Can a group of Washington state employees run a charity raffle and send the proceeds directly to a needy coworker, family, or friend, or must the money flow through a charitable organization?

Plain-English summary

The Executive Ethics Board chair, Neil Gorrell, asked the AG three questions about state-employee charity raffles, all turning on a phrase the legislature added in 2007: a state-employee group qualifying as a "bona fide nonprofit organization" for raffle purposes may raise funds for "a charitable or benevolent entity, including but not limited to a person or family in need." The Board wanted to know whether that "including but not limited to" clause meant the employees could vote to send the proceeds directly to a chosen needy individual or family, including the employee's own family member or friend.

The AG read the statute differently. The phrase "person or family in need" is illustrative, not an independent class of recipients. The structure of RCW 9.46.0209(2)(b)(ii) lists three classes of permissible recipients: the state combined fund drive, an entity approved to receive CFD funds, or a "charitable or benevolent entity." A "person or family in need" is an example of the kind of program that a charitable or benevolent entity might run, like an adopt-a-family or adopt-a-child program. The needy person or family receives the funds through the charitable entity's program, not directly from the employee group.

So a group of state employees cannot vote to run a raffle whose proceeds go straight to a coworker's sick child, a colleague's struggling parent, or any other specific individual or family the employees choose. They can run a raffle whose proceeds go to a charitable organization that selects, through its own program, who the funds will help. If the charitable organization happens to designate the family member of the requesting employee, that's fine. The legal screen is on the path of the money: it must go through the charitable entity's selection process.

On the third question (whether running this kind of raffle for one's own family or friend would violate the Ethics Act's special-privileges prohibition in RCW 42.52.070), the AG said no. The Ethics Act prohibits using one's state position to secure privileges to which the person is not legally entitled. Conducting a raffle within the bounds of RCW 9.46.0209 is doing exactly what the legislature authorized, so the employees are not using their position to obtain a special privilege. They are exercising a benefit the law gives them.

The two statutes therefore do not conflict. RCW 9.46.0209 sets the rules for state-employee raffles. RCW 42.52.070 polices conduct outside those rules. As long as the employees stay within the Gambling Act, the Ethics Act is not implicated.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What is the state combined fund drive (CFD)?
A statutorily authorized payroll-deduction-based charitable giving program for state employees, established under RCW 41.04.033. Participation is limited to organizations with federally tax-exempt, not-for-profit status (per WAC 357-55-110). The CFD is one of three permitted recipients under RCW 9.46.0209(2)(b)(ii), alongside CFD-approved entities and charitable or benevolent entities.

What does "charitable or benevolent" mean here?
The opinion treated the two words as essentially synonymous in this statutory context, citing Adult Student Housing v. Dep't of Revenue. The Restatement (Third) of Trusts agrees: "a trust for 'charitable and benevolent purposes,' or even for 'charitable or benevolent purposes,' would likely be interpreted as intended to include only charitable purposes." So a "charitable or benevolent entity" is an organization with an independent legal identity dedicated to aiding, giving, or serving others without expectation of gainful return.

What's an adopt-a-family or adopt-a-child program?
A charitable program in which an organization (like the Salvation Army) screens needy families or individuals, then matches them with donor-benefactors who supply funds or gifts. The charity is the gatekeeper. An employee group running a raffle for adopt-a-family is donating to the charity; the charity decides which family receives the support.

Could the employee group's contribution end up benefiting a coworker's family?
Yes, if the coworker's family was independently selected by the charitable entity for inclusion in its program. RCW 9.46.0209 does not prohibit it. The screening just has to happen at the charitable-organization level, not at the employee-vote level.

Why doesn't the special-privileges prohibition kick in here?
Because conducting a raffle authorized by RCW 9.46.0209 is not a "special" privilege; it is a privilege the law confers on state-employee groups. Per In re Recall of Feetham, a special privilege involves "doing something that would otherwise be prohibited." Running a charity raffle in compliance with the Gambling Act is the opposite: it is doing something the law permits.

What if the employees took compensation for running the raffle?
RCW 9.46.0209(2)(b)(ii) prohibits any compensation, in any form, for services rendered in support of the raffle. Compensation would also implicate Ethics Act provisions about private gain from public position. Either way, the employees must be running the raffle as volunteers.

Are there other state-employee raffle requirements?
Yes. The group must obtain revocable approval from the agency's chief executive (RCW 9.46.0209(2)(b)(i)), provide financial information when requested (subsection (iii)), and limit ticket sales and winners to employees of the agency (subsection (iv)). The opinion only addresses the recipient-class question, but the structural requirements still apply.

