Tag Archives | Non Profit Law Blog

Info You Can Use: Commerciality Doctrine (What The Heck Is That?)

By | on October 24, 2011 | Comments { 0 }

Hat tip to Non-Profit Law blog for providing the link to Charity Lawyer Ellis Carter’s 2009 post about the Commerciality Doctrine. As you can probably tell from the title of this entry, I wasn’t really aware of this doctrine at all, but it is actually very important in terms of an organization’s 501 (c) (3) status.

According to Ellis,

Commerciality Doctrine has evolved in the courts and is applied to determine whether an organization complies with Section 501(c)(3)’s requirement to operate exclusively for exempt purposes. A key factor indicating an organization is operating in an excessively commercial manner is that its activities are in competition with those of for-profit commercial entities.

Reading what criteria the courts use as a test for whether a non-profit organization is operating in an excessively commercial manner, I start to get a little nervous:

-pricing to maximize profits;

-generation and accumulation of unreasonable reserves;

-use of commercial promotional methods, such as advertising;

-sales and marketing to the general public;

-high volume of sales;

-the organization uses paid professional staff rather than volunteer labor;

-the organization discontinues money losing programs; and

-the organization does not receive significant charitable contributions.

Most organizations probably don’t have to worry about accumulation of unreasonable reserves and seating capacity may limit high volume of sales. If arts organizations start to adopt dynamic pricing for shows, they may have to watch how high they push prices. But a lot of non profit arts organizations have professional staffs who have replaced volunteers somewhere in their history. Even those without professional staffs use advertising, sales, marketing and discontinue money losing programs. How do you not flirt with violating your status under this criteria?

So is it actually good to keep those money losing programs around? Apparently so…

Factors evidencing the absence of a commercial purpose include the following:

-lack of competition with for-profit entities;

-below market rate pricing;

-relatively insubstantial reserves;

-lack of commercial advertising practices;

-the absence of sales to the general public;

-low volume of sales;

-use of volunteers and low-paid non-professional staff; and

-significant charitable contributions.

This list almost makes a virtue of incompetence and lack of ambition.

But the first thing I thought of after reading this list was, what about the Roundabout Theatre? How the heck have they avoided being shut down on this basis. Except for requiring as significant charitable contributions as anyone else, they are a non-profit that essentially fails on every one of these measures.

They actually may have run afoul these laws and I am just unaware of it. Plenty of commercial Broadway producers have expressed criticism about the way the Roundabout and other non-profits like Lincoln Center enjoy a competitive advantage over them. Back in 2000, long before he became chair of the NEA, Rocco Landesman wrote,

“increasingly the template of success comes from the commercial arena, which is, in the end, not dedicated to the art so much as to the audience. The uber-model for this trend is ”the American Airlines Roundabout Theater,” whose artistic director, Todd Haimes, saved a bankrupt institution by adapting contemporary, market-savvy, the-audience-is-king techniques of modern corporations. Pleasing the customers, giving them what they want in the form they expect, works for Coca-Cola –…It would, I suppose, be hyperbolic to say that Todd Haimes has had a more pernicious influence on English-speaking theater than anyone since Oliver Cromwell (and it wouldn’t be nice, either, since Mr. Haimes is a personable and honorable man)”

Now it should be noted that Landesman’s piece expressed regret that the non-profit theater movement toward a commercial orientation due to market forces has meant that little original work is created any more. Though he has “accused Haimes of running a wolfish commercial operation in the sheepskin of a publicly funded institution.”

The idea that decision making in non-profits shouldn’t be motivated by a need to compete with commercial entities is probably part of the basis for the criteria of the Commerciality doctrine. Although Carter provides an example of it, I wonder how often and strictly the Commerciality Doctrine is applied to non-profits. With cuts to arts funding at all levels and an oft repeated litany that performances should be self supporting or not occur at all, is it fair to require that non-profits ignore the pressure to support themselves with strategies that create more earned revenue?

Todd Haimes has said as much,

“I feel enormous pressure to generate income for our theater,’…`I’ll do anything within reason, as long as it goes back into the nonprofit purpose of the Roundabout,” Haimes said. “So I’m trying to be more creative.”

