Archive for the ‘Charitable Choice/Church-State Separation’ Category

Eternal vigilance is the price of—birth control?

February 10, 2012

The lesson from this past week’s Komen/Planned Parenthood contretemps is that when women make our voices heard in defense of the health care we need, we win the argument.

So let’s not hesitate to make just as much noise in response to the hysteria now being whipped up about the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that all health care providers offer free contraception.  Republican rhetoric suggests that this is the equivalent of requiring churches to distribute RU-486 instead of communion wafers; but that’s complete nonsense. Actual religious organizations are exempt. What’s not exempt is the network of hospitals and schools run by those religious organizations.

Hospitals and universities affiliated with religious groups aren’t exempt from the Civil Rights Act. As a result, they’re required to provide health care to women as well as men. Birth control is an essential part of health care for women—a fact you’d think most people would concede, as it’s a way of preventing the abortions they’re so horrified by.

The largest Catholic university in the country already provides birth control as part of its health plan. 28 states already require hospitals and universities to provide this minimum standard of care. If your employer dictates your health plan, and your health plan dictates where you get care—as most plans do—you may be sent to a Catholic hospital regardless of your own beliefs.  Why isn’t it a violation of your religious freedom to be denied the care you need based on someone else’s dogma?

This is just a sketch of the arguments we can and must make, and make loudly, before the noise-makers on the other side take away the health care we’re entitled to and count on.

Write the President, write your Congressperson, write your Senator, write the Secretary of Health and Human Services, write the editor, sign every petition that shows up in your mailbox.   Tell them: don’t compromise our health.

S.O.S.: Save Our Services.  If we don’t do it, no one else will.

Dear Nonprofiteer, There’s trouble in the pulpit: Can I get a witness?

December 20, 2010

Dear Nonprofiteer,

I’m dealing with a non-profit corporation, a church as a matter of fact, that is for all practical purposes a for-profit business masquerading as a non-profit.  The board is not independent—it is made up of the leader, her family and various of her hangers-on.

It would be easy to just walk away from this situation—it is so tempting!  However, taking the easy way out to let the organization fail on its own isn’t necessarily the way to minimize the harm the organization will likely do along the way while doing this masquerade.

Do you know of any tests that can be applied to non-profits, especially churches, that can expose cases where they are for-profits masquerading as non-profits?  If you have any other advice or guidance I would be glad to receive it.

Signed, Clean and Pure

Dear Clean and Pure,

There are all sorts of phony nonprofits.  There are “Astroturf” nonprofits, subsidiaries of for-profit corporations purporting to be grassroots efforts to educate the public on issues of financial import to the corporations.  There are what I’d call “lunch bucket” nonprofits, which exist to accept Congressional earmarks whose benefits actually flow primarily to for-profits.  And then there are flat-out scam nonprofits, which exist to provide tax-shielded income to their founders rather than the public benefit for which the tax shield is a quid pro quo.

The good news is, the IRS discourages out-and-out scams by requiring 501c3 groups to raise one-third of their income from public donations.  Though it seems peculiar on the face of it to identify charities by their income rather than their outflow, the theory seems to be that raising money is such hard work, no one would be willing to do it just for the purpose of stealing.  It’s easier to sell something, anything, and then steal from the earned revenue.  So that’s one of the many reasons that agencies which support themselves entirely by earned revenue are presumptively for-profits (and therefore taxpayers).

State Attorneys General also keep track of the scams, requiring agencies to specify a public or charitable purpose (which is sometimes broader than the IRS’s definition of a nonprofit, sometimes narrower) in order to qualify for tax-favored treatment.  (At the state level, this includes exemption from property and sales taxes, among others.)

There are hard and fast IRS rules about when a presumably public charity needs to be re-classified as a private foundation, but that represents a decision about which kind of nonprofit we’re dealing with, not the “phony nonprofit” scenario you’ve described.  Further details about those decisions and other IRS rules of thumb are available on the very clear and comprehensive IRS Website (no, really!) on the subject.  The decisions and guidelines often refer to  something soporific like “reclassification of exempt organizations,” but they are full of traps for the unwary nonprofit as well as disincentives for the dishonest one.

