In my previous life as PTA Legislative Chair, I was told that the simplest way to avoid crossing the line on advocacy/endorsement rules was to limit myself to statements of fact. When the district wanted to close three schools, I put in articles that stated how much the school district expected to save. I stated what programs had been identified as potential savings if the schools remained open. I also tried to make it clear why raising taxes to keep schools and programs was an option denied us by the state. And I made sure people knew when the vote was being held.
I tried to keep my opinions out of it. And those who felt differently than me may have felt that I overlooked important facts. But I did stick with the facts.
"Surely everyone in the PTO (a school with over 600 students) cannot be of one mind on this issue."
Probably not, but I have found people opposing a school issue (expecially when it seems to affect them monetarily) to be VERY underspoken. I think they either 1. must be embarrased that they don't want to spend the money to educate children and/or 2. afraid of peoples reactions when they admit to not wanting to spend money to educate children. I think it would be difficult in that kind of atmosphere (PTO's generally support school funding) to be the one who announces that they don't support school funding.
Not a lawyer, but I believe that a nonprofit is restricted from supporting or opposing a particular *candidate* for office. But I also believe that it's technically OK for a (official nonprofit) PTO to advocate/lobby/etc. on *issues* that the group feels are within its mission.
Example: the National PTA is a 501(c)(3), and the National PTA has a lobbying office in Washington and takes strong stands on certian issues (anti-vouchers, etc.). That's legal.
Whether it's wise or recommended for your group is another story, but I would suspect that advocating for a school budget increase, for example, would be technically OK.
I have seen local group bylaws that do say "no political stuff" (or similar), and in that case the bylaws rule.
I'm a fan of PTOs being conduits of information on both sides of issues. Example: if there's a big school budget question up on the ballot, maybe the PTO could host a balanced debate on the issues with supporters and opponents on the panel.
I am not a lawyer or an IRS agent . . . .but - it is my understanding that if you have 501(c)(3) status you may not engage in political activities. This has been of tremendous benefit to me recently - we had an issue within the district that was not at all related to PTO, however a group of parents voice their intention to appear at a PTO meeting to discuss the issue. I let it be known throughout the community prior to that meeting that in order to maintain our not-for-profit status we could not engage in political activities for or against any position and that since the determining people were the school board, who are elected officials, discussing this matter at a PTO meeting would jeopardize our status. Did I take liberties, and possibly stretch the meaning of that regulation, you bet I did. Did it work? Well - nothing was brought up at the meeting! Does the end justify the means - it worked out so that our meeting could go according to the agenda without interruption by something that was not an issue of ours. I think it worked perfectly.
Milstone, I don't think you jeopordize you tax-exemption unless you actually lobby for a certain issue. I have to admit as PTO president, that I was asked by the superintendent to also send out a memo on an issue that would have critically cut funding for our schools. The issue itself was pretty clear (cut sales taxes on food), what I sent was what the passage would mean to our schools. I questioned whether the PTO was the correct forum, but if we can't be advocates for our school, then we just become fundraisers.
Our by laws clearly state that we are a "non political, non commercial,, and non sectarian" organization. Because of this, we can not take a position on any political issue in town. A few years ago there was a budget override proposal that directly affected school funds. All though most of us were for the proposal, the most we did was encourage people to "get out and vote." We also are unable to endorse any candidate for school committee, for example.
