, it took the EXCOM an extensive time to submit its request to GCAS. In May 2021, it was decided to submit the case to GCAS.[2] The EXCOM then cancelled that decision.[3] 

The request was then renewed with different wording in October 2021. Originally, the intent was that GCAS would answer five investigative questions (but questions 3–5 were then withdrawn):[4] 

1. Have Eden’s payments been in accordance with the contract?

2. If not, what is there to be done regarding the amount that seems to be missing?

3. Are the present provisions of the contract acceptable and can they be regarded as in accordance with good stewardship?

4. If not, what advice can be given concerning contract amendments?

5. Are there substantial reasons for rewriting/terminating the contract with Eden?[5] 

This investigation inevitably had a legal side: What does the contract say about payments and their calculations, and were these provisions kept or not? 

The EXCOM received the GCAS report in May and summoned the church boards to a meeting, 24 May 2022.[6] The Church boards were asked to submit questions regarding the mining case in advance.[7] At the meeting, GCAS representative Michael Merrifield read the report and answered questions pertaining to it.[8] He did however emphasize that GCAS had only investigated issues pertaining to the financial aspect of the case, and that he could not answer legal questions about whether Eden had complied with the contract or not.[9] The questions submitted by the church boards were not covered at the meeting, and despite the fact that the majority of the church boards voted for another meeting to cover such questions, the EXCOM eventually decided not to hold such a meeting.[10] 

During the winter of 2021–2022, the EXCOM refused to comment on the mining case and referred to GCAS.[11] At the GCAS meeting, however, it became clear that GCAS refrained from answering questions pertaining to legal issues and referred them back to the EXCOM. The parties, referred to each other. Thus the GCAS investigation did not address the question of church members who wanted to bring the mining case in all its aspects into the open. And as of yet, the EXCOM has not answered their questions either. Why not? According to the EXCOM’s report which the EXCOM sent to delegates for Session 22–25 September 2022, the reason is that “holding a meeting for the sole purpose of answering questions would probably increase rather than decrease the pain in the Church and would in addition leave the Church in more uncertainty than ever without providing a solution” and discussion and answers to questions would “cause deep hurt within our church family” and “a public disrespect of God.”[12] 

Are church members satisfied with this logic?

[1] To this effect, Executive Secretary Þóra Sigríður Jónsdóttir’s words at the end of the GCAS meeting, 24 May 2022. When it became clear that the majority of the church boards wanted another information meeting concerning the mining case, she said: “We [in the EXCOM] were hoping that the submitted questions … we were hoping that this meeting tonight would answer most of the questions that you in all the church boards have had.” Þóra Sigríður Jónsdóttir, GCAS-meeting, 24 May 2022, typed up and translated by the author.

[2] The resolution concerning the GCAS investigation cannot be located in the published minutes, but it is probably one of the “confidential matters” that are designated as such in the minutes. It is probable that the resolution is no. 2021/47, the resolution before the one rejecting Kristján Ari Sigurðsson’s investigation (resolution no. 2021/48). The reason given for the rejection was that the GCAS-investigation would take over his investigation. The author’s conversation with Kristján Ari Sigurðsson.

[3] This decision does not appear in the published minutes of the EXCOM 2021. But supporting this assertion, the words of the President can be provided: “The Executive committee has requested the TED to facilitate an external audit of Eden mining. This was originally to be performed by GCAS but the cost was deemed too high and alternative arrangements are being sought with another GC body. We had hoped this audit would have been finished early Summer, but due to the need for alternative arrangements, we are unsure when this will take place, although we have requested this to be completed as quickly as possible. Until this audit is completed, the Conference will not be commenting further on matters relating to Eden Mining.” Gavin Anthony, email to Jón Hjörleifur Stefánsson, 20 August 2021.

[4] “WHEREAS The IC has recently moved forward in working towards a new contract with Eden Mining that involves input from GC legal, the TED and an Icelandic lawyer, 

VOTED

To remove points 1, 4 and 5 from the GCAS letter of engagement and request a proportionate reduction in fees. The remaining two points for investigation by GCAS are as follows:

1. Determine whether the income received from Eden mining fulfilled the terms of the contract.

2. Identify factors to consider in addressing any income not received under the terms of the contract.” The EXCOM, resolution no. 2021/92, 5 October 2021.

[5] The original five questions were leaked to the author.

[6] Gavin Anthony, email to church leaders, 30 March 2022.

[7] “If your board has specific questions, we would like ask your board send us your questions ahead of time so we can prepare as best we can.” Gavin Anthony, email to church leaders, 30 March 2022.

[8] The author witnessed the meeting via Zoom. The meeting was accessible to all church members via Zoom.

[9] “I am not an attorney, I‘m not trying to interpret the contract . . . There are findings associated with [our analysis] and I am not going to call them non-compliances, I am not an attorney, I am not pretending to be one, but our findings indicated that there were some issues with the application of the terms of the articles of the contract. But the key finding with that is the fact right here [the GCAS report, p. 5] that neither party ‘exercised their rights to rescission’ and [did not consider] any of these findings that we had identified as major defaults in the contract. So both parties [Eden og samtakastjórn] continued. So it doesn’t really matter to us [GCAS and Kristján Ari Sigurðsson] as non-principals to this contract whether we think they’re [Eden] in violation of the contract or not. The fact is that they [Eden and the EXCOM] continued with prevailing terms of the contract.” Michael Merrifield, GCAS meeting, 24 May 2022, emphasis of the speaker.. Cf. also the GCAS report, April 2022, p. 3.

[10] On 30 May 2022, the EXCOM decided to hold a meeting for informative purposes on 23 June and decided the meeting agenda. It was also decided to “Collate and publish all questions / letters we have received and provide written answers before the meeting.” The EXCOM, resolution no. 2022/56, 30 May 2022. This meeting was never advertised At its next meeting, on 21 June, two days prior to the intended meeting, the EXCOM decided to probe further into the possibility of a meeting since the EXCOM, since they were “still waiting on legal clarification on the mining issue” from their lawyer. The EXCOM, resolution no. 2022/57, 21 June 2022. During the following meeting, on 4 July, the EXCOM discussed “how to move forward with the situation that has risen around the mining business” but no decision was reached. The EXCOM, item no. 2022/58, 4 July 2022. No mention was made of the mining issue in the following meetings (unless confidential item no. 2022/66, 4 August 2022 was regarding the mining issue). It is clear that the EXCOM did not hold a second information meeting. The EXCOM wrote a mining report which reveals that the EXCOM decided to cancel the meeting. Cf. EXCOM, “Skýrsla um námuna” (Report about the mine).

[11] See, e.g., Gavin Anthony’s email to Jón Hjörleifur Stefánsson, 20 August 2021.

[12] The EXCOM, “Skýrsla um námuna” (Report about the mine), pp. 81, 84.