Background and statutory framework

Washington's Gambling Act (RCW 9.46) generally prohibits gambling, with carve-outs for charitable raffles by qualifying organizations. The general definition of "bona fide charitable or nonprofit organization" is in RCW 9.46.0209(1). For raffles specifically (RCW 9.46.0315 and 9.46.110), a more limited definition in RCW 9.46.0209(2) applies, and that definition was extended in 2007 to include groups of executive-branch state employees meeting certain conditions.

The conditions in RCW 9.46.0209(2)(b) are structural (chief-executive approval, financial reporting, limiting ticket sales to agency employees, no compensation for the raffle organizers) and substantive (the proceeds must go to one of three named classes of recipients).

The Ethics in Public Service Act (RCW 42.52) overlays the Gambling Act when state employees are involved. The "special privileges" prohibition in RCW 42.52.070 is the main concern for an opinion like this one. The municipal-officer analog in RCW 42.23.070(1) and the leading case interpreting it (In re Recall of Feetham) tell us what counts as a special privilege.

Citations and references

Statutes and rules:
- RCW 9.46 (Gambling Act)
- RCW 9.46.0209, .0209(1), .0209(2)(b), .0209(2)(b)(ii)
- RCW 9.46.0289, .0311, .0315, .010
- RCW 41.04.033 (state combined fund drive)
- RCW 42.52 (Ethics in Public Service Act); .52.070 (special privileges); .52.900 (purpose)
- RCW 42.23.070(1) (municipal officer analog)
- WAC 357-55-110(4), (5)

Cases:
- Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)
- State v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d 444, 69 P.3d 318 (2003)
- Am. Continental Ins. Co. v. Steen, 151 Wn.2d 512, 91 P.3d 864 (2004)
- Burns v. City of Seattle, 161 Wn.2d 129, 164 P.3d 475 (2007)
- Welch v. Southland Corp., 134 Wn.2d 629, 952 P.2d 162 (1998)
- Susmann v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Seattle, 101 Wash. 487, 172 P. 554 (1918)
- Adult Student Housing, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 41 Wn. App. 583, 705 P.2d 793 (1985)
- Hickle v. Whitney Farms, Inc., 148 Wn.2d 911, 64 P.3d 1244 (2003)
- In re Pers. Restraint Petition of Brown, 143 Wn.2d 431, 21 P.3d 687 (2001)
- McGinnis v. State, 152 Wn.2d 639, 99 P.3d 1240 (2004)
- In re Recall of Feetham, 149 Wn.2d 860, 72 P.3d 741 (2003)

Earlier authorities:
- Executive Ethics Advisory Board Opinions 04-02; 00-11; 99-02

Source

• Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/raffles-conducted-state-employees-charitable-or-benevolent-entity

Original opinion text

Attorney General Rob McKenna

GAMBLING—CHARITY—STATE EMPLOYEES—ETHICS IN PUBLIC SERVICE ACT—Raffles Conducted By State Employees For Charitable Or Benevolent Entity

1. RCW 9.46.0209 authorizes state employees to conduct charitable raffles, but such raffles may benefit a person or family in need through a qualified charitable or benevolent entity. However, state employees may not conduct a raffle for the purpose of raising funds that will be transmitted directly to an individual person or family in need.

2. A charitable raffle conducted by a group of state employees may benefit a family, family member, or friend of a state employee conducting the raffle, only if that recipient has been designated as a person or family in need by a qualified charitable or benevolent entity.

February 1, 2010

Neil Gorrell, Chair
Executive Ethics Board
PO Box 40149
Olympia, WA 98504-0149

Cite As:
AGO 2010 No. 3

Dear Mr. Gorrell:

By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested our opinion on four questions, which we have combined into three and paraphrased as follows:

In RCW 9.46.0209, does the use of the term "charitable or benevolent entity, including but not limited to a person or family in need," mean that a group of employees may conduct a raffle for any needy person or family the group chooses?

If RCW 9.46.0209 means that a group of employees may conduct a raffle for any needy person or family, can that needy person or family be the family, family member, or friend of a state employee conducting the raffle?

If RCW 9.46.0209 allows groups of executive branch employees to hold raffles to raise money for their own family and friends, how can it be reconciled with RCW 42.52.070, which prohibits the use of one's state position to secure special privileges for oneself, one's family member, or other persons?

