To amend sections 117.30, 117.36, and 1715.51 and to enact sections 117.281, 1715.60, 1715.61, 1715.62, 1715.63, 1715.64, 1715.65, 1715.66, 1715.67, 1715.68, 1715.69, 1715.70, and 1715.71 of the Revised Code to establish standards for transparency and oversight of non-private endowment funds and to permit the state to recover public money provided to tax-exempt organizations that fail to comply with federal tax regulation and reporting law.
HB720 would create a new state oversight framework for certain charitable endowment funds held by non-private institutions, such as public or governmental charitable entities. It defines “non-private endowment fund” and gives the donor who established the fund the ability to appoint a representative to oversee how the fund is used, managed, invested, and appropriated. The bill also restricts transfers out of donor-restricted non-private endowment funds unless the gift instrument allows it, the donor consents, or a court modifies the gift terms.
The bill requires annual reporting for donor-restricted non-private endowment funds over $5 million, including market value, asset allocation, spending policy, spending rate, appropriations, deficits, and any deviations from donor restrictions. It also requires a sustainability review at least every five years, with a written report addressing fiduciary duties, donor intent, prudence, inflation, expected returns, and the institution’s other resources. If a fund is found to be unsustainable, the attorney general or a court may modify the fund’s obligations or charitable purpose to preserve the fund, and the attorney general is given sole enforcement authority over these provisions.
HB720 also adds a separate enforcement tool for public money placed into tax-exempt organizations that fail to comply with federal tax reporting or regulatory requirements. If an audit or investigation shows that public funds were deposited into such an organization, the auditor of state, the affected public office, or the attorney general may bring a civil action to recover the money or property. The bill requires notice to the attorney general and allows the attorney general to intervene or bring the action if local officials do not act within 120 days.
The bill would affect Ohio’s Revised Code provisions governing audits, civil recovery of public funds, and charitable endowment oversight. It expands the attorney general’s role in monitoring and enforcing compliance, creates new reporting and corrective-action obligations for qualifying non-private institutions, and authorizes courts to order repayment, injunctions, enhanced reporting, or other relief if an institution misuses endowment assets or fails to comply with donor restrictions.
Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no documented public sentiment in the record. Based on the text, the measure appears designed to increase transparency and accountability, but it could also draw concern from charitable institutions and endowment managers over added reporting burdens, state oversight, and limits on institutional discretion. The main likely point of contention is the balance between donor control and institutional flexibility, especially where the attorney general can investigate, require corrective plans, and seek court-ordered modifications of endowment terms.
HB720 would amend Ohio law to create new oversight and enforcement provisions for non-private endowment funds and to expand recovery tools when public money is deposited into tax-exempt organizations that do not comply with federal tax reporting or regulatory requirements. It would add new sections to Chapter 1715 governing charitable funds, impose reporting and sustainability-review duties on qualifying institutions, authorize donor representatives and the attorney general to raise concerns, and give courts and the attorney general authority to modify endowment terms, order repayment, or seek injunctive relief. It also amends Chapter 117 to require audit-related notice and recovery actions involving public funds placed with noncompliant tax-exempt entities.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the legislative history available here. The bill’s stated purpose suggests a pro-transparency, pro-accountability posture, likely appealing to those concerned about donor intent, public money, and oversight of charitable assets. At the same time, the added reporting, investigation, and enforcement powers may be viewed skeptically by nonprofit and institutional stakeholders who could see the measure as intrusive or administratively burdensome.
The main likely areas of contention are the bill’s expanded role for the attorney general, the mandatory reporting and sustainability-review requirements for large donor-restricted endowments, and the limits placed on transfers and spending discretion. Donors and donor representatives may support stronger protections for donor intent and fund stewardship, while non-private institutions may object to state oversight, public disclosure requirements, and the possibility of court-ordered modifications to gift restrictions. Another potential point of dispute is the provision allowing the state to recover public money from tax-exempt organizations that fail to comply with federal tax law, which could raise questions about enforcement scope and due process.