Lead Stories

Fundraisers for charity frequently cite the Donor Bill of Rights, created by the Association of Fundraising Professionals and other professional fundraising organizations, as evidence of the charity’s good stewardship of charitable contributions.  But what happens when a disgruntled donor claims the charity failed to live up to the high ideals it espoused?

An appellate court in Pennsylvania has rejected a claim that a nonprofit formed to promote the arts should be prohibited from selling its building because it had failed to adequately consider alternatives that would avoid destruction of the building and its unique mosaic façade.  The Court reversed a trial court decision holding that the organization was obligated to show that the decision, “which would all but assure the destruction of the façade,” was in the best interest of the organization and the public to which it is dedicated to serve.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has affirmed a District Court order invalidating a Federal Election Commission Rule on disclosure of donors for independent political expenditures.  The Court has determined that the statute requires broader disclosure than the FEC had previously required.  If this decision stands, it could require public disclosure of all donors of more than $200 to an organization that makes independent expenditures of more than $250 in a calendar year.

The Pennsylvania Legislature, with little publicity or fanfare, has passed two significant changes in the law governing endowments and other restricted funds. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has extended the scope of the “ministerial exception” that prohibits courts from hearing claims of employment discrimination brought by teachers at religious schools.  It has reversed and remanded two separate cases from the 9^th Circuit, in which the Court of Appeals had reversed trial court summary judgments in favor of the schools and held that the teachers did not meet the criteria for being a “minister” previously established by the Court.

A state’s chief deputy Attorney General supervising the work of charities was properly allowed to testify as an expert witness in a criminal prosecution of a charity CEO accused of fraudulent misuse of organizational funds, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held.  It has affirmed the federal District Court’s opinion that the Attorney General’s testimony was limited to background topics, was relevant, and not unfairly prejudicial.