|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Atherton Police Department and City Council unanimously accepted an anonymous $180,000 donation for three new motorcycles. The donation will pay for three new BMW motorcycles to replace older ones police say have exceeded their service life, according to a staff report.
When asked if police solicited the donation, Deputy City Manager Anthony Suber said, “The police department often gets donations from residents that are unsolicited.”
The donor asked to be anonymous, which is “typical,” according to Suber.
David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said Atherton cannot hide the identity of donors. The First Amendment Coalition is a nonprofit that works to advance government transparency and highlight free speech concerns. The city refused to disclose the donor or say if the donation was solicited, despite repeated inquiries by The Almanac.
“The public has an overwhelming and compelling interest in knowing who is giving favors to or receiving favors from a public agency,” said Loy. “Does this person potentially have other business for the city? Are they potentially seeking to curry favor with the city? Do they have a potential land use issue or zoning permit up for approval? This is precisely why we have public disclosure laws, because transparency is the oxygen of accountability, and the people cannot hold the government accountable without the information necessary to do so.”
This news organization requested more information under the California Public Records Act, including communications with the donor, documents showing the donation and a ledger of past donations with donors’ names. Under state law, Atherton must respond by April 25 with either the records, a timeline for disclosure, or a legal justification for withholding them.
“The donation may be entirely legitimate and altruistic, but the people have a right to get all the information necessary to decide that for themselves,” Loy said.
Similar battles over donor anonymity have played out across California.
In 2001, the Court of Appeals ruled that a California State University, Fresno-affiliated foundation could not conceal the names of donors who paid for luxury stadium suites, following a lawsuit by the Sacramento Bee. The court rejected claims that disclosure would violate donor privacy or deter future contributions, stating: “The public should also be able to determine whether any favoritism or advantage has been afforded certain individuals or entities in connection with the license agreements, and whether any discriminatory treatment exists.”
Loy believes that case is analogous to Atherton’s situation.
“This is exactly why we have campaign finance laws. People running for office have to disclose who gave them money because the public has a right to know who is paying for someone’s campaign. Well, the same principle applies to who is paying for city operations,” Loy said.
In another case, the independent Auditor-Controller in Orange County forced officials to reveal the donor behind a $50,000 park improvement gift.
