|
Another side of the story  Mark Bennett |
Attorney general justified
in role in church lawsuitYour editorial regarding the Way of Salvation Church is far off base ("AG should back away from church dispute," June 15). The church is not only a religious organization; it is also a nonprofit corporation with a state charter. Religious organizations are exempt from federal and state taxation because they operate exclusively for religious purposes. Under federal law, a church is not operated exclusively for religious purposes if it is operated for private interests, such as the interests of the church's pastor or the pastor's family members. The Department of the Attorney General has the duty to oversee the use of charitable funds and to ensure that nonprofit corporations comply with the law.
We opened our investigation after receiving a complaint from members of the church, as well as a petition signed by more than 100 church members. The complaint raised serious concerns about the church's compliance with its own governing documents and alleged abuse of its tax-exempt status. Our investigation involved only secular matters, not religious matters.
We coordinated all aspects of the investigation with the church's then-attorney, who gave us information establishing multiple violations. In a statement that was signed by the pastor, posted at the church, and provided to us by the church's attorney, the pastor admitted that:
>> The church improperly amended its bylaws.>> The church's directors were not elected, but appointed by the pastor, and several directors were related to the pastor.
>> The church paid the pastor and members of his family $480,000 over a 37-month period.
>> During a 37-month period, the church paid $71,000 in travel expenses for directors, officers, and employees, many of whom were members of the pastor's family. We requested, but did not receive, an accounting of travel expenses paid for the family members.
The church agreed to hold a democratic election for directors, and to restore good governance to prevent the need for court involvement. New directors were elected, but this did not resolve all of the problems. Certain church members then filed a lawsuit. We filed a friend of the court brief in that lawsuit for several important reasons:
>> We were informed that the court asked the plaintiffs' attorney for the attorney general's position regarding the lawsuit. Through our brief, we informed the court directly of our position on all relevant issues.
>> The church had argued in court documents that only the attorney general, and not church members, has the right to sue for an accounting of the church's charitable funds. We do not believe that this is a true statement of the law, and we directly informed the court of this.
>> We were informed that, at its first meeting, the newly elected board of directors took no action to rectify the past financial problems, but instead put the pastor's daughter, who was employed as the office manager, in charge of day-to-day financial affairs. This was later confirmed in a deposition of the treasurer.
>> In court documents, the church made numerous untrue statements about our investigation. For example, the church alleged that we "forced" the pastor to sign a disclosure statement to church members when, in truth, the pastor's statement was the product of negotiations between the church, through its attorney, and our office, and was signed by the pastor with the advice of the church's attorney.
As the government agency responsible for oversight of nonprofit corporations, we acted appropriately in bringing this information to the court's attention, and in suggesting the appointment of a receiver or a court-ordered accounting. The Star-Bulletin's comparison of our actions to the FBI's investigation of the late Martin Luther King Jr., on the other hand, was both inappropriate and incomprehensible.
Mark J. Bennett is attorney general of the state of Hawaii.