This is a post covering what I recently learned about the importance of legal compliance, as applied to NLRBE-like intentional communities. It is the second post in a four post series about what I learned during Occidental Arts and Ecology Center’s (OAEC) five day course entitled, “Starting and Sustaining Intentional Communities.”

The complete list of posts in the series are listed and linked here:

• Introduction – NLRBE-Like Intentional Community Ideas from Five Day Course (Post 1 of 4)
• The Importance of Legal Compliance – NLRBE-Like Intentional Community Ideas from Five Day Course (Post 2 of 4)
• Conflict Prevention, Conflict Resolution, Decision-Making, and Facilitation – NLRBE-Like Intentional Community Ideas from Five Day Course (Post 3 of 4)
• The Role of 501©(3) Nonprofit Entities – NLRBE-Like Intentional Community Ideas from Five Day Course (Post 4 of 4)

So, back to the subject of this post, the importance of legal compliance, particularly for NLRBE-like intentional communities.

I inadvertently learned quite a bit about the importance of legal compliance during OAEC’s course. It’s not that it was a topic officially covered by the course, although there was some discussion about how to choose legal entity structures and such. It was more a topic I ended up thinking a lot about, as I observed the way OAEC and course attendees seemed to approach it.

Of course, as a lawyer, I am biased towards legal compliance. But, in my studied and personal experience, legal compliance is in fact necessary.

This discovery was not made only through my formal education, but through my own personal, visceral experiences. Whether inadvertent or purposeful, failure to comply legally can result in extremely stressful, time-consuming, and usually utterly unnecessary challenges.

By contrast . . .

early, ongoing, and deep understanding and application of the law to community planning can dramatically increase the odds a community can be set to experience:

• ease, versus difficulty;
• efficient use of time, versus inefficient use of time;
• peace of mind, versus worry;
• empowerment, versus disempowerment;
• stability, versus instability;
• security, versus insecurity;
• financial viability, versus financial ruin; and even
• existence, versus nonexistence.

But what does this have to do with my experience at OAEC’s “Starting and Sustaining Intentional Communities” five day course?

Both during this course and in other contexts, I have noticed that people often seem leery of committing to full legal compliance.

I believe this is in large part because:

• It is so difficult and expensive in this system to acquire competent, complete, ongoing legal advice. Hence, understandably, people often downplay the importance of it, wanting to believe it is less vital than it is. Indeed, sometimes they even try to get by completely without it, typically with extremely problematic results.
• Also, many people do not believe in the system itself, and accordingly don’t believe in complying with its rules.

Believe me, I very much understand both concerns.

The good news is that there are potential solutions to the first concern, which I’ll discuss later in this post.

Regarding the second concern, certainly there are imaginable contexts in which even lawyers might not recommend legal compliance, such as when violations of basic human rights are involved. Think Nazi Germany.

However, I don’t see us as quite there. And, in my experience, unfortunately, no amount of wishing away the system in which we live, or the laws within it, will take away their bite.

So, at least when we can – to the extent we can – let’s find legal ways to actualize a “new model that makes the existing model obsolete,” to quote R. Buckminster Fuller.

But, can this be done?

Arguably, if it’s our very system we feel concerned about, our very system we want to replace, there’s no way we could possibly model an alternative that is in full compliance with our current system’s rules.

Right?

Perhaps . . .

Yet, if our goal is to attempt to come as close as possible to modeling a miniature version of an alternative system, within the status quo system, what other options do we have?

We can be confident that communities which flagrantly violate the law from the get-go will be shut down before they begin. And communities which routinely “bend” the law will be continuously under threat as well.

So aren’t legally compliant communities the only real type that stand a chance of existing long enough to make an impact?

Significantly, it’s due to the aforementioned conundrum that many feel there is no point in even trying to create miniature versions of alternative systems within the status quo system. At the very least, they suggest, an entire country would need to adopt/model an NLRBE-like alternative. Smaller “intentional communities” within a larger system, by contrast, would be doomed to adapt to the current system to such a degree that they would model virtually nothing alternative at all.

And perhaps this is true. Perhaps this is a futile venture. I am open to discovering just that.

But, so far, I don’t believe it is futile. However, I do agree that, within this system, we’re not likely to find a “perfect” path for modeling an alternative system. Thus, model NLRBE-like communities won’t be ideal, to be sure.

But, nonetheless, many understandably want to try.

And, what is the alternative to trying?

We all have to live, day-to-day, in the “meanwhile,” in the current system, in any event. Few of us expect an NLRBE will materialize overnight. So what will we do in the meanwhile to survive day-to-day?

Many understandably feel that, even if not perfect, they will benefit by banding together in intentional, at least somewhat NLRBE-like, egalitarian communities, which have proven that they can coexist within the status quo economy.

Such communities, like Twin Oaks, have demonstrated that they can dramatically lower the income earning time requirements we each have when we are not banned together, sharing resources. So, at the very least, these communities, even if they partially or completely fail as NLRBE models, could allow many to devote a lot more time towards advocating for a larger scale shift.

