This qualitative review examines the impact of governance and accountability on social missions in nonprofit organizations (NPOs). The purpose of this research is to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify the impact of governance and accountability on social missions. The research explored 25 extant works of literature leveraging stakeholder theory to identify the impact of governance and accountability. The author suggests that this research may contribute to the body of knowledge related to governance, accountability, and conflict of interest in NPOs. The implication of this review will inform recommendations for NPOs on how to measure outcomes, be accountable, and practice governance that is devoid of crisis. The articles are relatively recent and appeared between 2000-2020.
{"title":"Governance and Accountability: A Systematic Review to Examine Its Impact on Social Mission in Nonprofit Organizations","authors":"Louis Eguzo","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3743856","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3743856","url":null,"abstract":"This qualitative review examines the impact of governance and accountability on social missions in nonprofit organizations (NPOs). The purpose of this research is to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify the impact of governance and accountability on social missions. The research explored 25 extant works of literature leveraging stakeholder theory to identify the impact of governance and accountability. The author suggests that this research may contribute to the body of knowledge related to governance, accountability, and conflict of interest in NPOs. The implication of this review will inform recommendations for NPOs on how to measure outcomes, be accountable, and practice governance that is devoid of crisis. The articles are relatively recent and appeared between 2000-2020.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131694851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is a preliminary guide to legal issues that impact groups engaged in mutual aid. It is targeted to groups that have been responding to the COVID-19 crisis in New York, but has information that may be relevant for groups engaged in mutual aid in other contexts and other places. It gives legal information on topics including: risk of liability; questions around governance and incorporation; safety policies, liability waivers, and insurance; banking and mutual aid; funding mutual aid and taxation of mutual aid; crowdfunding regulations; and food storage and safety rules.
{"title":"Legal Issues in Mutual Aid Operations: A Preliminary Guide","authors":"Michael Haber","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3622736","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3622736","url":null,"abstract":"This is a preliminary guide to legal issues that impact groups engaged in mutual aid. It is targeted to groups that have been responding to the COVID-19 crisis in New York, but has information that may be relevant for groups engaged in mutual aid in other contexts and other places. It gives legal information on topics including: risk of liability; questions around governance and incorporation; safety policies, liability waivers, and insurance; banking and mutual aid; funding mutual aid and taxation of mutual aid; crowdfunding regulations; and food storage and safety rules.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122382166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In addition to valuing whether a tax policy is equitable, efficient, and administrable, I argue we should ask if a tax policy is politically just. Others have made a similar case for valuing political justice as democracy in implementing just tax policy. I join that call and highlight why it matters in one arena—tax exemption. I also further that discussion by arguing that politically just tax policy does the least harm to the democratic functioning of our government and may ideally enhance it. I argue that our right to an equal voice in collective decision-making is the most fundamental value of political justice. To test this case, I evaluate our choice to exempt “social welfare organizations” from the U.S. income tax. In addition to efficiency and equity, I also ask whether the policy is politically just in a democratic sense. I examine three models of democratic justice: liberal, republican, and deliberative. In making the democratic case, I try to find commonalities among the three in order to further what an agreed upon notion of democratic justice might look like in the tax context. I contend that the notion of democratic justice must exist at the substantive level of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”). This Code-level application demonstrates that the typical criteria of efficiency and fairness do not provide sufficient criteria to evaluate the justice of tax-exempt policy. Political justice provides additional important evaluative criteria. There are likely significant other parts of income tax policy that need to be considered from the value of political justice as democracy as well.
