Is the upcoming raffle for R.B. McCallister's benefit a legal raffle? I don't think so.
And here's why.
The City of Woodstock has improperly issued a raffle permit to the McHenry County Association of Realtors (MCHCAR) for this raffle, which is to sell R.B.'s Harley-Davidson to raise funds for his recovery from a serious illness. The City did issue a raffle permit, but it should not have done so.
I know R.B., I like R.B., I wish him a full recovery; AND I ask the City of Woodstock to obey its raffle ordinances and not to try to skirt them with a little fancy footwork, in hopes that nobody will uncover (or care) about what the City is doing.
A raffle cannot be conducted by or for an individual. A raffle can be conducted by a not-for-profit organization. The MCHCAR is that NFP organization.
A raffle can be conducted only after a permit has been issued. The City of Woodstock has issued a permit to MCHCAR.
A requirement in the ordinance is that the raffling organization must own any vehicle that it is going to raffle. Here's the first problem. MCHCAR does not own R.B.'s motorcycle. R.B. owns it. So MCHCAR cannot raffle it off, because it does not own the motorcycle. Careless omission of a vehicle ownership question on the Application should not release the City from responsibility to be alert to any conditions that might not meet ordinance requirements.
And R.B. shouldn't try to rectify this problem by donating his motorcycle to MCHCAR, because MCHCAR won't be able to give him the proceeds from the raffle.
MCHCAR intends to "conduct" the raffle, but it will never receive the money from the raffle. The raffle funds will go into an individual trust for R.B., presumably to help meet medical and medical-care expense. Three thousand chances will be offered at $10.00 each, and the total, if all chances are sold, is $30,000.
No doubt that a chance to win a $12,000 motorcycle is worth a $10.00 raffle ticket. And I would hope that all 3,000 would be sold and that $30,000 would be available to help R.B. recover.
The only problem is that it's illegal. For me that's a Problem, and the City of Woodstock should be scrupulous in paying attention to all the details of raffles to be conducted, no matter how beneficial to a good member of the community or how honest the organization is.
What got me thinking about this is that a not-for-profit organization must do things for the general good of the public or its overall membership base. It cannot do something for an individual member. So MCHCAR cannot, as much as it might like to, conduct a benefit (raffle, fundraiser) for an individual member.
It apparently is not uncommon for the City of Woodstock to look the other way on certain legal requirements of raffles. Last summer I raised the raffle issue prior to the raffle to be conducted for Beth Bentley; I later learned that the City had suggested to the raffle organizers that they find a not-for-profit organization to apply for the permit and that the City would have issued a permit to a not-for-profit organization, even though the benefit was for one named person.
This is not why the Federal Tax Code allows donations to 501(c)(3) organizations to be tax-deductible. It requires that they be formed for the public good; they cannot benefit one member out of the group.
Will I look like the guy in the black hat, if the City rescinds the permit for this raffle? All I'm asking the City to do is stand by its existing raffle ordinance. By the way, keep an eye on City Council agendas; the City may be planning to amend the raffle ordinance. But it hasn't done so yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Perhaps because the city drafted the ordinance they have the power and authority to waive any of it's provisions. Or perhaps everyone likes R.B. and they want to help him out despite what the ordinance dictates. Or perhaps they just don't give a damn about what the common citizenry thinks. After all they are a political entity. Mmmm, wonder what it could be?
While the City might have the authority and power to waive an ordinance, it must take affirmative action, in public, to do so (which I'm sure you know). It can't just willy-nilly ignore (waive) a provision or condition in an ordinance.
Post a Comment