BRIEF ANSWERS

Your questions, taken together, ask for an analysis of the permissibility of charitable raffles conducted by executive branch state employees, when the beneficiary of the raffle is a family member or friend of a state employee conducting the raffle. We conclude, in response to your questions as a whole, that an employee raffle may ultimately benefit specific individuals, including family members or friends of state employees, when the needy person or family has been designated by a "charitable or benevolent entity," such as occurs in adopt-a-child or adopt-a-family type programs. However, we conclude that the law presently does not authorize state employees to conduct a raffle for the purpose of raising funds that the employees will directly transmit to their family members or friends.

With respect to the specific questions, first, as used in RCW 9.46.0209, the term "charitable or benevolent entity, including but not limited to a person or family in need," does not mean that a group of employees may conduct a raffle for any needy person or family the group chooses. The statute authorizes a group of employees to conduct a raffle to raise funds for a "charitable or benevolent entity," an organization that has a legal identity independent from its members and that is dedicated to a specific type of purpose. A "person or family in need" serves to illustrate a type of charitable program operated by a "charitable or benevolent entity." It does not identify an independent class of recipients directly eligible to receive employee raffle funds.

Second, RCW 9.46.0209 does not mean that a group of state employees may vote to hold a raffle for any "person or family in need." Consequently, a group of employees may not vote to hold a raffle to raise funds directly for the family, family member, or friend of the state employee requesting the raffle, or for any other needy person or family.

Finally, RCW 9.46.0209 does not conflict with RCW 42.52.070. Provided a raffle is conducted in keeping with RCW 9.46.0209 and other applicable Gambling Act provisions, state employees are not using their positions to provide any special privilege when they conduct a charitable fund-raising raffle. Rather, they are acting to provide a benefit specifically authorized by law. Consequently, there is no conflict to reconcile between RCW 9.46.0209 and RCW 42.52.070.

BACKGROUND

Your questions turn upon the construction of a provision of the state Gambling Act (RCW 9.46), and that provision's relationship with the state Ethics in Public Service Act (Ethics Act; RCW 42.52). The Gambling Act regulates gambling activities in Washington, including gambling conducted to raise money for charity. RCW 9.46.010 (legislative declaration of policy regarding gambling). The Ethics Act regulates certain conduct of state officers and state employees, with the objective of promoting honesty and integrity in government. RCW 42.52.900 (legislative declaration of policy regarding the Ethics Act).

Your initial questions primarily address a provision of the Gambling Act, RCW 9.46.0209. The Gambling Act authorizes a "bona fide charitable or nonprofit organization" to conduct various forms of gambling, including raffles, in accordance with the act and the rules of the Washington State Gambling Commission. RCW 9.46.0311. RCW 9.46.0209(1) defines the term "bona fide charitable or nonprofit organization" for purposes of the Gambling Act. For the limited purpose of conducting raffles pursuant to RCW 9.46.0315, RCW 9.46.0209(2) provides a second, more limited, definition of "bona fide nonprofit organization."

Since 2007, this second definition has provided that a group of state employees satisfying certain requirements may qualify as a "bona fide nonprofit organization" and accordingly be authorized to conduct a raffle. Laws of 2007, ch. 452, § 1 (codified at RCW 9.46.0209(2)(b)). To qualify as a "bona fide nonprofit organization" for this limited purpose, the group of employees must obtain approval from the chief executive official of their agency, provide financial information regarding their raffle activity upon request, and limit raffle ticket purchases to employees of the agency. Additionally, and the focus of interest here, the group may conduct a raffle

solely to raise funds for either the state combined fund drive, created under RCW 41.04.033; an entity approved to receive funds from the state combined fund drive; or a charitable or benevolent entity, including but not limited to a person or family in need, as determined by a majority vote of the approved group of employees. No person or other entity may receive compensation in any form from the group for services rendered in support of this purpose[.]

RCW 9.46.0209(2)(b)(ii) (emphasis added). Your initial questions concern the meaning of the italicized language.

Your final question concerns the interplay between RCW 9.46.0209(2)(b) and the Ethics Act's prohibition against special privileges. The Ethics Act prohibits state employees from engaging in any activity that conflicts with the proper discharge of their official duties, including using public resources for private gain. In particular, the special privileges prohibition, RCW 42.52.070, prohibits state employees from using their positions to secure special privileges or exemptions for themselves, their immediate families, or other persons.

With that background, we turn now to the questions presented.

