. . . for the Salvation Army’s corporate bottom line.
Because of their anti-gay lobbying, I haven’t donated to the Salvation Army in years- except for dropping the occasional buck in the kettle at Christmas. And frankly, I do that more out of sympathy for the poor schlubs standing in the cold ringing the bell than for any charitable ideal.
No more.
Taking frivolous litigation and unadulterated greed to new depths, the Salvation Army has filed suit to try to force a trust to withhold a bequest from the clear successor to a named grantee and redistribute the funds in the SA’s favor. Unsatisfied with a lousy $33 million, the SA thinks it should get part of Greenpeace’s share, too:
The Salvation Army has gone to court in Seattle to challenge a trust dividing more than $260 million among eight charities, including Greenpeace.
The Salvation Army argues that the specific Greenpeace organization to which the donor, H. Guy Di Stefano, assigned the money was dissolved in 2005 and that its affiliate is not eligible to receive the gift. It wants the court to divide the money among the seven other charities.
[snip]
Mr. Di Stefano died in July and left his estate to eight charities: Direct Relief International, the Salvation Army, the Santa Barbara Hospice Foundation, the Santa Barbara Visiting Nurse Association, the American Humane Society, the Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust, Greenpeace International Inc. and the World Wildlife Fund. Each stands to receive roughly $33 million.
The problem here is that "Greenpeace International" exists no more under that name:
Greenpeace has several different nonprofit incarnations. Greenpeace International was created in 1978, [Greenpeace general counsel Thomas W.] Wetterer said, and Greenpeace Fund was created in 1980. They shared the same central phone number and offices in Washington, D.C., and many employees. During an I.R.S. audit that affirmed the organization’s tax-exempt status, an auditor suggested that Greenpeace reduce the number of its units.
In response, it dissolved Greenpeace International in December 2005. That organization’s board named the Greenpeace Fund as its successor-in-interest, “recognizing that from time to time, charitable gifts could still come in to Greenpeace International Inc.,” [Greenpeace Fund Executive Director John] Passacantando said.
Of course, the money has nothing to do with it:
Michael Woodruff, the general counsel for the Salvation Army’s Western Territory, one of four regional units, said the church was only trying to honor Mr. Di Stefano’s intent.
“The donor’s intent was specific,” Mr. Woodruff said. “If a corporation or charity named in the trust does not qualify, that gift lapses, and he specifically named Greenpeace International.”
Honor the donor’s intent??? Bullshit.
Thomas W. Wetterer, the general counsel for Greenpeace, said Charles W. Willey, the lawyer who drew up the trust document for Mr. Di Stefano, testified in a deposition that he had pulled the name “Greenpeace International” off an Internal Revenue Service publication after his client had mentioned wanting to give to “Greenpeace.”
It’s the SA’s "Western Territory" division that has filed suit - without first advisingthe SA’s corporate HQ. Ironically, if its argument succeeds, then it should lose not only the extra share that was supposed to go to Greenpeace, but its own original $33 million, since
[t]he trust documents name “The Salvation Army & its Components,” and lists its location as New York, where it was first incorporated. According to the group’s policies, that means the money would go to the Eastern Territory, whose headquarters are in West Nyack, N.Y. The Western Territory insists that it deserves the money because Mr. Di Stefano lived in its region.
None of the other beneficiaries of the trust has felt compelled to challenge the award to Greenpeace. Presumably each one recognizes what a shitty PR move that would be. But the SA’s Western Territory remains undeterred, at least for now.
Poor Mr. di Stefano. How much you wanna bet that, had he known what would happen, he would’ve split the SA’s share among the others instead?
