How Corruption Gained a Foothold in the Mexican Union of Chiapas
A story translated from Adventist Today Latin America. Included links will often be in Spanish, but can be translated using internet browser translation tools.
“We pray and desire for the Lord to manifest Himself here, so that all who come here can find something different,” said Pastor Elie Henry, president of the Inter-American Division (IAD), during the inauguration of the Healthy Living Center in Chiapas on December 20, 2021.
Between June and July 2022, Adventist Today investigators revealed a conflict of interest deal involving the Healthy Living Center (Vida Sana Center) in Chiapas that directly benefited Chiapas Union Mission (UMCh) president Ignacio Navarro and his team, for possibly over a million dollars. Adventist Today’s investigation led to an audit by the General Conference Auditing Service (GCAS). The Inter-American Division issued a statement in December 2022 from Miami, Florida, where it is headquartered, stating that financial investigations would be initiated by GCAS staff. You can view the statement here.
“We take these allegations very seriously and with great concern,” they said.
But did they?
Rancho San Fernando
GCAS auditors audited the Mexican Union of Chiapas (UMCh) December 6-23, 2022. Paul Johnson of GCAS presented a full report to the IAD Committee.
GCAS auditors reviewed property and car transactions conducted by Navarro and his associates during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, a time when church members were facing severe hardships. Additionally, the auditors collected various testimonies from both current and former employees through interviews. Sources who were close to the auditors explained to Adventist Today that the auditors reportedly requested the minutes from Linda Vista University, which contained the approval of the purchase of Rancho San Fernando, owned by UMCh president Ignacio Navarro.
The university spent 12 million Mexican pesos on the purchase—approximately $570,000—which was more than double the $260,000 that Navarro paid for the property. Witnesses interviewed by auditors reported that during that period, Pastor Ignacio Navarro also purchased premium cattle and horses.
Healthy Living Center
The report issued by UMCh also examined the Healthy Living Center construction project, including the acquisition of the lot. You can view the video here. The initial price for the entire lot, without construction, according to the UMCh, would have been 187 million Mexican pesos—approx. $8,900,000. But after negotiations the final purchase price was 22 million Mexican pesos, approximately $1,100,000. The land was chosen in 2017, located next to one of the main roads of the city of Tuxtla Gutierrez.
What the UMCh administrators did not say in the report is that the 1,600-square-meter lot where the facilities were built was also owned by the Navarros, who had purchased it in 2016.
In the property documents published by Adventist Today, Navarro’s wife, Mrs. Sara Morales Jácome, bought the land for about $12,000. It was sold to the Adventist Church of Chiapas for more than $1,000,000. The IAD administrators present at the inauguration blessed the project, but they said nothing about the outrageous cost, or who had benefited.
It appears that the land was not acquired after careful study, but rather on the urging of the Navarros. Carlos Uc, the architect responsible for the construction, found it a poor choice for construction. He explained that the land’s characteristics were “irregular… the land is rich in vegetation and offers excellent views, yet it is not conducive to flat construction.” It was later noted that not only did the land require leveling, but “a creek crossing the property also had to be rerouted, which caused construction delays during the rainy season.” During the GCAS audits, construction on the site was stopped, though it later was resumed.
The transactions for these projects are listed in the property documents provided by Adventist Today’s investigation.
The Navarros owned a 400-square-meter lot next to the Vida Sana Center. While the buildings were being constructed, a two-story house was built on the Navarros’ property. Some have alleged that this was done with materials acquired for the construction of the Vida Sana Center.
Video capture of the inauguration of the Centro Vida Sana – Chiapas.
The Inter-American Division Loan
Adventist Today had access to internal documents of the UMCh, which show a loan made by the IAD to the UMCh in 2012 for $7,700,000. Because the IAD is located in Miami and the dollar is the most stable currency in the region, all loans and debts issued to the Unions and their entities are in dollars. The total debt with interest amounts to $9,400,000, leaving IAD a profit of $1,700,000.
(To see the loan documents, CLICK HERE)
The IAD loan allowed UMCh to appear to be in a stronger financial position than it is. In regions such as the North American Division, trust funds (donations of property and assets, other than tithes) allow conferences or unions to have liquidity for their projects, or to repay loans taken from higher entities. In Latin America the loan would have been accomplished by diverting tithe, which would have been camouflaged as donations to the loan fund. This practice is not authorized by the policies of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as explained to Adventist Today by a source who is a member of the Board of the UMCh, and who provided internal documentation.