And, like it or not, these communities cannot reliably do that if they violate legal norms within our current system. They will simply not last long enough to have that impact.

But, the beauty is, I’m confident that they don’t need to violate the law in order to model and accomplish a great deal, as shown by long-lasting egalitarian communities, like Twin Oaks, that have continued to coexist with our current system.

So, in any event, my proposal is that those who want to form such NRLBE-like communities go for early and ongoing legal compliance.

When I say “early” I mean getting thorough legal advice prior to, and while in the process of formulating basic community plans.

The trouble is, to be efficient, sufficient, and effective, legal compliance needs to be baked into the DNA of the community from the beginning.

[PIC OF DNA]

True, allowing your basic plans to be “limited,” from the very outset, by “baking the law into the DNA of the community” might sound limiting.

But I have actually found it incredibly empowering. Deeply understanding the law prior to designing a plan can lead to powerful, creative plans that have a real staying power.

Consider, for example, the Creative Commons licensing regime. The highly educated lawyers who created the regime started with deep understanding of and intention to comply with the law. Yet, with this intention, they helped design something 180° different, in effect, than current copyright licensing. They deeply understood the law, and acting within it, they took advantage of the very power copyright holders possess under law, to allow those right holders to fully and legally share their powerful rights with others.

I believe something similar has happened with egalitarian intentional communities. If you look into the history of these NLRBE-like, 501(d) communities, it was not always clear that secular ones would be accepted under the law. But a court case effectively found they were, and later cases about entities focused around secular beliefs have only strengthened the argument. [CITATION TO THE TWIN OAKS CASE & CERT DENIED]

To be sure, to make these communities more viable and successful for more people, further changes in the law and/or in the IRS’ approach would be great. To read about some of the viability concerns for people from all walks of life, see this blog post [LINK]. Perhaps, for example, it might be desirable for the community of the egalitarian communities to lobby for a change that allows more favorable treatment of “outside income.”

Of course, to tackle such a challenge, let alone to ensure that one’s personal NLRBE-like intentional community is legally compliant, it would help to have the deep involvement of one or more lawyers, from the beginning. But, as noted earlier, securing such assistance is not always readily affordable.

One way to tackle the affordability-of-legal-advice challenge might be to focus on attracting interested lawyer community members.

If this is appealing to you, I recommend making it crystal clear, in everything you do, that early and ongoing legal compliance is a top priority.

There is nothing more disheartening for a lawyer to come in and see that it group has been together, sometimes for years, put together an incredibly detailed plan, and perhaps even formed a legal entity and begun work, without ever consulting a lawyer, or without consulting one who could put in a sufficient amount of time to truly understand the group’s goals and together design a legally compliant plan.

Likewise, there is nothing much more overwhelming to a lawyer to come into a group and see that they would need to advocate a complete “do over,” or at least massively retrofit what’s going on, in order for the lawyer to turn the group around, let alone feel comfortable enough to participate in it.

This has happened to me more than once. And every time it does, ultimately I decide I’d be better off looking elsewhere for a group to get involved with. I end up having to decline participation.

Attorneys simply cannot get involved with a group that is designed without regard to the law and intends to avoid legal compliance. They would risk losing their license to practice law, for starters, which few lawyers are going to be up for. And, for many of us, we find it’s just too challenging to try to unwind, undo, and reverse flow all the momentum headed in a non-compliant direction.

So – again – whether or not you want an attorney community member on board, but especially if you do, a clear commitment to early and ongoing legal advice is what I recommend.

Attorney members can save big money in legal fees for a community. So they are well worth the extra legal compliance effort, although, again, even when the community is not going for lawyer members legal compliance is critical.

Of course, attorney members will not always be perfectly suited to advise in every context. On some, if not many topics, they may have too many conflicts of interest to advise. And some of them may not be expert enough in certain areas of the law. But it is definitely something to consider exploring.

In any event, I know the message of this blog post is not one people always want to hear, i.e., how important legal compliance is.

The good news is, there are ways we can take the bull by the horns. We can be empowered by accepting and mastering what it takes to be in compliance – with the help of those who have devoted their lives to such mastery.

So, that’s it for this second post in my four post series about how what I learned at OAEC’s “Starting and Sustaining Intentional Communities” course.

To read the next post in the series, entitled “NLRBE-Like Intentional Community Ideas from Five Day Course (Post 3 of 4) – Conflict Prevention and Resolution, Decision-Making, and Facilitation,” click here.

Also, for your convenience, here again is the complete list of posts in the series:

• Introduction – NLRBE-Like Intentional Community Ideas from Five Day Course (Post 1 of 4)
• The Importance of Legal Compliance – NLRBE-Like Intentional Community Ideas from Five Day Course (Post 2 of 4)
• Conflict Prevention, Conflict Resolution, Decision-Making, and Facilitation – NLRBE-Like Intentional Community Ideas from Five Day Course (Post 3 of 4)
• The Role of 501©(3) Nonprofit Entities – NLRBE-Like Intentional Community Ideas from Five Day Course (Post 4 of 4)