Speaking of the need for an independent and active Attorney General

The Washington Business Journal reports, in "Boys & Girls Clubs to redevelop, sell valuable assets," about the deaccessioning and sale of real estate in DC, and a new focus on the suburbs for that organization.

Separately, I wrote in response to an email by Will Cobb, who is leading an effort for the neighborhood to take over the soon-to-be-sold "Eastern Branch" and continue the operation:

1. BGCGW is a tax exempt organization;
2. they state here that they are changing their business model and focusing on the suburbs;
3. and that they intend to sell DC-based assets (at a profit) to fund this;
4. without providing any return to any DC-based operations that would continue services as previously provided.

But their properties are tax exempt--meaning that for years, justifiably, the DC Government did not assess and collect property taxes on the Eastern Branch BGCGW property.

Earlier in the summer I wrote suggesting how this was an appropriate subject for eminent domain, which ironically, is something that Jack Evans picked up wrt the Georgetown (Jellef) branch. (See "Evans mulls eminent domain against Boys and Girls Club branch" from the Examiner.)

In other "states" the charities division of the Attorney General's office would likely step in as a representative of the people's interest, given the tax exemption and the fact that the organization is tax exempt. (E.g., how the State Attorney General in Pennsylvania has been involved in various matters concerning the Hershey Trust, Girard Trust, and the Barnes Foundation.)

From the report The Value of Between State Charity Regulators & Philanthropy:

... charities are created under state law and subject to state rules that have long defined the
basic fiduciary duties of the directors and officers managing them. In contrast to the uniform federal regulation of charities, state charity regulation varies widely from one jurisdiction to another. There is a degree of uniformity in the states’ substantive requirements, but little if any in the degree and effectiveness of their enforcement.

THE ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State attorneys general are the chief legal officers of the states. They serve as legal counselors to state agencies and legislatures and as representatives of the public interest. Their powers, duties and responsibilities are defined and interpreted by state constitutions, legislatures and the courts.

The duty of the attorney general with respect to charities is to enforce the laws regulating charitable organizations and charitable solicitations, and to ensure the proper administration of funds dedicated to charitable purposes. In the absence of legislation, the legal remedies available to the attorney general to correct wrongdoing are as broad as the courts’ equity powers to grant them. The most typical remedies sought by regulators are restitution, imposition of fines, removal of directors and officers engaged in wrongdoing (and appointment of successors) and sometimes dissolution of the charity.

This clearly is a breach of trust and a breach of the intent of tax exemption, and an event that should trigger such an action.

There is nothing wrong with a charity selling property, and I imagine from the federal and local perspective, this would be considered a UBIT transaction and therefore subject to tax.

There is nothing wrong with a charity doing a public-private partnership (frankly, I think such should have been done with the BGCGW property on 14th St. NW in Columbia Heights).

But to sell and walk away with no concern for the trust and goodwill provided by the citizens of the District of Columbia over the years seems unconscionable and against the intent of the various provisions of Federal and DC Code on charitable activities.

(Similarly, the DC government invested millions of dollars over the years in the Children's Museum, only to see them now walk away to the National Harbor. Similarly, the DC Government should have/can still take a stronger position vis-a-vis this action and recapture.)

The District of Columbia Government needs to take a much stronger stand in relation to this proposed course of action by the BGCGW.