ANALYSIS

1. In RCW 9.46.0209, does the use of the term "charitable or benevolent entity, including but not limited to a person or family in need," mean that a group of employees may conduct a raffle for any needy person or family the group chooses?

As used in RCW 9.46.0209, the term "charitable or benevolent entity, including but not limited to a person or family in need," does not mean that a group of employees may conduct a raffle for any needy person or family the group chooses. The statute authorizes a group of employees to conduct a raffle to raise funds for a "charitable or benevolent entity," an organization that has a legal identity independent from its members and that is dedicated to a specific type of purpose. A "person or family in need" serves to illustrate a type of charitable program operated by a "charitable or benevolent entity." It does not identify an independent class of recipients directly eligible to receive raffle funds. However, an employee raffle may ultimately benefit a needy person or family who has been designated to receive the raffle funds by a "charitable or benevolent entity."

Our goal when interpreting a statutory phrase is to ascertain and implement the legislature's intent. Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). Our starting point is the plain meaning of the language. State v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318 (2003). In the absence of statutory definitions, a term's plain and ordinary meaning can be determined from a standard dictionary. Am. Continental Ins. Co. v. Steen, 151 Wn.2d 512, 518, 91 P.3d 864 (2004). In addition, the term must be considered in the context of the statute in which it is found, together with related statutory provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole. Burns v. City of Seattle, 161 Wn.2d 129, 140, 164 P.3d 475 (2007).

Our analysis begins with examining the term "charitable or benevolent entity." Black's Law Dictionary defines "entity" as "[a]n organization (such as a business or a governmental unit) that has a legal identity apart from its members." Black's Law Dictionary 573 (8th ed. 2004). This legal definition of "entity" is consistent with the two other uses of "entity" in RCW 9.46.0209.

Turning to the modifying words "charitable or benevolent," Webster's defines "charitable" as "generous in assistance to the poor," and "practicing or showing charity." Webster's 378. The definition of "benevolent" is "marked by a kindly disposition to promote the happiness and prosperity of others or by generosity in and pleasure at doing good works." Although "benevolent" may arguably have a broader meaning than "charitable," when the two words are used as a combined modifier, even joined by the disjunctive "or" as in "charitable or benevolent," courts commonly construe the two words to mean "charitable."

Accordingly, the words "charitable or benevolent" describe a certain quality displayed in acts directed towards recipients, a quality of aiding, giving, or serving. Indeed, our state Supreme Court has said, "[t]he term 'charity' in itself implies gift in some form; it implies the bestowal of goods or money, the rendition of services, or the awarding of privileges, free to the recipient, without gainful return or the anticipation of gainful return to the donors." Susmann v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Seattle, 101 Wash. 487, 493, 172 P. 554 (1918).

Next, we examine the language "including but not limited to a person or family in need." The verb "include" means "to place, list, or rate as a part or component of a whole or of a larger group, class, or aggregate." Webster's 1143. Adding "but not limited to" denotes that the list of examples is not exhaustive. Hickle v. Whitney Farms, Inc., 148 Wn.2d 911, 924 n.15, 64 P.3d 1244 (2003); In re the Pers. Restraint Petition of Brown, 143 Wn.2d 431, 459, 21 P.3d 687 (2001).

The term "charitable or benevolent entity, including but not limited to a person or family in need," thus signifies that a "person or family in need" would be an example of a "charitable or benevolent entity." However, this language creates an ambiguity because these two phrases have contradictory meanings. A "charitable or benevolent entity" is an organization that dispenses charity. Conversely, a "person or family in need" describes needy individuals. Such persons are the natural beneficiaries of charitable or benevolent entities, not charitable or benevolent entities themselves.

This ambiguous language is open to two interpretations. The statute could mean that, for purposes of RCW 9.46.0209, the definition of "charitable or benevolent entity" is expanded to include a "person or family in need." Alternatively, the statute could be read to mean that an employee raffle may ultimately benefit a "person or family in need" when the needy person or family is designated to receive the raffle funds through a program operated by a "charitable or benevolent entity." For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the latter interpretation is correct.

A pivotal regulatory requirement is that gambling for the purpose of charitable fund raising may only benefit an organization solely organized and operated for a recognized charitable purpose. RCW 9.46.0209(1). This strict regulation and control of gambling for charitable fund-raising purposes logically would apply to no lesser degree to a group of employees conducting a gambling activity than to any other organization. Although a "charitable or benevolent entity" is such an organization, a "person or family in need" is not. Consequently, construing RCW 9.46.0209 to authorize employee raffles to raise funds directly for needy persons or families would conflict with the regulatory framework of the Gambling Act.

