Ethnos360's ECFA accreditation

According to its ECFA profile, Ethnos360 has been an ECFA member since 2018. ECFA proclaims its purpose is "enhancing trust in ministries and churches." This goal is admirable and much needed in today's world, but does ECFA's accreditation of Ethnos360 enhance trust?

According to ECFA's standards page, "ECFA's Seven Standards of Responsible Stewardship™, drawn from Scripture, are fundamental to operating with integrity... ECFA-accredited ministries are committed to upholding these standards." What if I told you that Ethnos360 objectively has not met this standard for the entirety of its membership, from 2018 to the present?

Among the seven standards ECFA purports to require of its members, Standard 2, governance, states "Every organization shall be governed by a responsible board of not less than five individuals, a majority of whom shall be independent..." and "When a ministry encounters failure—or even worse, scandal—its difficulties can almost always be traced to a breakdown in governance. For this reason, ECFA places much emphasis on strong, effective governance."

This would lead us to believe that ECFA finds this standard important and surely wouldn't accept a member who didn't meet this standard, but that doesn't seem to be the case. A majority of Ethnos360's board members are not independent, and, in fact, according to Ethnos Truth Project, such board composition would violate Ethnos360's bylaws.

I've heard murmurs that ECFA does not do a great job of ensuring members are meeting their guidelines but just takes the organization's word for it. I decided to reach out to ECFA asking about this seemingly unearned accreditation. I presented the information regarding Ethnos360's board composition, and to my surprise, ECFA was fully aware that Ethnos360's board is not in compliance with Standard 2. What I learned is that ECFA creatively "interprets" its guidelines until they are unrecognizable.

Here is a portion of the response I received from the Vice President of Member Accountability compared with the wording from the description of Standard 2.

In the email, the VP of Member Accountability says they're working with Ethnos360 to change the composition of its board going forward, but the part that stands out to me is the fact that ECFA seemingly had no problem accrediting Ethnos360 for over 5 years even though the wording of the ECFA "interpretation" (first image) is clearly in violation of the actual standard (second image).

Does that enhance trust?