The bad news is, neither Federal nor state regulations are very often enforced against churches.  The First Amendment protects free exercise of religion and prohibits the government from becoming “excessively entangled” with religious organizations.  “Excessive entanglement,” according to the courts, includes most tax regulation, for if the government has the power to insist on an audit, what faith institution would be safe from government oppression?

This is all very well, except for situations like the one you’ve described.  Occasionally someone will petition the state Attorney General or the IRS to reclassify a “church” as a non-church to capture the kind of self-dealing you’re talking about.  But that would be very occasionally, which is why Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and their ilk have managed to get so wealthy under cover of the cloth before crashing and burning for more venial (but juicier) sins.

The only thing you can do to keep yourself clean is to walk away.  If you’d like to notify your state’s Attorney General and/or Secretary of State that you believe this agency is not actually a church, you may do so.  But bear in mind that the burden of proof will be on you, and the mere fact that the pastor and her brood and buddies govern without membership input and  seem to be well-paid will not be enough.  Many churches are governed without membership input except in an advisory capacity (consider parishes of the Catholic Church, or affiliated congregations of the Lutheran Church, in which the diocese or the synod rules and the congregation obeys).  And many ministries are a family business: think Billy Graham and his son.

So though the Nonprofiteer wrinkles her nose in distaste at the situation you’re describing, she thinks you have no recourse but to walk away.  If you’re right, and the agency will crash and burn without your intervention, so much the better.  This would demonstrate the wisdom of the Bible saying, “All things come to him who wait.”

Sorry.

Of church and state

March 11, 2009

A friend who’s a church administrator mentioned to the Nonprofiteer that the church’s fundraising is up these past few months, and that the administrator’s  job is safer than it’s been in years because of the sudden inflow of support from parishioners.  Historically churches have done better during recessions and depressions, as people direct their giving to places that provide comfort, or perhaps just to places benefiting them rather than other people.

This fact puts a slightly different spin on the President’s otherwise troubling appointment of a minister to lead the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Service.  If the churches are the only agencies attracting contributions, then it makes sense to lean hard on them to be ones providing desperately-needed social services.  The Nonprofiteer may prefer secular agencies, but what’s important is that people get services from somewhere.

Of course, this makes it all the more important that the President and Attorney General move aggressively to combat any discrimination in service provision or in hiring by these religious organizations.  If they’re going to do Caesar’s work they’d better abide by Caesar’s law.

Interesting that in this recession/depression, the two best places to look for a job seem to be church, and state.  Especially with employment in the secular nonprofit sector projected to decline 20%.

Dear Nonprofiteer, Can a church board shut out the congregation?

July 10, 2008

Dear Nonprofiteer,

The church to which I belong holds monthly board meetings to conduct church business. As a member of this community I wish to attend if for no other reason than to observe and better understand the issues and challenges that our face our congregation. I am told that our by-laws do not allow my attendance other than at yearly annual meetings which are more of a presentation of selected information than an actual meeting in any sense of the word. I have checked the by-laws and indeed they state in part: “Due to the confidential nature of some agenda items, Board Meetings are not open to the membership.”

While I don’t doubt that there are confidential items that are best handled in private, I feel this is a cop-out as any meeting can be organized so that there are public and private portions. After all we, the congregants, are the owners of the church, not the board which is currently operating as an ivory tower.

When I served on my Condo board we were structured in such a way that the first portion of the meeting was open to homeowners who could come and ask questions/make comments followed by the public portion of the meeting during which time they could stay and observe but not comment. While it sometimes made for long meetings it was an effective tool in allowing our stakeholders access to the board and the transparency proved to be vital.