In addition, interpreting RCW 9.46.0209(2) to authorize employees to hold raffles that directly benefit "a person or family in need," effectively would require one to rewrite the statute and write out of the statute part of its language. The natural reading of the sentence is that the word "for" introduces a list of three items, each item describing a class of recipient eligible to receive raffle funds: the state combined fund drive; an entity approved to receive funds from the state combined fund drive; or a charitable or benevolent entity (including but not limited to a person or family in need).

Finally, this interpretation is supported by the legislative history of Laws of 2007, ch. 452. Notably, during public testimony in support of allowing state employees to conduct charitable fund-raising raffles, adopt-a-family was one of two charitable programs expressly mentioned. See H.B. Rep. on H.B. 1599, 60th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2007). In an adopt-a-family or adopt-a-child charitable program, a charitable organization solicits donor-benefactors and matches them to needy recipient families or individuals screened and selected by the organization.

In conclusion, as used in RCW 9.46.0209, the term "charitable or benevolent entity, including but not limited to a person or family in need," means that a "person or family in need" illustrates a type of charitable program operated by a "charitable or benevolent entity," rather than an independent class of recipients directly eligible to receive raffle funds. An employee raffle may ultimately benefit a needy person or family who has been designated to receive raffle funds by a "charitable or benevolent entity."

2. If RCW 9.46.0209 means that a group of employees may conduct a raffle for any needy person or family, can that needy person or family be the family, family member, or friend of a state employee conducting the raffle?

As explained above, RCW 9.46.0209 does not authorize a group of state employees to conduct a raffle to raise funds to be provided directly to any "person or family in need" selected by the employee group. An employee group may conduct a fund-raising raffle that ultimately benefits a needy person or family who has been designated to receive the raffle funds by a "charitable or benevolent entity," such as occurs in adopt-a-child or adopt-a-family type charitable programs.

Consequently, a group of employees may not vote to hold a raffle to raise funds directly for the family, family member, or friend of the state employee requesting the raffle, anymore than it could for any other needy person or family. That being said, RCW 9.46.0209 and the Gambling Act do not impose any additional limitations or requirements on who a "charitable or benevolent entity" may designate to be a "person or family in need." As a result, RCW 9.46.0209 does not otherwise prohibit an employee group from donating raffle proceeds through a "charitable or benevolent entity" to a "person or family" that has been designated by that entity to be eligible, including the family, family member, or friend of the state employee requesting the raffle.

3. If RCW 9.46.0209 allows groups of executive branch employees to hold raffles to raise money for their own family and friends, how can it be reconciled with RCW 42.52.070, which prohibits the use of one's state position to secure special privileges for oneself, one's family member, or other persons?

Provided that employees conduct their raffle in keeping with RCW 9.46.0209 and other applicable Gambling Act provisions, the employees do not receive any special privilege, and there is no conflict between RCW 9.46.0209 and RCW 42.52.070. RCW 42.52.070 provides that state employees may not use their positions "to secure special privileges or exemptions" for themselves, their spouses, children, parents, or other persons. A special privilege or exemption is a privilege or exemption to which the person is not legally entitled. A special privilege involves being allowed to do something that would otherwise be prohibited, while a special exemption involves being relieved from doing something that would be otherwise mandated. See In re the Recall of Feetham, 149 Wn.2d 860, 867–70, 72 P.3d 741 (2003).

Executive branch state employees are not exempt from the special privileges prohibition when conducting fund-raising raffles pursuant to RCW 9.46.0209. However, when employees conduct a raffle in compliance with RCW 9.46.0209 and the other applicable requirements of the Gambling Act, the employees are not using their positions to provide a special privilege to themselves or others. They are not doing something that would otherwise be prohibited by law, or providing a benefit that the law does not authorize. Instead, they are acting in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, RCW 9.46.0209 authorizes state employees to conduct a raffle to raise funds for a "charitable or benevolent entity." However, an employee raffle may ultimately benefit specific individuals, including family members or friends of state employees, when the needy person or family has been designated to receive the raffle funds by a "charitable or benevolent entity," such as occurs in adopt-a-child or adopt-a-family type programs.

We trust that the foregoing will be useful to you.

ROBERT M. MCKENNA
Attorney General

ALLYSON ZIPP
Deputy Solicitor General