{"title":"Political Justice and Tax Policy: The Social Welfare Organization Case","authors":"Philip T. Hackney","doi":"10.37419/LR.V8.I2.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37419/LR.V8.I2.2","url":null,"abstract":"In addition to valuing whether a tax policy is equitable, efficient, and administrable, I argue we should ask if a tax policy is politically just. Others have made a similar case for valuing political justice as democracy in implementing just tax policy. I join that call and highlight why it matters in one arena—tax exemption. I also further that discussion by arguing that politically just tax policy does the least harm to the democratic functioning of our government and may ideally enhance it. I argue that our right to an equal voice in collective decision-making is the most fundamental value of political justice. To test this case, I evaluate our choice to exempt “social welfare organizations” from the U.S. income tax. In addition to efficiency and equity, I also ask whether the policy is politically just in a democratic sense. I examine three models of democratic justice: liberal, republican, and deliberative. In making the democratic case, I try to find commonalities among the three in order to further what an agreed upon notion of democratic justice might look like in the tax context. I contend that the notion of democratic justice must exist at the substantive level of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”). This Code-level application demonstrates that the typical criteria of efficiency and fairness do not provide sufficient criteria to evaluate the justice of tax-exempt policy. Political justice provides additional important evaluative criteria. There are likely significant other parts of income tax policy that need to be considered from the value of political justice as democracy as well.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121050628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Between 2011 and 2018, 35 American universities and colleges divested, either partially or completely, their endowments from fossil-fuel holdings, marking a shift toward sustainability in university endowment investment. However, the decision by these universities to divest was often marred by controversy, owing to conflicts between student- and faculty-led coalitions and the university board. Principally, endowment fiduciaries are averse to divestment decisions because they think that it will hurt the endowment's value, but this concern, motivated by a narrow interpretation of fiduciary law, can be empirically examined. To date, the academic study of the effect of divestment on endowment values has focused on the top university endowments and has produced mixed results. Our study is different from the extant but limited literature in this area in that we examine holistically the impact of total or partial divestment on endowment values for all universities as well as a select group of institutions that are illustrative of their peers by endowment size. More importantly, we evaluate the assumption that divestment does injury endowment values through legal and empirical lenses. Results from our difference-in-differences analyses of the effect of full and partial divestment suggest that either form of divestment does not yield discernible consequences--either positive or negative--for endowment values, at statistically significant levels. However, we do find evidence that divestment improved the value for three of four universities that we examined through synthetic control analysis, with the greatest increase in value at a university with a very large endowment (Stanford University) and modest increases at two universities with mid-sized and large endowments, respectively (University of Dayton and Syracuse University). Thus, the negative consequences of divestment may be overstated in the near-term. This challenges the assumption that divestment yields negative returns to endowments and cracks open the door for endowment fiduciaries to divest without violating duties of loyalty and prudence. We hope that this study both grounds and advances the debate about endowment divestment with empirical evidence and a reasoned discussion of its costs and benefits.
{"title":"Examining the Impact of Divestment from Fossil Fuels on University Endowments","authors":"Cj Ryan, C. Marsicano","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3501231","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3501231","url":null,"abstract":"Between 2011 and 2018, 35 American universities and colleges divested, either partially or completely, their endowments from fossil-fuel holdings, marking a shift toward sustainability in university endowment investment. However, the decision by these universities to divest was often marred by controversy, owing to conflicts between student- and faculty-led coalitions and the university board. Principally, endowment fiduciaries are averse to divestment decisions because they think that it will hurt the endowment's value, but this concern, motivated by a narrow interpretation of fiduciary law, can be empirically examined. \u0000 \u0000To date, the academic study of the effect of divestment on endowment values has focused on the top university endowments and has produced mixed results. Our study is different from the extant but limited literature in this area in that we examine holistically the impact of total or partial divestment on endowment values for all universities as well as a select group of institutions that are illustrative of their peers by endowment size. More importantly, we evaluate the assumption that divestment does injury endowment values through legal and empirical lenses. \u0000 \u0000Results from our difference-in-differences analyses of the effect of full and partial divestment suggest that either form of divestment does not yield discernible consequences--either positive or negative--for endowment values, at statistically significant levels. However, we do find evidence that divestment improved the value for three of four universities that we examined through synthetic control analysis, with the greatest increase in value at a university with a very large endowment (Stanford University) and modest increases at two universities with mid-sized and large endowments, respectively (University of Dayton and Syracuse University). Thus, the negative consequences of divestment may be overstated in the near-term. This challenges the assumption that divestment yields negative returns to endowments and cracks open the door for endowment fiduciaries to divest without violating duties of loyalty and prudence. We hope that this study both grounds and advances the debate about endowment divestment with empirical evidence and a reasoned discussion of its costs and benefits.