As I understand it, North Hatley has received several donations from citizens and foundations owned by citizens throughout its history. In fact, it is probably not the only municipality to receive donations. These donations are welcomed with open arms by municipal officials. In fact, the municipality’s latest press release mentions this, as does the latest city council meeting.
Unfortunately, as you know, where there are people, there is favoritism. Does pure altruism exist? In my opinion, yes, but I am often naive. However, are all donations from citizens made with pure altruism? You know as well as I do that they are not!
I am neither a philosopher nor an elected municipal official, but it seems clear to me that it is risky for municipalities to accept donations from citizens or foundations owned by citizens of that same municipality, as this could compromise impartiality. Imagine that I make a donation of $200,000 to renovate the library in the municipality of Hatley Township and then request an exemption for a construction project further away in the same municipality. Will elected officials and even municipal employees be impartial in their response to my request? Theoretically, they have an obligation to be. In practice, it’s another matter.
It is awkward, but mandatory to tell a citizen who has just donated $200,000 to your municipality. However, all requests must be treated equally and with complete impartiality. This is a very difficult task, especially in very small municipalities where people interact constantly.
The problem in such situations is not the donor, the donation, or even the municipality, but rather the human being themselves and the risk of causing conflict in the future. Moreover, when a donation is made or a donor consciously or unconsciously expects something in return, such as favorable treatment or influence, this is referred to as a self-serving donation.
In the case of the municipality of North Hatley, it received an anonymous donation of approximately $100,000. Furthermore, citizens cannot know the identity of the donor. Legally, as I understand it, elected officials know the identity of this donor but are required to keep it anonymous. Unfortunately, this situation raises doubts among citizens about the “self-serving” nature of such a donation. Moreover, this donation is specifically intended to develop a master plan to review the entire zoning plan for the village of North Hatley. Why keep this donation anonymous when it sows doubt and risks undermining citizens’ trust?
In the case of the donation for the refrigerated skating rink, the donors are the Pollock Family Foundation. This donation came from a well-known and recognized foundation, which limits any suspicion of conflict of interest or any form of favor that the municipality might grant in exchange to the owners of the foundation.
In my opinion, if municipalities want to totally remain impartial at all times, they should refuse donations, especially anonymous donations. Sure, this would leave no doubt as to their impartiality. However, in the case of the village of North Hatley, it would not have the opportunity to carry out its master plan project and would not be able to acquire a magnificent refrigerated skating rink. It’s very difficult to say no, and I understand that!
But this decision is not mine to make. It belongs to democracy, that is, to the citizens of each municipality. As a citizen, what do you prefer? Would you accept donations in order to enjoy the benefits they provide, despite the potential risk of conflict of interest, or would you prefer to say “no thank you” to donations to ensure that your municipality remains impartial?
On that note, I respect both the yes and the no. In my opinion, there is no right answer, just a choice and different consequences.
