Corruption, governance, anonymous donations and the NPA
NPA’s motion on “Anonymous Donations”
With the recent resignation of three Canadian mayors, corruption and governance is on the mind of residents living in cities. I don’t often agree with the NPA’s position on many issues but, I have to say the intent of Councillor Affleck’s motion on anonymous donations does highlight some issues around accountability and transparency at the City that needs to be addressed. The issue arose last summer when an anonymous donor came forward offering funds to the city to extend the seawall in Kits and to pay for a health care facility. Regardless of the merits of these projects the donations of anonymous philanthropist raises some ethical questions for a city.
Here is Councillor’s Affleck’s motion:
WHEREAS
1. From time to time the City of Vancouver through Councillors, the Mayoror staff, receives offers of anonymous donations;
2. It has been the practice that donations to the city are presented to Council for acceptance by Council, in camera if necessary;
3. In 2012 the City of Vancouver purportedly received anonymous donation offers for $30 million to be directed to operations for a health care facility (determined to be Taylor Manor) and unspecified millions to finish the Seawall from Kits Beach to Jericho;
4. The identity of the proposed donors is known by some Councillors and the Mayor;
5. In the case of the Taylor Manor donation, the funds are now proposed to be received, still anonymously, through a charitable society;
6. The City of Vancouver should have a clear and transparent process for donating anonymously to Civic projects;
7. There are existing programs through which citizens can donate to parks, recreation programs, cultural programs and the Vancouver Archives.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
A. THAT staff report back with the existing regulations and programs that exist for giving to the City of Vancouver and the Vancouver Park Board.
B. THAT staff recommend enhancements and additions to the current City of Vancouver giving programs.
C. THAT staff report back on the amount of anonymous donations the City of Vancouver has received annually for the past 10 years.
D. THAT staff report to Council with the details of any current proposed donations.
With the public not knowing the identity of donors there is a potential for agreements to be made in exchange for some potential advantage to the donor. Imagine if it was disclosed that a large development firm donated money to the City and subsequently the Mayor and Council voted to rezone one of their projects. Even if there was no advantage given to the developer, the “perception” of exchange of favours undermines the reputation and integrity of the City. Why would the Vancouver Charter require the full disclosure of campaign donors and not for donations to the city?
That cities and schools have to take advantage of charity is tragic result of senior levels of government underfunding. It would be better to have a progressive tax system at all levels of government that could fund programs and policies to establish more equity for its citizens.
Witness the recent resignation of Hon. Paul Fraser from the BC Conflict of Interest Commission who was investigating an allegations against Premier Clark regarding conflict of interest in the BC Rail sale. Mr. Fraser’s son works in the Premier office and had worked for the Premier’s former husband. While initially Mr. Fraser stated that he could do his job without bias, he later relented and stepped a side stating that the “perception of bias” would affect his investigation and it was important for “the maintenance of the ethical fiber” of the legislature.
What is the state of the ethical fiber of the City of Vancouver with millions being donated with no process to ensure that the money is ethical and legal?
The issue of donations at the City also highlights the continuing need for campaign finance reform to establish more confidence and integrity in the decisions of Mayor and Council. The perception that Mayor and Council’s decision may be biased because of campaign donations serves to undermine residents’ confidence in the city governance and feeds into a growing cynicism, which is worrisome.
While we are talking about transparency, accountability and the NPA, perhaps it’s time for Sam Sullivan to disclose who paid for the “no wards” campaign now that he has re-entered public life.
Brent, yet another welcome, cogent piece on the municipal scene. In the past months, you have become a must-read on municipal governance – particularly as it applies to Vancouver – employing an even-handed, most often non-partisan, informed, well-considered position on issues of importance to all of us who cherish transparency in government, and who believe in true citizen-lead democratic engagement. Thank you for bringing the issue you write about above to our attention.
Thanks Ray.
[…] By brent on November 28th, 2012 Residents of Canadian cities need to have confidence in their elected official and know that the decisions make are in the best interest of the city and not influenced by anonymous donations. Yesterday, Tuesday November 28, Vancouver City Council considered a motion from the NPA on anonymous donation to the city. I wrote about the motion previously here […]
Hi Brent:
Nice site – well designed. I’ve got lots of blogs and can never make them as eye pleasing.
I found you through Twitter, and liked your piece, but there are a couple things that keep coming back to me (and they’re unrelated to the actual anonymous donation procedure issue).
“That cities and schools have to take advantage of charity is tragic result of senior levels of government underfunding” and a comment in an earlier post that cities only get 8 cents out of every tax dollar and are therefore at the bottom of the funding pile made me think of two people – Seth Godin and Thomas Kuhn.
People should (and arguably do) pay their own way. When they choose to freely associate (for example, by living in a city) they can certainly come together and tax themselves in order to pay their own way.
However…if senior government isn’t funding cities enough then it stands to reason that there are either conflicts about what should be funded, or conflicts about who should be doing the funding. Perhaps your tax dollars are being spent on something other than your city, for example, F-35s, or subsidies to big business, or social transfers to low income First Nations groups in Labrador. And perhaps you’re ok with all or some of that. The bottom line is that there appears to be a funding shortfall for the things that you want.
