I'd fall on the side of mum and jhb here.

Seems to me the the "substantial" judge is the IRS, not DaveP. I would probably be more strict than the IRS in judging this, but evidence points to there being quite a bit of gray area.

Best case in point -- the National PTA. National PTA is a 501(c)(3) just like locals and they quite actively and quite openly lobby and support one side on several controversial issues (vouchers being the most prominent example these days). National has a dedicated lobbying office with paid lobbying staff in D.C. and it actively promotes its stances on the PTA web site and in all PTA publications. This is not a thread to debate National PTA's stances, but I use this rather as an example of activity that is permitted for a 501(c)(3).

I'd submit that actively supporting a bond issue vote (when looked at as one activity among all kinds of other good work) would be far, far on the right side of the IRS's lines.

My conclusion: I think Sandy's president did a really bad job of communicating here. But I also think Sandy's PTO has every right *not* to take up a cause, if they so choose. Sandy -- you can certainly be quite active in promoting recess (probably even gaining the individual support of many PTOers) even if the PTO group doesn't formally get on board. Good luck.

Tim

Mum,

Let's back up for a moment. There is a huge differance between the school district reminding you that an election is coming up, telling you about an issue and explaining what they will use the bond for - from them saying vote yes on this, and oh BTW we are sending you or causing you to recieve about a buck and a half worth of goodies to hear this message.

One is a substantial degree of invlovement the other is not!

And that is what the law says - substantial invlovement in legislation. Me spending my non profit funds on anything on behalf of a position to get you to vote for it is substantial invlovement. Permitting a position to be presented at my board meeting when I know it is going to be presented and I have not provided for an opposing view can be implied susbstantial (Dont believe me ask the IRS) it depends on other actions which follow like we have here!

I perhaps have a few more details on this matter than have been posted, Sandy and i have conversed in email - with what she has told me this violates the provisions of their non profit status. To what degree and what the IRS would do is a different story!

And yes we have two seperate issues here. The recess issue and the bond issue and other political involvement.

I think we just have some people here that dont really understand what they can and can not do or get involved with - which is why most PTOs dont engage in any of this to begin with. Which is a good thing IMHO.

On the other issue, we have a school administration that is digging its heels in on the recess issue for reasons we dont know and at this point I dont think they know why either, it doesnt matter, someone challenged them and they feel they have to man the tower and walls against the assualt. It is a shame it had to go this far, I dont know if the PTO could have prevented it or not, but my take on it is there was no effort on their part to even try and again we do not know the other side of the story so we dont know why they didnt, we can only guess.

Ditto on what JHB said.

Sandy, you have admitted in another post that you're getting a crash course in how the PTO works, so I hope this experience encourages you to be more involved in the future, *not* to write it off.

And, as JHB pointed out, not all political activity is off-limits--the determining factor is whether it's "substantial" activity. I doubt what happened at that last meeting would be deemed substantial in the grand scheme of all the PTO does. And, the person who talked about her husband working so hard on the bond issue was not campaigning for her husband as an individual, merely pointing out that her husband supported the bond issue and asking other like-minded individuals to help out. Uncomfortable and inappropriate, true--but the bottom line here is that the PTO President let the meeting get a little out of control.

Although DaveP disagrees with me, I stand by my statement that I think the school encouraging people to come in and vote is a good thing, as long as it was done properly.

We had a school bond referendum on our ballots earlier this week, and about a week before the vote, I got an e-mail from the school district reminding me that the vote was coming up, and explaining what the bond would be used for. I thought this was an excellent reminder, and appreciated the information--even though they didn't give me a donut with it.

Could we back up a minute please?

I'd encourage you not to write off the entire PTO as part of some giant conspiracy. Let's remember this is usually a dedicated group of VOLUNTEERS doing the best they can. The makeup, the personality, the attitude of the group changes from year to year as leadership changes. If you don't like what's going on in the PTO, get involved.

If the PTO is a 501(c)(3), it's not supposed to engage in political activity regarding campaigning for candidates. It CAN address/take a position on political issues. Yes, most of us think it's a good idea to remain neutral on anything that wouldn't assuredly have 100% of our membership supporting it. But it's their decision.

The recess issue is totally separate from the PTO. I really sympathize with you. But to fight that you need to move up the chain of command of your school - not a volunteer parent group. If you really have 1200 people not happy about this, they should be calling and writing the school and the district.

It just seems to me you are mixing apples and organges here. This is purely my opinion, and I do wish you well in your plans.

Hey Dave...(or anyone else!) would it matter if she went to the district to let them know of such practices? I'm sure now it's a little late in the game but maybe as an FYI????

I did this once, we had parents handing out flyers illegaly on our property and I took the ones that were given to my children and several of my friends and tore them up in front of them. Did I mention I was VERY pregnant at the time? Minor detail but after the police showed up they got the hint.

Were are the teachers in this issue? Just curiuos.

May the force be with you!

OK...thinking I'd stop boring (or shocking ya'll) I was going to stop with the posting on our local situation........ B U T ....
I am passionate about the recess issue and really do believe that all the rest has fallen into my lap as a matter of fate.

HELP me ... I can't stop.

With that said I'll tell you all that the PTO meeting was very obviosuly in depth politically. For instance; when our PTO Pres. announced the particular member who waged a political campaign, she actually opened with the intorduction "Ms. ____ ...on the bond issue" insinuating that she (& the board) absolutely ALREADY had knowledge of the rhetoric and political material that was about to be brought to this board.

And if you don’t find that shocking enough, it was allowed to continue and a sheet of paper was passed around the table (along with the bond issue flyer) and the speaking board member asked that the board sign up to “stand across the street the day of the election w/signs of encouraging the YES vote for the pole” They even titled the campaign "Say YES to Kids!", but they refuse to regonize the need for recess. Once again the Pres. had the foresight (or was it realization of public witnesses?) and stated to the board “You, the members can only do this on your own behalf and not as a PTO board member.”
Although even as we (the 3 who came and addressed them regarding their role as a bridge between 1300 district residents and the one, single person (school principal) who made the decision to delete recess) walked out of the room the board they continued to talk about and pass out the flyers regarding the upcoming Bond vote. Insult to injury.

I say it’s too little too late. It is very obvious there is a political motive behind their (PTO & School) refusal to listen, address, acknowledge and/or respond to the 1300 signatures (YES! Our petition grows!) and addresses to BOTH boards?

To quote a fav saying of my 8 yr. old son’s generation “D U H !”

Sandy