As a stakeholder in my church, should I not be allowed the same access? Besides, aren’t there legal requirements that board meetings be open to their stakeholders (I think it’s called the Brown Act)?

Signed, Disenfranchised Congregant

Dear Disenfranchised:

You’ve raised two separate questions (at least two)–whether it’s a good idea for Board meetings to be open to church members, and whether it’s required by law or custom. Unfortunately, the answers to these questions point in two different directions.

The Brown Act is a California state statute requiring open meetings by local government bodies, which has served as a model for Open Meetings Acts around the country. Though nonprofits aren’t local governments, in any state the legislature or courts may choose to make applicable the open meetings act to the meetings of charity Boards of Directors; so the Nonprofiteer can’t say definitely that it doesn’t apply in the case you’ve described.

BUT. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits establishment of religion and guarantees the free exercise thereof, pretty well prevents most governmental bodies from inquiring closely into the operation of churches. The only way to maintain the separation of church and state is to keep the long arm of the law from reaching past the church door; so, even if some Brown Act-equivalent applied to other nonprofits in your state (such as your condo association), it couldn’t be applied to your church. No sane State Attorney General would even try.

So that means, as a member of the congregation, you’re pretty much on your own. The first place to look for assistance is the place you’ve already looked: the bylaws. Don’t be discouraged just because those bylaws say that Board meetings are closed; instead, see what they say about the bigger question, namely, who “owns” the church? Are members of the Board of Directors elected by the congregation, or is it a self-perpetuating Board? Can changes to the bylaws be made by the Board alone, or must they be approved by the congregation? The answers to these questions will tell you whether congregants are, in fact, members of the governing community, or whether you’re just guests at the feast.

If you [congregants] can fire the Board of Directors and/or amend the bylaws, it seems to follow that you can insist that the Board and the bylaws conform to your desire for open meetings–assuming that your personal position on this subject is also the position of a majority of your fellow-congregants. The Board should respond to reasoned discussion of the subject, but if it doesn’t, you simply vote the bastards out at the next scheduled opportunity.

If, however, the church Board is self-perpetuating, or appointed by a synod of your denomination, then you may be out of luck. In that case the church “belongs” to the people who set it up, and your only choice is to play by their rules or take your ball and go home.

None of this, of course, suggests that it’s actually a good idea for Board meetings to be closed at any kind of nonprofit agency, secular or religious. Sunshine, as the saying goes, is the best disinfectant, and most agency decisions should be suitable for examination in the light of day. There will certainly be confidential issues–especially personnel matters–that shouldn’t be discussed in an open meeting; but that’s a reason to go into occasional Executive Session (which Robert’s Rules of Order allows, whether or not the bylaws mention it), not a reason never to be in open session.

So: good practice is on your side, but the law won’t help you. The bylaws may, by demonstrating your ownership of the institution; but if they don’t, it may well be you don’t want to belong to a club that wouldn’t have you as a governing member.

“. . .bless the United States and this honorable Court”

December 11, 2007

The Constitution triumphs.
"Faith-based" social services are a snare and a delusion, an
opportunity for religion to gain a foothold in civic life where it
doesn’t belong, an opportunity for the state to control the church for
the state’s own purpose, an opportunity for union-busting.   

God only knows

December 10, 2007

Here’s a problem for the entire nonprofit sector: a pair of preachers refusing to provide information to Senator Grassley’s investigation of expenses claimed on the religious equivalent of the Form 990.  These evangelical ministers apparently share the view of their co-religionist in the White House that obedience to the law is merely one of several options and that responses to Congressional subpoenas are best delivered with the middle finger of the hand

What difference does this make to other charity leaders?  Well, the Senator wants to examine the preachers’ expenses to determine whether they and their churches have been violating the Internal Revenue Code’s prohibition of excessive personal gain through tax-exempt work.  While there are some significant limitations on what the government can do to secure cooperation from religious organizations–for good Constitutional reasons which this pair of jackasses is exploiting for its own benefit–no such limitations apply to secular nonprofits.  So here’s an enormous spotlight being shone on our favorite issue, expenses and their abuse; and if the actual abusers manage to dodge into the wings, the light’s going to land on some other agency, certainly less well-protected and probably more sinned-against than sinning. 

