Posts Tagged ‘church’

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.

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.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93 other followers