IAD’s silence
Corruption isn’t uncommon in all areas of life in Latin America and the Caribbean—and the current situation in this field has the appearance of conflicts of interest in the church. The report delivered by GCAS auditors confirmed the allegations made by Adventist Today. How did the Inter-American Division react?
On December 4, 2023, the administrators of the Inter-American Division—Elie Henry, president; Ivelisse de Herrera, treasurer; and Leonard Johnson, executive secretary—came to Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas. The meeting with union mission administrators and local field presidents was to last from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. However, it was extended until 4:00 p.m.
The reports from the GCAS auditors made the problem evident. The source, who was at the meeting and is a member of the UMCh Board, explained to Adventist Today that the IAD administrators tried to avoid a scandal by moving these men from the Chiapas Union Mission. They extended an invitation to Ignacio Navarro, president for a “special project,” and Jose Luis Bouchot, executive secretary of the UMCh, to take over the North Mexican Union. Fernando Meza, the treasurer, wasn’t offered another position. Nothing. 
But the administrators of the eight fields that make up the Chiapas Union—leaders put in place by Navarro and Bouchot—apparently opposed that decision. Samuel Castellanos, Uriel Castellanos, Julio César, Jeanni Junco, Francisco Ramón, Eloy Pérez, Adriel Clemente, and René Flores argued that if the departure of Navarro and Bouchot was necessary, then a constituency meeting of the UMCh—the body that had elected them—should be summoned. Calling such a meeting is expensive, but more significantly, rather than keeping the problem quiet, a meeting would expose the problems to the entire constituency.
The situation became tense, and the Inter-American Division leaders decided to leave things as they were—though they made it clear that they were withdrawing their approval for Navarro and Bouchot to continue as leaders of the UMCh. It is unclear how much the IAD knew about Navarro’s business dealings. Exposure at this level might make not just the union mission but the IAD itself look culpable. Unfortunately, the inbreeding in the Adventist system means people have incentives to protect one another, and it also weakens their ability to apply anti-corruption policies.
One can’t help but wonder: if the IAD had nothing to hide, why wasn’t the GCAS auditors’ report presented to the constituents in Chiapas?
The problem with GCAS audits
It’s important to understand what an audit is, and what it isn’t. Audits, as done by the church, are not forensic—that is, auditors aren’t a team of detectives looking for corruption and then reporting it publicly. They do flag problematic matters and conflicts of interest when they are able to find them, and honest auditors don’t hide such findings.
It’s also important to say that the audited organization doesn’t pay the auditors: the auditors are paid by the higher level of the organization for which they work—in the case of GCAS, the General Conference. GCAS is operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Its work is focused on doing financial reviews of Adventist organizations. But it operates under strict policy guidelines. The auditors would be unfaithful to their fiduciary responsibilities if they revealed findings to outsiders—even members of their own family.
Yet in the end, the auditors’ reports go into the hands of administrators, not constituencies. And here is the problem. There appears to be no obligation in policy to release these findings to the constituency. And because of the inbreeding in those who run these offices, it is difficult for those who receive the reports to blow the whistle on people with whom they have a relationship.
These rules create the appearance of hiding problematic matters. GCAS auditors might do an excellent job, but its auditors are limited to making recommendations and observations. In the end, administrators in the field decide how those findings will be used, and in Latin America this doesn’t necessarily involve letting church members know. It is easier to simply keep the reports quiet, and move the problematic leaders—a strategy that didn’t work in this instance.
Paul Johnson provided the IAD Executive Committee with all the information regarding the financial anomalies found in the Chiapas Mexican Union Mission. A copy was forwarded to the General Conference. The IAD was the entity responsible to police operational mismanagement in its union mission. Whether or not they will eventually act remains to be seen.
Conclusion
While there is still much we don’t know, it is hard to escape the suspicion that there was complicity in the Inter-American Division in allowing this corruption in Chiapas—either that, or the IAD leaders simply weren’t minding the store. Either way, their response hasn’t addressed the problem. Moving the principals involved in the conflict of interest financial transaction didn’t work. How much better had the IAD acted responsibly to the constituents who support the church with their tithes and offerings by calling a meeting, looking them in the face, and telling them what the GCAS auditors found!
When will it become a requirement that these reports be released to constituents—pastors and lay people—no matter how good or bad the results, instead of being placed in the hands of administrators to do with as they will? It is time to demand transparency in these fields, and to empower the laity so they can make changes as needed.
Daniel A. Mora, is the editor for Adventist Today Latin America.
