Local Blogger Takes Issue With Legal Donations To Alley Project
June 6, 2017 at 4:29 p.m.
Local Blogger Takes Issue With Legal Donations To Alley Project
By David [email protected]
On his website over the weekend, local blogger Babcock accused the city of impropriety for not providing the names of the anonymous donors to the alley project and asked, “what are they hiding?”
Anonymous donors gave $2,150 of the $106,500 raised.
Much of Monday’s discussion came from city officials who defended the use of anonymous donations and pointed to state law.
Babcock, meanwhile, attended the meeting and said he might seek to change the law.
Babcock said he wasn’t suggesting anything was done illegally, but such programs give “a perception that somebody can give anonymously, and I personally don’t think that’s right.”
Babcock posted the city’s response to his records request for the names, which city attorney Mike Valentine’s prepared. It read in part, “Indiana Code 5-14-3-4b(15) was enacted in part to except from the required disclosure of names of donors those who ask for anonymity. The state legislature determined that it was necessary to protect against the disclosure of the names of donors requesting to be anonymous because to do otherwise would have a negative effect on the charitable intent of some donors.”
After the city council took care of its regular business Monday night, Mayor Joe Thallemer addressed Babcock’s accusations.
Providing background to the project, Thallemer said the city was made aware of a program out of the lieutenant governor’s office called CreatINg Places that was a collaboration between the Indiana Housing & Community Development Authority and Patronicity.com back in November 2016. The city was made aware it could raise up to $50,000 in crowd-granting funds, but it raised $56,500, and in turn the IHCDA providing a matching grant of $50,000.
Assistant City Planner Justin Taylor said some of the corporate donors “come from more than one donor, so if you’re looking at the numbers, the corporate donations average about five people in that donation. So they don’t just come from one individual, they would come from a group of people.”
Thallemer said the bottom line was that the city had a “pretty significant” public response to the project crowdfunding.
“So it was obvious the public was behind this project just from that realm,” he said.
The IHCDA put up a $1 million to match the crowdfunding contributions from various cities. Other communities that have participated in CreatINg Places include South Bend, Indianapolis and others. Projects include parks, trails and an alley activation project in Tipton.
Thallemer said the city followed the state guidelines in regards to the receipt and use of restricted gifts. Patronicity allowed gifts to be made at any level up to $10,000 for the city’s specific project and allowed gifts to be anonymous.
“We successfully raised over $56,000 from over 140 donors, and again leveraged that $56,000 up to $106,000. Sixteen donors chose to give anonymously. Public records laws allow us to make our donors public as we have done on our website. Public records laws also allow us not to reveal the names of anonymous donors,” Thallemer said, while also referencing state law.
“So the city has taken the position that to release those names after they were promised anonymity would do the following: It would breach the terms of the gift and potential discourage future giving; it would violate their privacy by publicizing the names of those donors and subjecting them to future unwanted solicitation by others seeking donations for other projects. The pool of donors is often small and repetitive in a small community and some donors just may not have the means to give repeated requests for donations and they hesitate if their name is out there on a general list of donors,” Thallemer explained.
While there’s been some suggestions of impropriety, Thallemer said the city has successfully participated in a state-funded grant project, followed the rules and public access laws.
He said the city talked with the public access counselor and reviewed the wishes of the general assembly.
“We take allegations of impropriety very seriously and follow the public access laws that would require disclosures in such a case. I would ask that those accuse the city of impropriety to give specific examples. If there are specific concerns, we will ask swiftly to disclose those names. But the public access laws and the general assembly understand the reasons for anonymous donations and have provided for such in our state,” Thallemer said.
Councilman Ron Shoemaker said he understood the legality of it, but “some people are saying it just doesn’t look right. I think it is legal, but I think if we do bid contracts and take anonymous money, somebody can say, ‘Hmm.’ And that’s what we try to avoid, that impropriety look, even though we’re doing things correctly.”
Councilwoman Cindy Dobbins asked if the city often took anonymous donations for projects. Clerk-Treasurer Lynne Christiansen said it does. Thallemer said in talking with past mayors, anonymous donations can be a very big part of big projects. He said he understands that anonymous donations raise a red flag, but there needs to be a specific complaint.
Valentine said, “It seems to me that our legislature certainly had taken all arguments into account that could be made against anonymity and said, ‘No, we don’t accept that. We think it’s important enough to the management of our municipalities and those other organizations that the business of anonymity be recognized, and not only that, we’ll put it into our law and we’ll make it very specific.’ So if there’s an issue with that, they need to go to the legislature rather than printing things that might not be accurate.”
Taylor said the donation list made public on the city’s Facebook page was broken down by giving category.
Babcock asked Christiansen if she accepted all the anonymous donations. Thallemer explained that Patronicity sent the city one check with no details. Taylor said anonymous donations were made on Patronicity’s website and Patronicity then provided those funds to the city so no anonymous donations came through the clerk-treasurer’s office. Thallemer said the city knows how much was given anonymously but not who gave.
“There are people that don’t want their names mentioned for many reasons, and if someone actively clicked on the patronicity website that they wanted to remain anonymous, that basically, to me, says it was a condition of the giving,” Thallemer said. He later noted that the project had to go through Patronicity to qualify for the matching IHCDA grant.
Taylor said that no one who gave the city a check directly for the project opted to be anonymous. There were only 16 anonymous donors through the website, and were never 54 anonymous donors as Babcock’s website claimed.
