|
P31W -> RE: Asking For Your Offering Back (6/9/2008 11:53:56 AM)
|
quote:
But that is not what you said HERE, which is what we are telling you is wrong.
I disagree. This IS what I was told after that post.
"If you specifically designated funds for a specific project, a church or charity must use those funds for that particular project or not use those funds at all. "
and
"That is not entirely correct. The members of the church can't vote for something that is contrary to law. They also can't vote away someone else's rights.
For example, if you are a donor, but not a member of the church, that vote is not binding on you.
There was actually an article in the WSJ today about this exact topic. I would like to it, but it is behind the paywall. It said exactly what phosadaud said, that charitable organizations must use donations for the specific thing they were donated for (unless they were not directed donations). It even listed some examples, including a school that got a donation that was contingent on them remaining a women-only school. When they decided to admit men, they had to disclaim the gift.
The law seems to be very clear -- if a donation is made to a specific project, it can only be used for that, unless the donor agrees to the change. And that means the specific donor, it is not "majority rules.""
and as I began to get more specific with you posted this concerning the clause "right to redirect"
You cannot vote in a clause that is contrary to law.
then you said
"Chances are pretty good that no one will take it to court--especially if you point to the clause in the by-laws or the disclaimer on the envelopes or whatever.
But, if someone comes along, donates money to a designated fund and later finds out the money was used contrary to what they designated and decides to take it to court, the church will not only lose the lawsuit, but also probably lose its tax-exempt status.
Attorneys do not always give advice that will hold up in court. And, unless you have this guy on retainer, he isn't going to be the one that suffers. He could always say you misunderstood his advice if called to testify... "
_________
quote:
OK from what I understand it is going to depend upon how the chruch is set up to handle situations such as this.
In my church if someone gives money to say the "cemetary" fund. They have designated the funds to it and we discover we cannot pay our light bill our church has already decided and voted at a business meeting to take funds from whatever group and put it into the general fund. So what they are doing is not necessarily illegal.
I stand by my position.
If my church is ever in the position that we cannot afford to pay our operating expenses then we will not accept any "designated" funds. We will close out whatever designated fund(S) we believe are necessary and use that money to pay the power bill and whatever bills we have.
Now if you would have in "any" of your post to me said you could not use "part" of the fund and directed me back to that post of mine I would have to agree that this is incorrect. But none of you did.
I do know and understand "what" was being argued in this thread....the right of a Church to redirect designated funds.
|
|
|
|