Where do senior governments get the money for the things you deem important (in this case, schools and cities)? The answer, of course, is taxpayers. If there is a shortfall then taxes must go up. The question becomes: is it fair for you to require that taxes go up on people who are not city residents because you feel the need for more funding?
As you can imagine, I don’t think its fair. Indeed, I think it’s immoral. I assume that you disagree with me, which is what put me in mind of Kuhn, and I believe there are lots of alternatives, not all bad, which put me in mind of Godin.
Any thoughts on that?
Hi Rob, thanks for comment. My main point is that senior levels of government, the federal and provincial, have been down loading services on to cities for the the last 20 years. Taxes are the price we need to pay to live in a peaceful and functioning society. In fact where there is lower levels of inequality health out comes are better for everyone the poor and the rich. See Ed Broadbents piece in the Globe and Mail from yesterday, here is a link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/ed-broadbent-inequalitys-a-problem-for-canada-too/article5743181/
Brent:
If your main point is that provincial and senior governments have been downloading costs onto cities, fair enough.
Given that there are three levels of government and only one taxpayer it’s clear that the problem (for you) is division of the tax dollar. Again, fair enough. We’re all entitled to opinions on where and how money should be spent, and there is no negative connotation to that concern. I’m pretty certain, for example, that you wouldn’t vote for inefficiency in tax spending just for the hell of it.
The city gets taxes from city landowners (arguably residents, if you believe that tenants foot the tax bill, but that’s a very tough argument to back up).
The province and country get tax revenue from various sources – property, income, sales taxes, fees and licenses that go into general revenue, etc – but not exclusively from city residents, and, arguably, from many, many people who have no stake or beneficial interest in the city.
The question remains, although I’ll re-phrase it a bit: is it fair for you to require that taxes go up on people who are not city residents and who do not derive any benefits from the taxes because you feel the need for more funding?
______________________________________________
Regarding Ed Broadbent’s piece, he’s either woefully ignorant of California or massaging the data to prove a point (see Kuhn).
“In the Nov. 6 U.S. election, a solid majority in California – home of America’s original anti-tax movement – voted to increase taxes to save what was once the world’s best public education system. Recent opinion surveys suggest Americans in general have begun to move in this direction.”
California is one of the states with the greatest income inequality.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/income-inequality-states_n_1904321.html)
California is not a low tax or anti-tax state. It’s one of the higher taxed states.
(http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-tax-burdens-all-states-one-year-1977-2010)
California is loosing population (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-move-20111127) and some would argue that it’s because of the in-migration of tax consumers and the out-migration of taxpayers (largely middle class in California’s case).
The state is bankrupt, and several cities are in Chapter 11. They are not making contributions to the CALPERS pension fund, which leads two places: first, the city governments get sued by the state government, which tries to keep it out of federal court (it’s clear they lose in federal court because of federal law) and second, the state hives off the pensioned employees of Stockton, San Bernadino and any other similar city, and transfers responsibility for pension payments to…the bankrupt cities. Of course, unfunded liabilities at community levels (read generous public servant pensions) are one of the culprits.
Bottom line? California is not an example of a place where taxation has resulted in sweetness and light. Quite the opposite, which is why the names Calichussets and Taxifornia are now in currency.
____________________________________________
California is not, nor has it ever been, anti-tax. The legendary Howard Jarvis and Prop 13 froze property taxes (with small increases) for existing homeowners. That’s not the same as freezing taxes. It just changes who pays them. If you purchased a home in California in 1990 your taxes stay at 1990 levels. If you sell to me the taxes on the same house jump up astronomically. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29)
California is not the home of the anti-tax movement. That claim is based on It’s one of the higher taxed states.
(http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-tax-burdens-all-states-one-year-1977-2010)
In other words, Broadbent’s assertion that California is anti-tax is incorrect.
The idea that taxes are the price we need to pay to live in a peaceful and functioning society is one of the reasons I bring up Godin and Kuhn. You’ve highlighted a problem of too much demand for taxes and not enough supply. I think that’s a false dichotomy. Would we have a less functional and more warlike society with fewer taxes? (clearly no). Would we have more peace and a more functional society with higher taxes? (again, there is no causal relationship, at least in my view).
I’m not trying to argue with you or convert you, but I am trying to challenge your assumptions and values, and I’m doing so in a spirit of goodwill. Please don’t take offense, and I’m really interested in hearing your views (that’s what’s best about the internet).
Hi Rob, thanks for your comments. Wow, I am really impressed with your knowledge and diligence. I appreciate you taking the time to exchange your views with me. It looks like we have very divergent position. I am flattered that you think my humble views worth being dragged over to your side.
Hey Brent:
I’m actually looking for a foil or sounding board. If I just keep telling myself that I’m right it’s kind of like being in an echo chamber. If I find someone who has different opinions it’s a great opportunity to acid test my ideas. That’s sort of a new approach for the web (I should be anonymously trolling you!) but I think it’s better overall.
Another thing occurred to me. We had peaceful and functioning society before we introduced income tax, for example, and Costa Rica (certainly a peaceful and functioning society) doesn’t have any personal income tax. The do have universal health care (with side by side private) and free education (at least until high school – I don’t know about university). Works.
Are we stuck in a paradigm that says if we don;t do what we’re doing now dystopia must follow?
Have a good weekend!