NY State Senate Bill S6431
Author: AdamDate: Apr 22nd, 2023
Here's our summary of the NY State Senate Bill S6431 and a short list of pros and cons:
S6431 aims to amend the New York State finance law to allow for the donation of certain state-owned personal property to pre-approved not-for-profit organizations with the consent of certain agency commissioners. The Attorney General's charities bureau will establish a list of eligible pre-approved organizations, and there will be a process for pre-approval and removal from the list. The bill aims to reduce the environmental impact of excess state property while supporting charitable organizations. The fiscal implications are yet to be determined, and the act will take effect immediately if passed.
Here's a list of reasons to be in favor of this bill:
One of the key benefits of the proposed bill is that it would allow certain not-for-profit organizations to receive state-owned personal property that may be useful to them. Many charitable organizations rely on donations to operate and may have limited budgets for purchasing equipment or supplies. By allowing these organizations to receive donations of state property that they could put to good use, the bill could help them to better serve their constituents and fulfill their missions.
For example, a not-for-profit organization that operates a community center may benefit from receiving donations of furniture, computers, or other equipment that the state no longer needs. Similarly, a not-for-profit that provides educational programs might find state-owned textbooks or other learning materials to be a valuable resource. By allowing these organizations to receive donations of state property that might otherwise be disposed of, the bill could help them to save money and better serve their communities.
Another benefit of the proposed bill is that it would reduce the environmental impact of excess state property by allowing it to be reused or repurposed instead of being disposed of in landfills or incinerated. Current state policy requires that surplus state property be offered for further state use within an agency, then to other agencies, and then to municipalities before it can be sold at auction to the public. If the property remains unclaimed after these steps, it is typically disposed of by landfill or incineration. This can result in the unnecessary disposal of property that was purchased with state funds and may still have years of usefulness. By allowing the donation of unused state property to pre-approved not-for-profit organizations, the proposed bill could give that property a second life and reduce the amount of waste generated by state agencies. For example, if a state agency no longer needs a piece of furniture or a piece of equipment, it could be donated to a not-for-profit organization that could put it to good use instead of disposing of it.
In addition to reducing waste, the bill could also potentially reduce the carbon footprint associated with the production and disposal of goods. By extending the useful life of state property, the bill could help to conserve resources and reduce the energy and materials needed to produce new goods.
Lastly, another potential benefit of the proposed bill is that it may reduce the costs associated with disposing of excess state property. If the property remains unclaimed after these steps, it is typically disposed of by landfill or incineration. This disposal process can be costly, particularly if the property is large, heavy, or difficult to transport. By allowing the donation of unused state property to pre-approved not-for-profit organizations, the proposed bill could potentially reduce the costs associated with disposing of excess state property. Rather than paying for the transport and disposal of unwanted property, state agencies could donate that property to a not-for-profit organization that could put it to good use. This could be particularly beneficial if the property is in good condition and could still be used for its intended purpose, as the cost of disposal could be avoided entirely.
In addition, by avoiding the disposal of excess state property, the proposed bill could potentially reduce the amount of waste generated by state agencies, which could have additional cost savings associated with it.
Reason to oppose this bill:
One potential challenge associated with the proposed bill is the difficulty in determining the fair market value of state property being donated to charitable organizations. This challenge could be compounded by the fact that the bill allows for the donation of "certain state property," without specifying what types of property are eligible for donation. Without clear guidance on what types of property can be donated and how their value should be determined, there may be some ambiguity or inconsistency in how donations are made.
Additionally, not-for-profit organizations may have different standards or requirements for accepting donated property. For example, an organization may only accept property that is in excellent condition or that meets certain specifications. This could make it more difficult for state agencies to find appropriate recipients for donated property, particularly if the property is in less-than-perfect condition or is not a good fit for the needs of the organization.
Another challenge associated with the proposed bill is the potential for abuse or misuse of the donation process, particularly if there are insufficient safeguards in place to ensure that donated property is being used for legitimate purposes. It is possible that some not-for-profit organizations may be incentivized to request or accept donated property for reasons other than their charitable mission. For example, an organization may request donated property with the intention of reselling it for a profit or may accept property that is not needed or useful simply because it is free.
To address these concerns, the bill includes provisions for the pre-approval of not-for-profit organizations and a process for removal from the pre-approved list. This could help to ensure that organizations receiving donated property have a legitimate need for it and are using it in accordance with their charitable mission.
However, it is possible that these safeguards may not be sufficient to prevent all instances of abuse or misuse. For example, an organization may be approved for donation based on its stated mission, but may later change its activities or priorities in ways that make the donated property irrelevant or unnecessary. Additionally, the process for removing organizations from the pre-approved list may not be timely or effective enough to prevent inappropriate use of the donated property.
Lastly, there may be an additional administrative burden associated with maintaining a list of eligible pre-approved organizations and processing donation requests. This process may require significant administrative resources to ensure that only legitimate organizations are included on the list and that requests for donations are processed fairly and efficiently.
In addition to maintaining the pre-approved list, there may be additional administrative burdens associated with processing donation requests. This may include coordinating with state agencies to identify surplus property that could be donated, evaluating requests from not-for-profit organizations, and coordinating the transfer of donated property to the receiving organization. This can be mitigated, but it's important to ensure that appropriate resources are allocated to support the implementation and management of the donation program. This may include funding for staff and infrastructure to manage the pre-approval process, evaluate donation requests, and facilitate the transfer of donated property.
Summary:
In summary, S6431 has the potential to provide several benefits to charitable organizations, reducing the environmental impact of excess state property, and potentially reducing costs associated with disposing of surplus property. Additionally, the bill may help to promote the reuse and repurposing of state property, rather than simply disposing of it in landfills or incinerators.
However, there are also some potential drawbacks associated with the bill. These include the difficulty in determining the fair market value of the donated property, the potential for abuse or misuse of the donation process, and the possible administrative burden associated with maintaining a list of eligible pre-approved organizations and processing donation requests.
Overall, whether the proposed bill is a good idea or not will depend on a variety of factors, including the effectiveness of the administrative processes put in place to manage the donation program, the level of oversight and safeguards to prevent misuse of the program and the extent to which the benefits of the program outweigh any potential drawbacks.
