Its been more than six months since we first commented on events involving various New York Chapters of the Disabled American Veterans ("DAV"). At the time, we focused on a dispute over a housing project and separate allegations of financial wrongdoing. At the time the New York Attorney General was investigating matters.
We are disturbed by the pace...
| Our Guide, Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good, A Guide for the Non-Profit Director and Officer," devotes an entire module to the organizational aspects of non-profits, examining the role of the board, the officers, and the members. Our Guide also discusses the governing documents. If your organization wants to avoid the sort of issues discussed in this post, buy a copy of our Guide today. Call us at 888.824.6706 for additional information. We also do on site training. |
of the New York Attorney General’s office investigation. No doubt the office is quick to jump into headline-grabbing cases involving the NYSE, AIG, and a large segment of the mutual fund industry. But when it comes to more mundane matters, New York’s attorney general is a pokey bear. While the events involving the DAV may be mundane in the larger scheme of things, they are just as important to those involved as Dick Grasso’s compensation is to Dick Grasso.
The May 10, 2005 edition of the New York Times reports (K. Semple, Discord in New York Branch of Disabled Veterans Group) that the investigation continues as the internal politics at several New York chapters of the DAV heat up. Those politics make clear the importance of procedure. According to the Times, on February 15, 2005, Joe Bello was elected to the Manhattan Chapter of the DAV with hopes of cleaning house at the state level. There was a slight problem. The election had apparently been held on the wrong (the third) Tuesday of the month—the by-laws called for the election on the second Tuesday of the month. The state commander of the DAV then suspended both the Manhattan chapter of the DAV and Mr. Bello, claiming that Mr. Bello had been disruptive. The Times reports that an ally of Mr. Bello was also suspended.
What’s really going on here? Well, the Manhattan chapter has about 3,500 members, making it New York’s largest chapter. Given its size, it also has the greatest ability to influence the New York state chapter, which is where the money is. As an aside, the Manhattan chapter also nicely illustrates the problem facing many membership organizations: At the last election, only two dozen or so of its members voted, according to the Times.
We are deeply troubled by the action of the New York state chapter. It would be one thing to kick members out of an organization for starring in porn movies, sleeping with children, or being cruel to animals. But the members in question apparently disagree with how the organization is being run. In typical autocratic fashion, the 78-year old adjutant of the New York state chapter justifies the state chapter’s action by stating, "We fought for this country." This should carry about as much weight as claims by politicians that “we’re doing it for the children—those little innocents.” Quite frankly, we’re sick and tired of people using “the children” as battering rams to push lobbyist driven, special interest legislation through Congress, as well as state and local legislative bodies. To the 78-year old adjutant, we say: "When you were fighting for your country, weren’t you fighting for a system that allows different points of view be heard and respected?” In short, you may have fought for your country, but don’t dishonor that service by using it to silence the minority. And doesn't everybody in the DAV have an equal claim to the "I fought for my country" banner?
At the same time, this case illustrates why the minority has to be savvy. Had there not have been a technical foot fault, we suspect the New York state chapter would have had a far more difficult time suspending the Manhattan chapter. It would have also been more difficult to suspend Mr. Bello and his ally from another chapter.
There is a bigger lesson here for those just starting membership organizations. You do have the right to include rules defining who can be a member and on what basis a member can be suspended from the organization. The Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Boys Scouts of America v. Dale makes that clear, at least with respect to membership requirements. Obviously you will want to draft your organization’s membership requirements so that your organization represents the interests of a rationally-defined group. At the same time, you do not want to draft rules that permit the majority to use procedural rules to defeat a minority that has a different take on policy, but also fits within the rationally-defined group. If at some point the two groups arrive at irreconcilable differences, the by-laws should define "divorce" procedures. In our view, minority members should not have to sacrifice access to organizational resources to go their own way. After all, their dues and efforts help create those resources.
If you liked this post, please visit http://www.charitygovernance.com
for a description of our Guide/Tutorial for non-profit directors and
officers entitled “Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good: A Guide for the
Non-Profit Director and Officer.” Copyright 2005, Auto Didactix LLC. All Rights Reserved. You may not
copy any portion of this post to a computer "clipboard" for re-posting
anywhere or e-mailing, or otherwise reproduce this post. If you want
others to review this post, you may provide them with a link to this
web blog. Any use of the material or ideas in this post by reporters or
other publishers shall make reference to Jack Siegel, author of
"Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good, A Guide for the Non-Profit Director
and Officer" and this web blog. For additional information call 773-325-2124
HE
FOREGOING IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE. IF LEGAL
ADVICE IS REQUIRED, THE NON-PROFIT OR OTHER PARTY IN QUESTION SHOULD
SEEK THE ADVICE OF QUALIFIED LEGAL COUNSEL.