With a $40 million budget in 2008, $12 million in donated and needing $13 million in sales, most of us are not anywhere near Roundabout Theatre’s ability to raise scowls from commercial competitors. We do face similar pressure to perform well and might well find our ambitions causing problems for our tax status given that so many other aspects of non-profit operations are being examined.

Read full story

Info You Can Use: Does Friending A Candidate Endanger Your Non-Profit Status

By | on September 27, 2011 | Comments { 0 }

The Non Profit Law blog linked to a really great publication put out by the Alliance for Justice that explains whether your online activity might run afoul prohibitions in your 501 (c) 3 status. This is the clearest explanation of these issues I have read.

“This guide aims to answer the questions nonprofit managers most frequently face regarding the Internet and social media.”

The document covers situations that don’t involve online activity, but really it is the social media element that comprises the uncharted territory that people aren’t clear about. The document makes a distinction between lobbying, which a 501 c 3 non-profit can do and supporting a candidate, which they can’t.

Though sometimes the distinction is very subtle. For example, you can make a post on Representative X’s Facebook account, “Rep X, support the arts by voting Yes on Bill 123.”and that is direct lobbying. If you post a slightly different message, “People of My State, tell Rep X, to support the arts by voting Yes on Bill 123, ” and that is considered grassroots lobbying because it is a general call to others to take some action. If you post, “We love Rep X because she supports the arts and voted Yes on Bill 123,” that is promoting a specific candidate.

Except in some very specific circumstances, you can’t link to a candidate’s website. In fact, you can’t link to any website that promotes a candidate and you are responsible for making sure the content of the site doesn’t change since you first linked to it.

For example, you are doing a renovation and link to the website of the company that is providing you with sustainable wood as a way of proving to your constituency that you are acting responsibly. If the supplier changes their website to criticize a candidate’s stance on logging, your organization might be in trouble.

There are also restrictions on allowing employees to use company equipment, even on their time off, to express support for a candidate.

In answer the question posed by the title of this entry, no, you can’t friend a candidate on Facebook or follow them on Twitter. They are free to friend and follow your organization. Even though etiquette suggests you follow them in return, the IRS suggests you don’t.

About the only time you are safe to have a promotion of a candidate on your website is if you allow Google to place ads on your website and have no control over what they are placing.

There are a lot of other questions answered in the document as well. Since a lot of 501 (c) 3 organizations are associated with 501 (c) 4s which have looser restrictions, they provide some detailed guidance about how closely connected their activities can be. The guide also deals with setting policies for renting your mailing lists, guest bloggers, moderating blog commenters, using photos, hosting videos.

It is clear that there are going to be a lot of nuances specific to the activities of different organizations. However, if you have had questions about what is permissible as lobbying and prohibited as campaign support, and don’t have a tax lawyer immediately available, this is a good place to start to find your answers.

Read full story

Info You Can Use: Board Action In The Age of Technology

By | on September 21, 2011 | Comments { 0 }

Hat tip to the Non-Profit Law Blog for providing a link to a piece on the Charity Lawyer blog about board votes by unanimous written consent.

An organization upon whose board I sit was recently revising its bylaws and the subject of voting on courses of action between meetings arose. We were especially interested in the legality of voting by email.

I can’t imagine we are the only ones having this conversation and fortunately, Ellis M. Carter at Charity Lawyer provides some answers.

“Unlike directors voting at a meeting which may require only a majority of the directors to approve any board action, most states that permit action by written consent require unanimous approval. Once an action by written consent is signed by all of the directors, the written consent resolution will have the same effect as a unanimous vote of the Board.

In such cases, a consent resolution will be sent to each individual director by mail, email or fax for his or her signature. To streamline the signature gathering process, the written consent document can permit counterpart signatures. This means that each director can sign the signature page of his or her copy and the signed signature pages, when taken together, are considered a validly executed document.

[...]

Generally, the action is considered to be taken on the date the last director signs the consent. For recordkeeping purposes, the signed consents must be kept by the secretary in the corporate minute book. Additionally, the resolution should be entered into the minutes of the next board meeting and made part of the official record of the corporation.”

