Archived: Reformed Theological College: mini-charity review

Mini charity review of Reformed Theological College (RTC) as an organisation that invites you, on its website, to donate to it.

Is it responsive to feedback?

• When sent a draft of this review, they…did not respond.

Is RTC registered?

• As a charity, yes.
  • What is not shown on this record though – RTC has not taken advantage of the ACNC’s group reporting concessions – is that it controls two other charities:
    • The Trustee For The (sic) Reformed Theological College Foundation and
    • Pigdons Road Pty Ltd
• Other registrations:
  • ITA is a public company, a company limited by guarantee.
    • Its name: It is permitted to omit ‘Ltd/Limited’ at the end.
  • It operates, per the ACNC Register, in all states. No fundraising licences are held^[1].

What does RTC do?

• It is a “reformed, evangelical theological college”.
• Or as they say in the Annual Information Statement 2015 (AIS 2015):
  • The Reformed Theological College is committed to training people to serve God in the whole of life.

Do they share the Gospel?

• NA – students would have already heard it.

What impact are they having?

• No information found.

What do they spend outside the costs directly incurred in delivering the above impact, that is, on administration?

• The expenses are not classified to allow this calculation.

Can you get a tax deduction?

• Yes

Is their online giving secure?

• Security is not mentioned.

What choices do you have in how your donation is used?

• None

Is their reporting up-to-date?

• Yes (five and a half months after year end).

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

• AIS 2015: No
  • A number of the financial figures do not match those in the Income Statement.
  • No outcomes reported.
• Financial Report 2015: No
  • Why not consolidated reports? Both Pigdons Road Pty Ltd and The Trustee for the Reformed Theological College Foundation are subsidiaries.
  • Other comprehensive income is not shown.
  • The item ‘Other expenses…’ is 35% of expenses, yet there is no breakup.
  • There is no related parties’ disclosure.
  • RTC says that the financial statement are general purpose; the auditor says they are special purpose.
  • Why are the two ‘Non-Operating Activities’ any less part of the College’s operations than the ones under ‘Operating Activities’? (This is not a distinction used by the ACNC.)
  • Buildings and the library are not depreciated. (The surplus is therefore overstated.)
  • $116,966 in Note 2 is not ‘Net cash provided by from (sic) investing activities’.
  • The land and buildings valuation is long out-of-date.
  • How does an ‘Overseas student assist (sic) fund’ meet the definition of a liability? Likewise, the ‘Other’ provisions?

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

• With the knowledge that
  • the Report, because it omits RTC’s two subsidiaries, shows an incomplete picture, and
  • adjustments to the figures and disclosures are needed (see just above) –
    • The deficit was again approximately 1% of revenue.
    • Current assets are 1.8 times current liabilities.
    • Longer term financial structure is sound.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

• He gave a ‘clean’ opinion^[2].
  • However, he says he audited ‘a special purpose financial report’ when Note 1 to the accounts says that the report is a general purpose financial report.
• The inclusion of an Auditor’s Compilation Report implies that he also produced the financial statements.

If a charity, is their page on the ACNC Register complete?

• No
  • One business name is missing
  • ‘Phone’ and ‘Website’ are blank.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

• The composition of the board is given on the website, but no names.
• From ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register:
  • John Barkley
  • Johannes Berends
  • John Bylsma
  • Anthony Deenick
  • John Hoogenhout
  • Peter Van Der Schoor
  • Cornelis Van Garderen
  • Dirk Van Garderen
  • Dawid Van Vuuren
  • Harry Westendorp

To whom is RTC accountable?

• To Missions Interlink, because it’s an Associate member.
• RTC is also accountable to the ACNC.

1. The law in this area is not straightforward – is an internet invitation ‘fundraising’ for instance? – and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions. ↑
2. To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here. ↑