The City of Woodstock, rather than enforcing an existing ordinance regarding raffle rules, has opted to change the ordinance. Why would they do that?
I missed the proposal and discussion on Tuesday night, because I attended the Dorr Township monthly meeting. Looking back, I should have been at the Woodstock City Council meeting to remind them that the law is the law. Period. They can't pick and choose whether to enforce the law, which is what they have done this year.
Maybe the ordinance should have been called the "R.B. McAllister Ordinance", since the City is covering up a mistake it made when it issued a raffle permit to the McHenry County Association of Realtors, so that a raffle to raise money for R.B. could take place.
At the time when the City issued the permit for the raffle of R.B.'s motorcycle, the intent of the raffle did not meet the City Code. Prior to Tuesday night, a raffle could not be conducted for an individual. Friends of Beth Bentley tried that last summer, and the City stopped a raffle that was to raise money to search for Beth Bentley. However, I learned later that the City would have issued a raffle permit, had friends of Bentley found a not-for-profit organization to apply for a raffle permit.
It is my opinion that the Realtors' Association cannot legally conduct the McAllister raffle. The raffle is for the benefit of one person, and that is not a permitted function of an organization that enjoys a privileged tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) organization (if that is what it is). It could conduct a raffle for the benefit of the common good of its members, but not for the good of one (only) of its members.
The Association isn't really going to "conduct" the raffle; it just applied for the permit. The money for raffle ticket sales won't pass into the treasury of the Assn.; it goes into a personal trust for R.B.'s medical care and expenses. One of the Councilmen told me previously, he is "a strong supporter of the good that will come from these efforts and trust our City Administration to appropriately work to address any issues."
He continued, "As someone with a minimalist view of government involvement and a strong supporter of activism on the part of the citizens and our community (versus a governmental body), I applaud the efforts to allow those citizens so inclined to help RB to have a mechanism to do so."
So, apparently if it helps RB but is illegal, it's okay. At least, this is how I see it. So the City never should have issued the permit.
But it did, and now it's "legalizing" its previous illegal action by changing the law (the City Code). Not good. Not good, at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Once again it would appear that there is no satisfying you, unless of course, it's giving you something to bitch about. Slightly over a month ago you wrote how you liked RB and such "but the law was the law" yadda, yadda, yadda. If the law isn't going to be followed it should be changed (great thought that, and I heartily agree. There must be tons of laws that are no longer needed or relevant in this day and age but the idiots in the legislature never bother to repeal them.). Well, now it seems that they are changing the law, changing it to something that actually conveys the SPIRIT and INTENT of the law. How can anyone argue that it (the original law) was intended to prevent an organization from organizing a raffle where the proceeds were intended to help out a single individual or family who had been stricken by disaster - medical or otherwise? Was the original ordinance poorly worded? I suspect so. Will this correct it? I hope so. It will be so nice to know that folks can help out a neighbor without having to worry about some Grinch constantly complaining about the illegality of such an act of charity. I don't know if you'll have time to post this as with the Christmas holiday season coming on, I know you'll be busy looking for zoning violations and other code violations involving Santa's House in the Square. Let's hope that they don't play "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" over the speakers in the Square Park. I'm sure that would get a rise out of you as well.
And who would have ever seen that coming I wonder? Looks like the city took "affirmative action". How convenient.
So, would it be okay for me to rob a bank, just because I need some money? It's "just a law" that says I shouldn't do it. If they catch me, then I'll just give back the money, and then everything will be okay...
In order to qualify for 501(c)... whatever tax-exempt status (IRS), I'm pretty sure that an organization has to benefit the "all", not just one.
The City knew, or ahould have known, that this was not the case in this raffle permit application. In fact, the application itself says it is for "a member".
Wouldn't it be interesting if the McHenry County Assn. of Realtors lost its Federal tax-exempt status because of this raffle?
If the Illinois raffle law reads that raffles can only be conducted by non-profits, can Woodstock allow raffles for individuals, in addition to raffles by non-profits?
Let's see if we can "untwist" your logic. You say "I'm pretty sure that an organization has to benefit the "all", not just one." Let's think about the Moose Club. Not for profit? Sure. Ever hear of Mooseheart? It's a school, home for children of, I think, deceased members. In other words, an orphanage. I doubt that my children could go since I'm not a member. Certainly not ALL children whose parents are members of a Moose Lodge could attend. So it clearly doesn't benefit all, just a select few (fortunately, I guess).
The city of Woodstock created that ordinance, the city of Woodstock can change it. That's what a legislative body is all about. As previously stated, if the legislature would spend more time fine tuning the laws already on the books instead of passing a new law every time the phone rings, the world would be a simpler, more pleasant, less confusing place.
Toa, Mooseheart is a great example. It benefits many, not one specific and designated person. Its beneficiaries fall within its definition of whom it will help.
Yeah, it is a pretty good example. However it does NOT benefit all. It benefits a select few that are in desperate need of the assistance provided by Mooseheart. In this instance you seem to hang your hat on the fact that only ONE person is benefiting. Too true - at least at this particular time. If the MCAR sponsored this raffle and gave the proceeds to the ONLY Member who was in need at this time, where's the problem? If they have a member in need next month or two in, say, January, would that then be okay since we're now into helping more than one person? Don't think it really makes a damn bit of difference when you consider the INTENT and SPIRIT of the law.
Toa, consider this. MCAR is not conducting this raffle, except in name only. MCAR doesn't own the motorcycle being raffled; it's RB's motorcycle. He could sell it to raise money, or he can hope to raise more by selling $10 chances.
I doubt there will be any future raffles like this by MCAR. In fact, I wonder if their By-Laws even allow this one.
Keep in mind; I like the idea of friends and neighbors pitching in to help someone in need. My gripe is with the illegal event that is occurring. It fails the "smell" test.
Post a Comment