It was presented as a generous act of local philanthropy: A Cary couple wanted to donate $60,000 to the village to help replace its entryway signs.
But the donors did not want their identities revealed publicly. And that caveat caused such a flap on the Village Board that the money was ultimately returned.
The fuss also reignited a debate over whether it’s ethical for a public entity like a village government to accept anonymous donations at all.
It all started in February, when Cary Mayor Mark Kownick said he received a “random phone call” from a longtime local couple. They’d recently sold their business, which was located out of town, and wanted to know if there was a village project for which they could provide financial support.
More Top Picks Best Serger Machines For Garment Sewing
After reviewing the comprehensive plan for the community in the far northwest suburbs, the mayor said, the couple chose to help contribute to the $90,000 price tag of new signs.
Kownick, who knows the couple’s identity, said he saw no issue with keeping that private, including from the Village Board.
Some trustees felt differently and, after several discussions at public meetings, voted 3-2 in June to reject the money. Kownick, to his frustration, had to return the $60,000 cashier’s check.
He said he’d kept the board informed of all his conversations with the donors, and even had the village attorney interview them, posing questions like whether they expected anything in return for the gift.
“I was completely transparent with the board except for their names,” Kownick said. “I explained that I was trying to protect the integrity of the couple. (They) wanted to make a contribution to the community that they feel has been so good to them, but did not want their name mentioned. They felt it was better for their safety and security.”
But some trustees indicated that, without knowing where the money was from, the deal wasn’t transparent enough. Perhaps the couple’s intentions were completely benevolent but, they reasoned, how could trustees be sure? Some trustees also expressed frustration that only some members of the board and village staff knew the couple’s identity.
“As a trustee … we are entrusted with ensuring what is in the best interest of the community. (Not knowing the donors’ identity) brings up ethical concerns as to what information is being withheld from the board,” said trustee Jim Cosler, who voted against the gift.
“The efforts being made to receive this money are extraordinary in my eyes,” he said. “I’m very uncomfortable with the situation, very uncomfortable putting my name on it.”
Chicago attorney Stewart Diamond, who specializes in municipal law but is not involved in the Cary case, said it’s not illegal for a local government to accept anonymous donations. But he added that such gifts can raise ethical questions because of the possibility that donations could be tied to future public contracts or other benefits.
For example, he said, if a builder has a project rejected by the village, then gives an anonymous donation and later gets the green light for the development, there’s a possibility that pay-to-play was involved.
Maybe an anonymous gift is well-intentioned, Diamond said, “but if there was any chance they wanted something for (the donation), you have to give the name.”
Diamond also noted that in the Cary case, the donation was not totally anonymous since some village officials knew the givers’ identities, which could potentially be revealed through a Freedom of Information Act request. It would be different, he noted, if the money had simply shown up in an envelope at Village Hall.
Kownick said the donors still hope to find a way to provide the local assistance. He’s contacted the McHenry County Community Foundation, a group that helps facilitate philanthropic gifts, about its possible involvement.
Kownick said bringing in a third party is “a good way to tie the knot and get it done for the residents of Cary.”
In nearby Crystal Lake, Mayor Aaron Shepley declined to comment on Cary’s decision but said his city recently accepted an anonymous donation of $10,000 that paid for the Fourth of July fireworks display.
“Every community has to handle circumstances as they see fit,” he said. “We did not have a problem accepting (an anonymous donation). It was a very generous act and under the circumstances, we felt very comfortable with. It provided benefit to the community that I am sure everyone enjoyed.”
Another nearby mayor, John Schmitt of Algonquin, said: “If a person wishes to make a cash donation to the village and remain anonymous, I would happily honor that request.”
Schmitt said he views the situation as “nothing but generosity on the donator side and character on the part of the village. Calling this a controversy dishonors both.”
Amanda Marrazzo is a freelance reporter.