by James Jack 59 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Yes, it's a corporation with shareholders, voting members and such. Not all are JWS either. There's a shareholder meeting every year to vote for whatever. IIRC, Rutherford's extended family owns the majority of shares. Also, yes, you can sell your shares.
It's a business that has certain religious exemptions.
@ - Lieu - I am in no way saying, i dont beleive you, but just hoping if you have any "proof" of this. Such as documentation, or written records, showing that the WTS does, indeed, function this way, and if that would prove the OP's mentioning of what those older JWW's said.
Man, having "proof" of this, would probably be the single most damning evidence, to wake up, even more people, about, who, or what, they think they are worshipping.
I remember that every year after the annual meeting, there was a swank "corporate members" party. Usually in the penthouse of the Sands building.
Maybe they are the "shareholders "
Lieu: Yes, it's a corporation with shareholders, voting members and such. Not all are JWS either.
I have heard this before - that there are shareholders in the WTS that are not JWs. However, I have never found confirmation of this and I have never found a shareholder list. Do you know if such a list exists? And do you know who these "non-JWs" are?
Is the shareholder list secret?
Wait...
...does this mean the WTS corporation could actually someday be subject to a "hostile takeover"? :smirk:
I could not find a list of all the shareholders, just the different Board Members since 1944.
Gayle 37 minutes ago
According to the 1945 charter amendment the Watchtower is a non-stock corporation with only voting shares.
The voters are selected by the board and have to be dedicated male witnesses.
If they elected non-JW's the Watchtower board would be violating the charter, and for this there can be serious consequences:
First, there is a doctrine called ultra vires. It is a Latin term that essentially means that acts outside the permissible scope of authority set forth in the governing documents is unauthorized activity that cannot be ratified by the board. As an example, if a nonprofit enters into a contract that is outside the scope of its permissible activities, the contract could be voided. While there may be other arguments that could be raised to enforce an ultra vires contract, acting “ultra vires” puts the nonprofit at risk as well as those that are entering into transactions with it.
Second, if directors act in ways that conflict with the nonprofit’s governing documents, they may be opening themselves up to an argument that they are breaching their fiduciary duties including the duty of due care and the duty of obedience. In most states, fulfilling one’s fiduciary duties is a prerequisite to a statute that basically says the board members can’t be held personally liable for their mistakes so long as the mistakes were made in good faith, out of loyalty and obedience to the corporation, and with due care. By failing to fulfill their fiduciary duties, the directors risk personal liability for any harm caused by their actions.
Third, if the directors are ignoring the rights of the nonprofit corporation, most states have a process that permits a group of directors (or voting members in a membership corporation) to get together to bring a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation. In the nonprofit context, a derivative suit is a law suit brought by a group of directors or members against a third party. That third party can be another insider such as another director or group of directors. These suits are brought from time to time when relations break down and factions form on the board of a nonprofit.
Fourth, the typical saviors for wayward nonprofit officers and directors, D&O insurance and corporate indemnification, won’t save directors who act outside the scope of their authority. D&O policies typically exclude ultra vires acts from coverage and corporate indemnification is generally not available to those acting outside the scope of their authority.
from: http://charitylawyerblog.com/2010/07/14/nonprofit-law-jargon-buster-ultra-vires-acts/
JamesJack; I have bought stock from different companies throughout the years if I thought I could make a dollar or 2 regardless if I like the business or not!
James, I think that there are a few critical points to consider -
1. there is no capital stock in the WTS, according to their charter.
2. shareholders do not buy their shares - they are selected/appointed
3. there are no share dividends
4. even if the WTS closed up shop, any profits made from the dissolution of the corporation has to be turned over to another non-profit entity
So, with those points in mind, Gayle's questions are intriguing:
Gayle: Why would anyone be a shareholder, not a member of the organization (or any other such business, religion, etc.) and have no monetary interest, or any other interest in such organization???
Exactly. How do non-JWs benefit from being part of an organization that offers zero profit to a shareholder? We can understand the JW shareholders - their belief system is what invests them in the WTS and they see their payoff as being measured in spiritual reward. But...what about those who do not have an emotional investment/connection to the WTS? Why would they hold voting shares?
Well....let's think about that. A nonJW would have to see some sort of return outside of spiritual considerations to be bothered to invest time into an organization. According to the WTS charter, nobody gets dividends or profit from their membership in the Society. Hmmmm.
Okay...bear with me. This is a hypothetical example. Hypothetical.
Let's imagine that some of those nonJWs are...let's see...bloodless surgeons. Or maybe administrators connected to blood management. How would their membership in the Society benefit them? Would the blood doctrine that the WTS has power over have any effect on their profession? Of course it would.
Would it be in the interest of people who work in bloodless medicine to have the WTS drop their blood doctrine? No, it wouldn't. But, keeping that doctrine in place would pay 'dividends' to the bloodless industry and anyone connected to it. Which, in turn, would ensure that the WTS would receive 'donations' (tax exempt for those donating) from the ones who profit from keeping the WTS blood doctrine in place.
