Theatre Design & Technology - Dec 1971 - 29

Undoubtedly, few USITT members are aware of
the fact that in 1970-71, the Institute found itself
"crosswise with the law" on the question of
whether it was an educational or a charitable enterprise.
Dramatic . . . 7 Perhaps less so than it at first
would sound. Important . . . 7 Yes, for surely it is
no small matter for the Institute.
Looking back, the matter began in 1965, when
a relatively unalarming printed form, designated
NYCF-1 and headed "Registration of Charitable
Trust or Charitable Corporation" accompanied by
requests that it be executed and filed with the
New York Attorney General, appeared at our overall office. As USITI had never considered itself a
"Charitable Trust or Charitable Corporation," the
form was disregarded as inapplicable. However,
copies of it followed annually thereafter.
In 1970, Form NYCF-1 was again in the USITT
mailbox with, however, a difference: it was now
accompanied by the information that if the Institute
did not complete and file it, as requested, legal
action would follow. And at this point, consequently, the matter was brought to the attention of
USITT Counsel, Bernard A. Grossman.
In a series of conferences by phone, letter. and
in person, Counsel Grossman was unable to budge
the Attorney General's adamant assertion that, in
his opinion, USITT was a charitable organization,
and that in his opinion, therefore, it must execute
and file Form NYCF-1 .

to being "educational," rested on afalsesyllogism,
i.e.:
a) That charity is something that is for the
good and welfare of man; and
b) That education is something that is for the
good and welfare of man; and
c) That therefore charity and education are
related-in fact, equivalents.
2) The appearance of the word "charitable" in
the USITT By-Laws for 1966. "Charitable" had
been added to the said By-Laws in compliance with
a suggestion of the Department of Internal Revenue for tax exemption purposes. However, the
Certificate of Incorporation had remained unchanged, and USITT maintained that the operation
and fundamental intention of the Institute were
and remained education, and not charity.
3) Whether or not USITT was in fact a Trust.
The Attorney General argued that it was, and that
USITT monies, no matter from where nor how
minor in amount, were trust monies subject to his
supervision, because they were being expended
on education, which by rule of law was charity.

After both sides had argued the case on all its
points, there was an interval for consideration and
then Judge Leff rendered a decision, which was
published December 9th, 1970, in the New York
Law Journal.
Judge Leff was in favor of government supervision.

After lengthy discussion between Counsel
Grossman and the then USITT leadership, it was
decided that the Institute should, as a matter of
principle, let itself be taken to court. Form NYCF-1
itself was of minor importance, and certainly the
Institute had been guilty of no wrongdoing, nor
was it accused of any. But in its own opinion it
was not a "charitable" organization: so why should
it submit a form by way of which it would concede
it was what it wasn't?

That was his opinion, and he stated it emphatically:

The Attorney General may have felt moved to
press the case by the "democratic" fact that (as
Counsel Grossman noted in his brief) "15,000
non-profit corporations have already registered with
the Attorney General, and it is his aim that (USITT)
be the 15,001."

It was toward that theory and that end, the
judge pointed out, that:

Once in court, the following major points came
to the fore:

When the opportunity for consideration and reconsideration had come, Counsel Grossman wrote a
letter to then President C. Ray Smith which read
in part:

1) Definition of "educational." Counsel Grossman argued that the Attorney General's contention,
that USITT was "charitable" because it admitted

:::"""SIT1 J THEATER DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

DECEMBER, 1971

There is no suggestion made in this proceeding that
the respondent has at any time misapplied any funds
or acted improperly in any manner. But it is the general legislative intent to provide blanket protection to
the public. to prospective contributors to charitable
trusts and to specific beneficiaries by conferring visitatorial functions on the Attorney General. The intent
is to aid and protect such activities. not to impede
them.

article 8 of E.P.T.L. charged the Attorney General with
visitatorial responsibility over charitable trusts "so as
to effectuate public interest in charitable uses. purposes and dispositions."

Continued on page 37

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Dec 1971