In respect to emails, in order to remove any question of legality or whether an emailed response may have been made by an unauthorized person who gained access to an unattended computer, it is best to use a password protected electronic signature such as is available in Adobe documents. If that is too difficult, Carter suggests just printing the email, physically signing it and send it back by fax, regular mail or a scanned attachment to an email.

Read full story

Info You Can Use: You Tweeted What About Me?!

By | on August 29, 2011 | Comments { 0 }

So after my post a couple weeks ago about why it is bad in a legal sense to have a restrictive social media policy, I am sure some of you have been wondering under what circumstances you can actually discipline someone for what they post online.

Well thanks to a piece on Forbes website, we have an answer (and hat tip to Gene Takagi)

As I had mentioned in my earlier entry, you can’t forbid, and therefore punish, any attempt to organize employees in a discussion about employment conditions. Under labor law, this is termed “protected concerted activity.” If a person is speaking for a group of employees or attempting to organize a discussion among employees, it is protected.

However, there are some tricky nuances to this and a link on the Forbes article to a National Labor Relations Board report, “Report Concerning Social Media Cases,” delves into the matter and presents specific cases to explain why the employee was or was not protected by the law. As Kashmir Hill, the author of the Forbes article notes, it is actually pretty easy and interesting to read for a government document.

My read is that with the current state of social media it may be fairly difficult to fire someone for complaining about work conditions. Essentially, if other employees chime in either on or off line to agree that an employer is a jerk for making employees work under certain conditions, the speech is protected as representing a group complaint. If other employees just comment that they are sorry to hear a situation upset the poster, then the poster may not be speaking on behalf of other employees.

It is only when a comment passes a certain threshold where a person is wishing violence upon people or making statements which are maliciously false that protection of representing a group complaint may not apply. However, being called a power-hungry, martinet jackass does not meet the standard for maliciously false. Suggesting a restaurant buys rat dropping to make their ground beef go further probably would.

Complaints that are clearly representative of an individual’s opinion aren’t protected, especially if they do not invite or receive the agreement of other employees. The same with complaints about the job which are not terms and conditions of employment like saying your store gets the ugliest customers in town.

One interesting fact that came up in a number of the NLRB case studies is that you can not have a blanket policy prohibiting people from posting pictures of themselves in company uniform or in connection with the company logo. ”

“…Employer’s logos or photographs of the Employer’s stores would restrain an employee from engaging in protected activity. For example, an employee could not post pictures of employees carrying a picket sign depicting the Employer’s name, peacefully handbill in front of a store, or wear a t-shirt portraying the Employer’s logo in connection with a protest involving terms and conditions of employment.”

The NLRB documents didn’t say it outright, but presumably you could fire someone if they posted a picture of themselves drunk in uniform at a strip club or urinating on your corporate logo. Though I have no idea if a number of employees urinating would be considered a group cause or not.

Another part of the NRLB document I found useful was two case studies starting on page 19 that first discussed a company’s social media policy that they considered to be too broad. In the second case, they found the policy was lawful but the other prohibitions were too broad. Finally, there was a case where a company’s policy restricting employees’ contact with the media was deemed lawful.

I felt all three were very useful because they all contained rules that any of us might include in our policies. In the first two cases, it is good to know what types of language one should keep out of policies. The last case included restrictions on media contact out of a desire to have one voice speak for the organization. Again, a situation for which many organizations strive.

“…we determined that a policy that stated that “the company will respond to the news media in a timely and professional manner only through the designated spokespersons” could not be read as “a blanket prohibition” against all employee contact with the media. Additional language in the rule referring to “crisis situations” and ensuring “timely and professional” response to media inquiries further clarified that the rule was not meant to apply to Section 7 activities.

Similarly, we concluded here that the Employer’s media policy repeatedly stated that the purpose of the policy was to ensure that only one person spoke for the company. Although employees were instructed to answer all media/reporter questions in a particular way, the required responses did not convey the impression that employees could not speak out on their terms and conditions of employment.”

Read full story