What's up with bill 1098?

March 9, 2009 10:23 AM

Could someone explain Connecticut's Raised Bill No. 1098 to me? Is it constitutional, and what are the motivations behind it? Logical, rational answers would be appreciated.

Wouldn't this bill be in violation of the first amendment? My understanding is that the government would have church members select people to serve on a board of directors - isn't that still messing with a church's power structure? I think the local catholic church has something like a board of directors anyways. Why pass a bill about it? Why is it only for Roman Catholic churches? What's the point?

A (religious) family member pointed this out to me. I searched google for a bit, but mostly I was getting lots of "the church is being attacked!" with next to no actual information. It seems like such an odd bill to propose, I'm curious to know what the background is on it.

posted by Baethan to law & government (6 comments total)

It looks to me like the way churches are already required to organize in NY state. I don't think it's that big a deal. Every corporation is required to have a board that has certain duties with regards to finances, taxes, an other liabilities. The idea here is that being on this board is a separate job from being a spritiual/religious leader (which is not to say that the two positions can't be held by the same group of people). Based on the way it works in NY, the scope of the board of trustees is pretty limited -- they're basically there to sign off that the financial/tax/legal obligations of the corporation are being dealt with in good order.
posted by winston at 10:32 AM on March 9

I read about this in The New Haven Register this morning. Here is a link to the online version of the article.
posted by eunoia at 10:37 AM on March 9

~It looks to me like the way churches are already required to organize in NY state. I don't think it's that big a deal. Every corporation is required to have a board that has certain duties with regards to finances, taxes, an other liabilities.

I agree that that doesn't seem like a terrible, oppressive idea for all churches, of all denominations, to have an oversight system in place, to protect the faithful from the potentials of abuse.

But to single out only the Catholics seems to me to be a horse of a different color.
posted by paisley henosis at 10:48 AM on March 9

Unconstitutional.

These types of bills come up all the time in state legislatures on all types of subjects ranging from the tin-hat crowd to limiting how child support can be used to this type of bill. From what I've seen doing some legislative advocacy work (a/k/a lobbying) at the state level, these bills tend to be sponsored by some legislator who's trying to appease some specific constituency that is raising a stink about something at some particular moment in time. It's pretty obvious from the New Haven Register article linked by eunoia that's happening in this instance. 99/100 times these things die a quiet death when exposed to the light of day and reason during the normal legislative process. Everyone piles on as to why it's unconstitutional and the thing never makes it out of committee. That's actually how the legislature is supposed to work.

Courts draw a fairly tight line between ecclesiastical and secular things. While it may be a good idea in principle, when it comes to these sorts of things, the Constitution generally doesn't have a "good idea in principle" exception. If the faithful want to protect themselves, our system requires they do it internally, not through statutory controls.

P.S. I don't live in Conn. nor am I catholic, by way of disclaimer.
posted by webhund at 11:26 AM on March 9

But to single out only the Catholics seems to me to be a horse of a different color.

Well we don't have all the information on that here. Maybe this is the end of an exemption for the Catholics.
posted by winston at 12:32 PM on March 9

webhund, I don't think it's about the church members protecting themselves but ensuring that the corporation fulfills its legal duties to others (mainly to the government, primarily that finances are managed in a way consistent with the legal requirements for non-profit status)
posted by winston at 12:37 PM on March 9