Talk:Public-benefit nonprofit corporation

Merge proposal

Oppose - I think these two articles are different subjects. The "public-benefit nonprofit corporation" is a non-profit and nongovernmental organization (like League of Women Voters, ACLU, etc), while the "public-benefit corporation" is a quasi-government agency (like a Port Authority, or a light-rail administration, etcetera). I think this distinction is recognized in the rather one-sided discussion on the talk page of the other article. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Definition

The definition given for this term in the article is "A public-benefit nonprofit corporation is a type of nonprofit corporation chartered by a state government." - Chartered by the state government means a government corporation, like a port, doesn't it? Because that's the exact same definition given for Public-benefit corporation. If these two terms don't refer to the same thing, then the definition given is wrong for one or the other and seriously needs fixing. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No, in fact, public-benefit nonprofit corporations do not include things like ports, or utilities of any kind. These are for charitable, educational, recreational organizations. As such, this article has the potential to be linked to thousands of organization pages and they need to get the right information. Greg Bard (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, maybe it doesn't - but the definition currently given suggests that it does. In particular, the "chartered by state government" line. Most charitable, educational and recreational organizations are not founded by the state, but by a group of like-minded people. How about something like "A public-benefit nonprofit corporation is a type of nonprofit corporation that operates to provide a benefit to the public but is not controlled by the state. It is a common legal structure for charities." Ego White Tray (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There isn't anything about being "chartered by a state government" that implies that the organization is founded by an action of the state, nor does it imply control. That's not how incorporation of organizations works. However, it does imply that the state could take away the charter (although that is extremely extremely rare). Greg Bard (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, in my view "charter" is a legal term that is widely misunderstood as meaning that the state actually created it or runs it - where I live, there's a ballot measure for charter schools, all of which would be government funded and many of which would be created by school districts. The term is confusing and, in this case, really adds nothing to the definition. I'd rather leave it out entirely. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It is only confusing insofar as comparing the two. That isn't what most readers are doing. The fact that the organization is chartered is, in fact, a significant fact about public-benefit nonprofit corporations. Being "chartered" and being "founded" are two different things, and nothing about being "chartered" implies that the same entity is doing the founding, so that is your confusion. In any case, I have changed the wording so it's clear. Greg Bard (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)