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124783810","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-13DOI: 10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2020.110
Ellen P. Aprill
This paper considers section 4941, the private foundation excise tax on self-dealing, on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. Part I gives background on section 4941. Part II compares the rules of section 4941 to the parallel ones applicable to public charities, including the special rules for supporting organizations and donor advised funds. The fiftieth anniversary of the private foundation excises taxes is also an appropriate time to confront two foundational questions, and Part III does so. It first asks whether we can view the private foundation taxes in general and section 4941 in particular as constitutional exercises of Congress’s taxing power under the tests announced in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sibelius. Second, it considers whether we should characterize the section 4941 excise tax as a Pigouvian tax – a hot category among economists but less familiar to lawyers. It answers “maybe not” to the first and “yes but” to the second. Inconsistent Congressional treatment of self-dealing by section 501(c)(3) organizations and the low level of enforcement lead me to question the effectiveness of our current self-dealing rules. Thus, this examination concludes by suggesting a number of possible changes to the excise taxes applicable to tax-exempt organizations. The conclusion not only considers in detail a relatively small but potentially significant change – expanding abatement rules for first-tier excise taxes to section 4941, but also endorses a large one – the suggestion that approaches outside of the Internal Revenue Service be considered for regulating the charitable sector.
{"title":"The Private Foundation Excise Tax on Self-Dealing: Contours, Comparisons, and Character","authors":"Ellen P. Aprill","doi":"10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2020.110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2020.110","url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers section 4941, the private foundation excise tax on self-dealing, on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. Part I gives background on section 4941. Part II compares the rules of section 4941 to the parallel ones applicable to public charities, including the special rules for supporting organizations and donor advised funds. The fiftieth anniversary of the private foundation excises taxes is also an appropriate time to confront two foundational questions, and Part III does so. It first asks whether we can view the private foundation taxes in general and section 4941 in particular as constitutional exercises of Congress’s taxing power under the tests announced in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sibelius. Second, it considers whether we should characterize the section 4941 excise tax as a Pigouvian tax – a hot category among economists but less familiar to lawyers. It answers “maybe not” to the first and “yes but” to the second. \u0000 \u0000Inconsistent Congressional treatment of self-dealing by section 501(c)(3) organizations and the low level of enforcement lead me to question the effectiveness of our current self-dealing rules. Thus, this examination concludes by suggesting a number of possible changes to the excise taxes applicable to tax-exempt organizations. The conclusion not only considers in detail a relatively small but potentially significant change – expanding abatement rules for first-tier excise taxes to section 4941, but also endorses a large one – the suggestion that approaches outside of the Internal Revenue Service be considered for regulating the charitable sector.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125369420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-01DOI: 10.1017/9781108235983.011
Jianlin Chen, Junyu Loveday Liu
Drawing on the Law & Religious Market theory, this Chapter utilizes the case study of China to explain 1) how regulation of ostensibly non-economically motivated activities (i.e., religion and charity) can be properly conceived as a form of market regulation; and, 2) how such a conception can add a valuable dimension to the discourse. In particular, this Chapter situates China’s regulation of charitable activities by religious organizations in the context of recent major legal reform on charity law and highlights the contradictory treatment where, on one hand, the law recognizes the self-interested motivation of participants and donors of charitable activities and accommodates their co-opting of charitable activities to promote or advance commercial interests but, on the other hand, specifically prohibits religious organizations from any religious propagation during provisions of charitable services. This Chapter argues that from the perspective of market regulation, such denial of religious “self-interest” hampers the purported policy objectives of promoting greater religious participation in charitable activities but may be justified on the grounds that it promotes religious competition that is normatively desirable.
