Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

BSA Favor Change In WV Constitution

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    24....If you are who you really say you are then you know that no FOS dollars were spent on the arena.


    You guys are silly....Not for profit hospitals rent things all the time.....They manage it....

    They only thing that happens is they get taxed on the % over what they are allowed to make profit.....

    Don't begin to tell me that the Jambo doesn't turn a profit.

    Comment


    • #17
      I frankly have come to believe, "Not for profit", has come to mean, "Take in as much revenue as possible, pay managing executives as much as possible so as not to be profitable and not pay taxes." This concept seems to apply to many not for profit organizations, not just the BSA.

      SA

      Comment


      • #18
        Nonprofit does not mean an institution is not allowed to make a profit. It means any profits are put back into the institution, rather than disbursed to shareholders.

        Comment


        • #19
          I remember an older Hospital Executive who said when remodeling the lobby, a Hospital's Lobby should be impressive enough to create trust strength and hope in all that pass through yet still not mock the term "Not for Profit", it is indeed a tenuous dance

          It probaly applies to more than health care architecture

          Comment


          • #20
            I'm trying to understand why they built an 80,000-seat stadium in the first place. 80,000 seats is huge. And for what? A jamboree every four years? And I have read that the 2013 Jamboree is expected to draw 40,000 Scouts and Scouters. Two seats for each? Even if there is room for growth in there, that's a lot of growth.

            Did they build it with the idea of renting it out for the other 3 years and 50 weeks? And if so, shouldn't they have made sure they could do that without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, before they did it?

            Comment


            • #21
              Maybe they want enough seats for the 30,000-member American contingent they expect for the World Jambo in 2019 because by then they're going to open BSA up to everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religious preference or favorite Skittle flavor.

              Comment


              • #22
                If in fact the jambo itself draws the projected amount, they still need room for visitors. Certainly better too big than too small. It is still a grass hillside, so how much more effort is involved in being sure it is large enough, just in case?

                And yes, hopefully they should find a way to utilize it for non scout activities. Do not understand the concerns. Here, all camps are open to outside groups with various restrictions. Off season, our main camp is booked almost year round on weekends, mostly non scout groups. It helps supplement the upkeep, that is for sure.

                Some camps were built with the stipulations that they be open to other groups, and are simply under the jurisdiction of the BSA in that council. Of course, that is not enough, as the lawsuits most long going all revolve around these very camps that serve the public as much or more than the local scouts. It surprises me that the aquatic camp in L.A. has not been sued; maybe the scouts actually own the property, rather than lease it. But it is open to the public on similar terms as Balboa and Fiesta Island in San Diego. And I am fairly certain that the Newport Sea Base is also open to the public. Then there are the special accommodations with the Costeau group at Emerald Bay that allows public use of the camp related to the oceanography studies during off season.

                Philmont is also used by outside groups at times, and they also cooperate with local conservation and outdoor groups regularly. A friend of mine who lives in Taos has done global warming studies there for a number of years. I suspect the other two high adventure sites also have outside groups periodically, especially off season.

                Our local camp always cooperates with the Forest Service in regard to wild fires, having been a base camp on the Day Fire a few years back, and also having our reservoir/lake always available for helicopters in necessary; at least when it has enough water. It may be dry by the peak season this year am afraid.

                Of course, little if any of these cooperative arrangements and so on are ever noted when the anti BSA groups attack. If actual surveys were done by outside groups, I would not be at all surprised if the extent of "giving back" to local communities, state, and federal locations far exceeds the dollars to which the complainants grouse about.

                If you add in all the Eagle service hours, it likely is not even close. In our small council alone the annual hours to schools, parks (city, state, and national), churches, special groups, and miscellaneous others exceeds 30,000 each year.

                But, none of this matters to those that simply would throw out the "baby" to make a point. JMHO of course.

                Comment


                • #23
                  But, none of this matters to those that simply would throw out the "baby" to make a point.

                  I think you've utterly misunderstood the point of this thread, skeptic. The people saying there's a problem here are with the BSA, not some feared outside agitators.

                  Do not understand the concerns.

