Comments on: WRT candidates host their own forum http://www.centergroveinc.org/2010/04/19/wrt-candidates-host-own-forum/ Following the future of White River Township Wed, 02 Nov 2011 18:10:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Forrest http://www.centergroveinc.org/2010/04/19/wrt-candidates-host-own-forum/comment-page-1/#comment-1388 Forrest Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:58:49 +0000 http://www.centergroveinc.org/?p=3631#comment-1388 I am surprised that Mr. Marks would hold a “private” political event for only him and his chosen White River Township Board candidates and subject his church to a potential IRS tax audit and loss of their 501(c) (3) tax exempt status. A church has tax exempt status under the provisions of Internal Revenue Service 501(c) (3) regulations. A provision of that regulation is that a 501(c) (3) organization is in violation of IRC 501(h) if "it participates or intervenes in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office". Why would you ever consider putting your church in such a position? This appears to be either an example of poor judgment or lack of experience. I am surprised that Mr. Marks would hold a “private” political event for only him and his chosen White River Township Board candidates and subject his church to a potential IRS tax audit and loss of their 501(c) (3) tax exempt status.

A church has tax exempt status under the provisions of Internal Revenue Service 501(c) (3) regulations. A provision of that regulation is that a 501(c) (3) organization is in violation of IRC 501(h) if “it participates or intervenes in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office”.

Why would you ever consider putting your church in such a position? This appears to be either an example of poor judgment or lack of experience.

]]> By: Dann http://www.centergroveinc.org/2010/04/19/wrt-candidates-host-own-forum/comment-page-1/#comment-1373 Dann Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:23:03 +0000 http://www.centergroveinc.org/?p=3631#comment-1373 Just like it is best if the same party does not control congress and the White House, I agree with Mark that it is best if there is a healthy tension between the "executive" (trustee) and the "congress" (the board). Voting them in as a slate would be a mistake. The challenge is that Jay has not demonstrated over the last year or so that he "plays well with others." He sets his agenda and does what is needed to accomplish it. Bright man, good politician, but I would not want to give him carte blanche by providing him a board he hand picked. Just like it is best if the same party does not control congress and the White House, I agree with Mark that it is best if there is a healthy tension between the “executive” (trustee) and the “congress” (the board).

Voting them in as a slate would be a mistake. The challenge is that Jay has not demonstrated over the last year or so that he “plays well with others.” He sets his agenda and does what is needed to accomplish it. Bright man, good politician, but I would not want to give him carte blanche by providing him a board he hand picked.

]]> By: MARK DEVOE http://www.centergroveinc.org/2010/04/19/wrt-candidates-host-own-forum/comment-page-1/#comment-1371 MARK DEVOE Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:27:37 +0000 http://www.centergroveinc.org/?p=3631#comment-1371 I believe one of the primary responsibilities of the WRT Board is to serve as a checkpoint on the actions of the Trustee. However it sounds like the Trustee has taken who he wants to be board members under his wing and by supporting their candidacy will probably have earned their unending (or at least 4 year) loyalty. After all, how could a Board Member say "no" to the Trustee whose support got them elected. Sounds like smart politics, but whatever happened to "checks and balances"? I believe one of the primary responsibilities of the WRT Board is to serve as a checkpoint on the actions of the Trustee. However it sounds like the Trustee has taken who he wants to be board members under his wing and by supporting their candidacy will probably have earned their unending (or at least 4 year) loyalty. After all, how could a Board Member say “no” to the Trustee whose support got them elected. Sounds like smart politics, but whatever happened to “checks and balances”?

]]>