{"title":"Managing Religious Competition in China: Regulating Provisions of Charitable Activities by Religious Organizations","authors":"Jianlin Chen, Junyu Loveday Liu","doi":"10.1017/9781108235983.011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235983.011","url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on the Law & Religious Market theory, this Chapter utilizes the case study of China to explain 1) how regulation of ostensibly non-economically motivated activities (i.e., religion and charity) can be properly conceived as a form of market regulation; and, 2) how such a conception can add a valuable dimension to the discourse. In particular, this Chapter situates China’s regulation of charitable activities by religious organizations in the context of recent major legal reform on charity law and highlights the contradictory treatment where, on one hand, the law recognizes the self-interested motivation of participants and donors of charitable activities and accommodates their co-opting of charitable activities to promote or advance commercial interests but, on the other hand, specifically prohibits religious organizations from any religious propagation during provisions of charitable services. This Chapter argues that from the perspective of market regulation, such denial of religious “self-interest” hampers the purported policy objectives of promoting greater religious participation in charitable activities but may be justified on the grounds that it promotes religious competition that is normatively desirable.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124018080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) first officially sanctioned a charitable income tax deduction for the donation of a conservation easement in 1964. In 1980, Congress enacted § 170(h), which authorizes a deduction for the donation of a conservation easement or a façade easement that is “granted in perpetuity” to a government entity or charitable organization “exclusively for conservation purposes.” The deduction has encouraged thousands of property owners to donate easements that protect land and historic structures with important conservation and historic values. The deduction has also, however, been subject to abuse, including valuation abuse.
{"title":"Conservation Easements and the Valuation Conundrum","authors":"N. McLaughlin","doi":"10.5744/ftr.2016.10021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5744/ftr.2016.10021","url":null,"abstract":"The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) first officially sanctioned a charitable income tax deduction for the donation of a conservation easement in 1964. In 1980, Congress enacted § 170(h), which authorizes a deduction for the donation of a conservation easement or a façade easement that is “granted in perpetuity” to a government entity or charitable organization “exclusively for conservation purposes.” The deduction has encouraged thousands of property owners to donate easements that protect land and historic structures with important conservation and historic values. The deduction has also, however, been subject to abuse, including valuation abuse.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133432327","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-03-07DOI: 10.4337/9781785369995.00036
Oonagh B. Breen
This chapter focuses on three questions in its quest to better understand the historical and comparative perspectives of charity regulation. Accepting the traditional rationales for such regulation, it first explores the question of ‘how we regulate’ followed by the interrelated question of the associated cost of such regulation. Finally, the chapter examines the important issues concerning how we currently (or could better) measure the success of charity regulatory efforts. The paper draws upon the experiences of charity regulators in a range of common law countries across the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore.
{"title":"Redefining the Measure of Success: A Historical and Comparative Look at Charity Regulation","authors":"Oonagh B. Breen","doi":"10.4337/9781785369995.00036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785369995.00036","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on three questions in its quest to better understand the historical and comparative perspectives of charity regulation. Accepting the traditional rationales for such regulation, it first explores the question of ‘how we regulate’ followed by the interrelated question of the associated cost of such regulation. Finally, the chapter examines the important issues concerning how we currently (or could better) measure the success of charity regulatory efforts. The paper draws upon the experiences of charity regulators in a range of common law countries across the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130590744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Many nonprofit organizations are governed by boards of directors comprised of individuals who often have been invited to join the board based on their contributions of time and money. For many, this is either their first board membership or yet another conducted within an environment lacking the experience and structure of board governance typically found in a publicly-traded corporation. Accordingly, governance of many nonprofit enterprises presents both similarities and differences from the governance of a for-profit entity. How is nonprofit governance different from that conducted in for-profit organizations? How do you build the best board for your nonprofit? What attributes and skills are required by law and what mix of experiences and talents will give you the best result? What are the commonly required director attributes that are a must for each board and how do you customize and fine-tune your efforts to achieve a high-performance board? Optimal board composition; achieving the best mix of director skills and experience, will depend on many enterprise-specific variables. Some of the most important of these for nonprofits include, but are not limited to: (1) enterprise lifecycle stage, (2) extent to which certain experiences and skills are mission critical (detailed understanding of target culture, mission, stakeholder composition, and risk; (3) unique technology dependence (social media); and (4) the need for capacity expansion (fundraising). Our goal in writing this paper is to provide: answers to these basic questions; a roadmap for the nonprofit enterprise faced with recruiting a board; a matrix methodology that every nominating committee and board can employ to systematically inventory their people assets, strengths and weaknesses, define their needs, explore their options; and provoke radical thinking about how any enterprise-specific system of governance may be improved by questioning existing fundamental assumptions. Our article proceeds in six parts. First, we offer a few thoughts about nonprofits, their various missions and common challenges. Second, we discuss why good governance is important in a nonprofit setting and highlight examples of frauds that have been reported due to the absence of good governance. Third, we present a look at Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requirements imposed on nonprofits. Fourth, we explore the law of nonprofit corporate governance applicable to all directors serving on the board of a nonprofit. Fifth, we discuss board composition and committee structure. Sixth, we present a process that involves an inventory of current board strengths and weaknesses and then offer some thoughts about use of a matrix template to assist in discovering necessary board skills and experiences of board candidates. And last, we conclude.