Later in the discussion, Babcock added, “I am going to go to the legislature and see about getting it changed because my concern all along is” city vendors could make donations in order to get a city contract.
Latest News
E-Editions
On his website over the weekend, local blogger Babcock accused the city of impropriety for not providing the names of the anonymous donors to the alley project and asked, “what are they hiding?”
Anonymous donors gave $2,150 of the $106,500 raised.
Much of Monday’s discussion came from city officials who defended the use of anonymous donations and pointed to state law.
Babcock, meanwhile, attended the meeting and said he might seek to change the law.
Babcock said he wasn’t suggesting anything was done illegally, but such programs give “a perception that somebody can give anonymously, and I personally don’t think that’s right.”
Babcock posted the city’s response to his records request for the names, which city attorney Mike Valentine’s prepared. It read in part, “Indiana Code 5-14-3-4b(15) was enacted in part to except from the required disclosure of names of donors those who ask for anonymity. The state legislature determined that it was necessary to protect against the disclosure of the names of donors requesting to be anonymous because to do otherwise would have a negative effect on the charitable intent of some donors.”
After the city council took care of its regular business Monday night, Mayor Joe Thallemer addressed Babcock’s accusations.
Providing background to the project, Thallemer said the city was made aware of a program out of the lieutenant governor’s office called CreatINg Places that was a collaboration between the Indiana Housing & Community Development Authority and Patronicity.com back in November 2016. The city was made aware it could raise up to $50,000 in crowd-granting funds, but it raised $56,500, and in turn the IHCDA providing a matching grant of $50,000.
Assistant City Planner Justin Taylor said some of the corporate donors “come from more than one donor, so if you’re looking at the numbers, the corporate donations average about five people in that donation. So they don’t just come from one individual, they would come from a group of people.”
Thallemer said the bottom line was that the city had a “pretty significant” public response to the project crowdfunding.
“So it was obvious the public was behind this project just from that realm,” he said.
The IHCDA put up a $1 million to match the crowdfunding contributions from various cities. Other communities that have participated in CreatINg Places include South Bend, Indianapolis and others. Projects include parks, trails and an alley activation project in Tipton.
Thallemer said the city followed the state guidelines in regards to the receipt and use of restricted gifts. Patronicity allowed gifts to be made at any level up to $10,000 for the city’s specific project and allowed gifts to be anonymous.
“We successfully raised over $56,000 from over 140 donors, and again leveraged that $56,000 up to $106,000. Sixteen donors chose to give anonymously. Public records laws allow us to make our donors public as we have done on our website. Public records laws also allow us not to reveal the names of anonymous donors,” Thallemer said, while also referencing state law.
“So the city has taken the position that to release those names after they were promised anonymity would do the following: It would breach the terms of the gift and potential discourage future giving; it would violate their privacy by publicizing the names of those donors and subjecting them to future unwanted solicitation by others seeking donations for other projects. The pool of donors is often small and repetitive in a small community and some donors just may not have the means to give repeated requests for donations and they hesitate if their name is out there on a general list of donors,” Thallemer explained.
While there’s been some suggestions of impropriety, Thallemer said the city has successfully participated in a state-funded grant project, followed the rules and public access laws.
He said the city talked with the public access counselor and reviewed the wishes of the general assembly.
“We take allegations of impropriety very seriously and follow the public access laws that would require disclosures in such a case. I would ask that those accuse the city of impropriety to give specific examples. If there are specific concerns, we will ask swiftly to disclose those names. But the public access laws and the general assembly understand the reasons for anonymous donations and have provided for such in our state,” Thallemer said.
Councilman Ron Shoemaker said he understood the legality of it, but “some people are saying it just doesn’t look right. I think it is legal, but I think if we do bid contracts and take anonymous money, somebody can say, ‘Hmm.’ And that’s what we try to avoid, that impropriety look, even though we’re doing things correctly.”
Councilwoman Cindy Dobbins asked if the city often took anonymous donations for projects. Clerk-Treasurer Lynne Christiansen said it does. Thallemer said in talking with past mayors, anonymous donations can be a very big part of big projects. He said he understands that anonymous donations raise a red flag, but there needs to be a specific complaint.
Valentine said, “It seems to me that our legislature certainly had taken all arguments into account that could be made against anonymity and said, ‘No, we don’t accept that. We think it’s important enough to the management of our municipalities and those other organizations that the business of anonymity be recognized, and not only that, we’ll put it into our law and we’ll make it very specific.’ So if there’s an issue with that, they need to go to the legislature rather than printing things that might not be accurate.”
Taylor said the donation list made public on the city’s Facebook page was broken down by giving category.
Babcock asked Christiansen if she accepted all the anonymous donations. Thallemer explained that Patronicity sent the city one check with no details. Taylor said anonymous donations were made on Patronicity’s website and Patronicity then provided those funds to the city so no anonymous donations came through the clerk-treasurer’s office. Thallemer said the city knows how much was given anonymously but not who gave.
“There are people that don’t want their names mentioned for many reasons, and if someone actively clicked on the patronicity website that they wanted to remain anonymous, that basically, to me, says it was a condition of the giving,” Thallemer said. He later noted that the project had to go through Patronicity to qualify for the matching IHCDA grant.
Taylor said that no one who gave the city a check directly for the project opted to be anonymous. There were only 16 anonymous donors through the website, and were never 54 anonymous donors as Babcock’s website claimed.
Later in the discussion, Babcock added, “I am going to go to the legislature and see about getting it changed because my concern all along is” city vendors could make donations in order to get a city contract.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092