Not to mention the obvious fact that we owe our privileged status to legislation–legislation that can be modified at any time, in any way that may seem satisfactory to an enraged and stymied legislative branch.

Isn’t that the way it always goes?  It only takes a few to ruin it for all the rest.

What a 501(c)(3) can do, and what it can’t

April 3, 2007

Bravo to Catholics for a Free Choice for suing Priests for Life, which CFC alleges is violating its 501(c)(3) status by supporting antichoice Senator Sam Brownback for President.  Remember: you CAN advocate for withdrawal of women’s constitutional rights and nonetheless preserve your tax-exempt status; you CAN’T support a Presidential candidate who promises to eradicate those rights and maintain the favor of the IRS.

With apologies to Daniel Webster: It is a small distinction … yet, there are those who love it.

More on God.gov in the prisons

December 14, 2006

In response to Iowa’s system of permitting evangelical Christians to give or withhold improved treatment in state prisons based on their opinion of whether prisoners have made adequate spiritual progress, Commenter Professor Laura Ginger writes,

I heard Senator Brownback who is running for President saying unbelievably frightening and moronic things on NPR yesterday, making the argument that this prison project is constitutionally OK.  “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” indeed!

Professor Ginger is too kind: Brownback doesn’t just say moronic things but actually does them.  Thus, we find the Senator spending time in prison (well, it was bound to happen, wasn’t it?) to make the point how great it is to force religion down people’s throats when they can’t defend themselves. 

Hoist on his own petard

October 27, 2006

It’s a bit ironic that the latest religion-and-politics scandal involves the election of Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, according to the lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.  That’s because aggressive enforcement of charity laws–including, though not restricted to, laws against religious institutions’ participating in elections–seem to be the latest stairway to the stars for Attorneys General with aspirations to higher office.  The notoriously tough Eliot Spitzer may be about to become Governor of New York, while Illinois’ Lisa Madigan seems to have stepped up enforcement of nonprofit conduct just about the time the state’s governor (and putative leader of her party) begins to drown under a wave of Federal charges of corruption.

Enforcement of nonprofit laws is essential to maintain public willingness to contribute to charity, and certainly the Nonprofiteer holds no brief for politically active churches (because they’re usually on the other side, truth be told); but it’s troubling that dumping on charities is so popular that it’s in the ambitious politician’s quiver right next to accusations that one’s opponent has only recently stopped beating his wife.

More on the real function of faith-based social services

October 10, 2006

Yesterday’s New York Times featured a blood-curdling account of the lack of protection enjoyed by employees of religious charities.  Unlike other Americans, those employees can be fired for getting sick or trying to form a union, because neither the Americans with Disabilities Act not the National Labor Relations Act applies to their employers.  They can be deprived of their retirement benefits with no remedy: church-related institutions are exempt from the provisions of Erisa, which regulates employee retirement plans, and from participation in the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which assures that employers can’t use their employees’ pension plans to play the stock market.  The hell with euphemisms: religious institutions are permitted to steal from their employees.

This is bad enough when applied to members of religious orders.  (The Times article, with its lead about the nun dismissed for having breast cancer, causes us to wonder whether women are disproportionately affected by exempting religious employers from operating in the most basic good faith; but then we remember that it doesn’t matter, because the equal opportunity laws don’t apply either).  There are reasonable arguments to be made for keeping the courts out of the business of second-guessing decisions made in the ordinary course of church governance.  But when applied to such apparently secular employees as writers for the Christian Science Monitor, or janitors in parochial schools, the lack of any workplace protections–from hazardous working conditions, from mandatory overtime, from below-minimum wages–seems, well, ungodly.    


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93 other followers