{"title":"Nonprofit Governance: The Basics","authors":"L. Trautman, J. Ford","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3133818","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3133818","url":null,"abstract":"Many nonprofit organizations are governed by boards of directors comprised of individuals who often have been invited to join the board based on their contributions of time and money. For many, this is either their first board membership or yet another conducted within an environment lacking the experience and structure of board governance typically found in a publicly-traded corporation. Accordingly, governance of many nonprofit enterprises presents both similarities and differences from the governance of a for-profit entity. \u0000 \u0000How is nonprofit governance different from that conducted in for-profit organizations? How do you build the best board for your nonprofit? What attributes and skills are required by law and what mix of experiences and talents will give you the best result? What are the commonly required director attributes that are a must for each board and how do you customize and fine-tune your efforts to achieve a high-performance board? Optimal board composition; achieving the best mix of director skills and experience, will depend on many enterprise-specific variables. Some of the most important of these for nonprofits include, but are not limited to: (1) enterprise lifecycle stage, (2) extent to which certain experiences and skills are mission critical (detailed understanding of target culture, mission, stakeholder composition, and risk; (3) unique technology dependence (social media); and (4) the need for capacity expansion (fundraising). Our goal in writing this paper is to provide: answers to these basic questions; a roadmap for the nonprofit enterprise faced with recruiting a board; a matrix methodology that every nominating committee and board can employ to systematically inventory their people assets, strengths and weaknesses, define their needs, explore their options; and provoke radical thinking about how any enterprise-specific system of governance may be improved by questioning existing fundamental assumptions. \u0000 \u0000Our article proceeds in six parts. First, we offer a few thoughts about nonprofits, their various missions and common challenges. Second, we discuss why good governance is important in a nonprofit setting and highlight examples of frauds that have been reported due to the absence of good governance. Third, we present a look at Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requirements imposed on nonprofits. Fourth, we explore the law of nonprofit corporate governance applicable to all directors serving on the board of a nonprofit. Fifth, we discuss board composition and committee structure. Sixth, we present a process that involves an inventory of current board strengths and weaknesses and then offer some thoughts about use of a matrix template to assist in discovering necessary board skills and experiences of board candidates. And last, we conclude.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125039685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-30DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190634100.013.6
L. Mayer
This chapter provides an overview of the fiduciary principles that apply to charities and other nonprofit organizations. More specifically, it discusses the criteria that trigger a fiduciary relationship, the duties of loyalty and care, other legal obligations that may apply to nonprofit fiduciaries, and the extent to which those duties and obligations may be modified or avoided. In the course of doing so, it draws upon applicable state law, applicable federal tax provisions, and various model and uniform acts. It also discusses and critiques the approaches taken to these principles by the draft Restatement of the Law, Charitable Nonprofit Organizations.
{"title":"Fiduciary Principles in Charities and Other Nonprofits","authors":"L. Mayer","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190634100.013.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190634100.013.6","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter provides an overview of the fiduciary principles that apply to charities and other nonprofit organizations. More specifically, it discusses the criteria that trigger a fiduciary relationship, the duties of loyalty and care, other legal obligations that may apply to nonprofit fiduciaries, and the extent to which those duties and obligations may be modified or avoided. In the course of doing so, it draws upon applicable state law, applicable federal tax provisions, and various model and uniform acts. It also discusses and critiques the approaches taken to these principles by the draft Restatement of the Law, Charitable Nonprofit Organizations.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133007841","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：