                  Again, there are no concerns here - except those expressed by the BSA, in pointing to a provision in the Constitution of the State of West Virginia.

                  Also, what are these camp lawsuits you refer to?

                  In places where camps are owned by a local or state government and leased to a council, they *should* be open to all groups, shouldn't they? In places where camps are owned by private entities and leased to a council, they should be open to those groups that the owner approves. In places where camps are owned by a council, the council can place whatever restrictions it wants on rentals. Pretty simple.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Shortridge is correct. Not every thread in "Issue and Politics" is about the "membership issues." This is an issue of West Virginia nonprofit corporation and/or tax law, something I know nothing about and I suspect very few if any people in this forum know about either. I don't think the reporter who wrote the article knew very much about it either, because I really haven't gotten any sense of why the BSA's nonprofit status would be jeopardized by renting to for-profit groups, assuming that all of the revenue is used either for administration of the BSA or to pursue the programs for which it is chartered. As (I think) someone else said, "nonprofit" really just means there are no shareholders to receive distributions of "profits", and high salaries to executives don't count as profits. (There is a point at which the IRS will start asking questions about salaries; but for a nationwide organization with the revenues that the BSA has, that point is higher than what the CSE makes.)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Shortridge;

                      My point was I do not understand why there might be a problem, as here camps are regularly used by non BSA groups and they pay to do so, just as troops do, though a bit more I believe when private camps. There are camps that are leased, and they all are open to the public on the same terms as scouts. And the two largest in San Diego, Balboa and Fiesta Island are the focus of two combined lawsuits by the ACLU on behalf of people who never even actually tried to use the camps. Their suit is due to the BSA supposedly be a religious organization, so they should not have the lease arrangements supposedly granted that are favorable. Does not matter that they are open completely to the public, and the local council pays and has paid tens of millions of dollars in fees, maintenance, and actually built one from scratch to accommodate a request by the city for a youth aquatic camp. Eventually, this should end up with SCOTUS.

                      But, I suppose noting the suites does not fit with this, based on your comments. Though, if some special tax arrangement were to be made to solve the possible concern, then we likely would find another law suite very quickly. I suppose that is how I got a bit mixed up with this.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Probably this was BSA's mistake too, i.e., assuming laws and statutes in West Virginia would be like other places. Apparently this goes back to a 1944 West Virginia Supreme Court case. From Findlaw

                        real estate is not exempt where owned by a [charitable] organization and is leased for private purposes, notwithstanding the application of the income from rentals to charitable and benevolent purposes and upkeep of the premises.  Central Realty Co. v. Martin, 126 W.Va. 915, 923, 30 S.E.2d 720, 725 (1944).   See also State v. McDowell Lodge, No. 112, 96 W.Va. 611, 123 S.E. 561 (1924) (holding that property of a charitable and benevolent organization, leased for profit, is not exempt even though rents are used to retire debt, for maintenance of property, and for charitable and benevolent purposes).

                        IRS not the issue here, but everything to do with West Virginia real estate taxes. And as we know, all towns are hurting for money with non profits looking like the next frontier but that's another topic.

                        My understanding, a favorable vote in both W.V. houses is required to bring a state constitutional amendment to the necessary public vote in Nov, 2014???

                        Another $0.02(This message has been edited by RememberSchiff)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          > 24....If you are who you really say you are then you
                          > know that no FOS dollars were spent on the arena.

                          I have never said who I am. I have done duty as a COR of a small chartering org and a couple of scout units and as a unit commish. What do you think I said I am?

                          I have no idea where FOS money goes. I only know that I am not giving any $$$ out of my pocket to BSA, and I can't believe they have the gall to ask for extra donations while spending millions on facilities. They can account for it however they want - it is still bad, bad financial management. Unless of course the finances are being managed to fill wallets.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            For some reason, donations to build the AT&T Amphitheater are easier to get than donations to pay for camperships to Camp Noname.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              It's a lot easier to raise money, if you are putting the donor's name on the structure. Look at colleges all over the world, and the way their buildings are named.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Naming rights are a major source of capital for arenas and stadiums. Perhaps if the scouts receiving the camperships agreed to change their names to Ford or Samsung...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X