Yes, I think it did include the 501(c)(3) filing and the $750 IRS fee. But we haven't seen any contract or breakdown of charges, so I really can't be sure. I'm not so much quibbling about what the attorney is charging (although I do question the ethics of an attorney who would charge this type if fee to a nonprofit organization), my concern is that the contract was entered at all, without even informing the members, much less bringing it to a vote. I always thought that, when you pay your dues, you have some right to participate in major decisions. The only way we ever found out about this was someone noticed "attorney's fees" as a line item in the yearly budget we were given. If no one had noticed it, we never would have known this contract was entered. In fact, at least two of the five officers were not even aware of the contract before this.

After a whopping 5 minute Google search (and not being familiar at all with Pennsylvania's structure) I found the incorporation instructions. Unless I'm missing something, there are two simple forms, payment of a $125 fee, and the organization must register with the Bureau of Charitable Organizations of the Department of State. (Website - Corporations: Pennsylvania Nonprofit Corporations ) One of the forms serves as your Articles of Incorporation.

Maybe there's something more complicated that I don't understand, but the incorporation looks very straightforward - hardly requiring a $3750 lawyer.

I still feel it's a huge breach of fiduciary responsibility for your president to have unilaterally made these decisions, but I can only hope that lawyer did more than you currently understand. Perhaps it was a complete package that included the 501(c)(3) filing and the $750 IRS fee.

Sorry - I do not buy the "end justifies the means" philosophy. Whether or not they will be better off in the long run is a matter of opinion, and was not her decision to make. The parent group should not be a dictatorship, regardless of the intent.

we dont spend a dime (for non-nominal costs) without going thru a vote of the membership.

seems that any reasonable person would probably think your prez overstepped her powers, or perceived powers.

and why did the principal say nothing? did no one question the expense? is the principals wife the lawyer (just kidding of course). such crazy actions and money tossed about and the prncipal says nothing? weird . afterall, that is good money that could have been put to use for the kids.

good luck sorting it all out. politics and parent grps are always messy especially when the prinipcal takes sides.

drdeb,

Please don't get me wrong. I 100% believe that the President acted beyond what she should have done.

As I wrote, spending $4000 on a lawyer was assinine, and should have been put to a vote. Whether or not the group should have become a PTO or stayed a PTA should have been put to a vote. Proclaiming that you and your Executive Committee stay in the job for another year is against the existing Bylaws.

My point was, getting beyond the obvious procedural mistakes made with this decision, that in the end it will be a good thing. Your group will start saving $2200 each year, and that's great!

I believe that PTOtoday provides enough e-mails, magazines, articles, contacts, etc. for any group to be successful. Paying dues to a national group to obtain the same kinds of things that we get free here doesn;t make too much sense.

So again, I do understand why you are upset with how the decision was made, but not with the end result. Granted, she went about things all worng. She broke the rules. She didn't get a vote on anything. And she paid out $4000 that was not needed. Those were all wrong and stupid. But you'll be saving thousands of dollars now, which will be great!

Now I understand that the Principal agreed that the decision should be up to the membership, and he's right. It should have been. I understand that you'll have presentations on both sides. But, from everything I have read and heard here on the boards, the decision of becoming a PTO, if done correctly, is the obvious one. Why give away funds when you don't get that much back, especially when you have resource sites like this one.

So, although I totally understand why you are sp upset with your President I also understand that she acted for what she, and her Executive board felt were good reasons and that getting past all of the mistakes made, the end product is for the best.

Good luck, PresidentJim

We are in Pennsylvania.

In reply to President Jim -- I know people have very strong feelings about PTA/non-PTA, but the most important thing is it is a membership organization, and the membership has the right to make an informed decision and to have a vote. For one person to think her opinion should supplant the will of the parents of 1200 children is rather undemocratic, to say the least.

Personally, I was a member of the National PTA's legislation committee, and I was involved first hand in the advocacy activities done at the state and national level on behalf of public education. Between that work, the programs offered (Reflections, the bullying programs, to name just two), the weekly e-mails and monthly magazine distributed by the PTA, I was happy to have half of my dues support that organization. And yet, I still think it is up to the members to make an informed decision -- not my preference, not the preference of the self-appointed president -- but the preference of the dues-paying members that matters.

You have asked why we are so upset. This woman has decided for a school of 1200 kids what the nature of the organization would be. She has decided on her own how to spend the $10,000 left over in the treasury when the organization was dissolved without any member input. She has now decided to spend 1/5 of our year's budget -- all of the membership funds and $1500 in fundraising revenue -- on unnecessary legal fees, again without consulting the members. I think being upset under these circumstances is a rational reaction.

You've also asked why I think we might be a PTA again. The principal has agreed that the decision should be up to the membership. We will have presentatons on both sides and a membership vote in February, to take effect next school year.