The subject of whether or not to name an anonymous donor, who contributed $5,000 to the Upper Perkiomen Police Officers Association, has recently come up in meetings of the Upper Perk Police Commission and the East Greenville Borough Council.

        The officers of many police departments establish "associations."  You may have read about many that go by the initials PBA (Police Benevolent Association).  The staff of the Upper Perkiomen Police Officers Association perform fund-raising activities and accept donations and make donations to good causes.

        In the March 27, 2014 edition, the editorial in the Town and Country opined that "The police officers themselves contribute to their "association" fund, which they set up to help with purchases – sometimes immediate needs – that weren't budgeted for.  I don't know how many taxpayers know that; you don't hear about it too often and the officers deserve a tip-of-the-hat for their forward thinking."

        A story in the same edition drew attention to the Upper Perk Police Commission's solicitor when he raised a question about whether the police commission should permit its officers to raise funds.

        We often hear and read about other departments fundraising for their PBA or PAL (Police Athletic League).  It's nothing new.

        It is sad that when we hear about an anonymous donor, many peoples thoughts run to "what's wrong with this" rather than "what's right with this."  It is a sign of a suspicious society and a system of negative thinking in today's world.

        Once thoughts would turn to "perhaps someone came into some money and wants to share it" or "somebody is grateful to the police for a kind service performed to them or a loved one" or "maybe it was someone who just shuns the limelight" or any other number of positive reactions.

        Today's thoughts jump to "it's somebody buying a favor" or "it's some local business looking for leniency on parking laws" or "it's a politician looking to find favor and buy votes" or any other number of negative reactions.

        On one hand it is easy to understand a donor's request for anonymity and respect the police officers' promise of same.  On the other hand, one can understand the concerns of officials.  After all, it could be quite an embarrassment if the police department received money from an anonymous donor who, for legal or ethical reasons, was found to be someone you shouldn't be taking a donation from.

        The officers could preserve the anonymity of those who request it by ensuring that they have a firm set of written rules regarding whom they can accept money from and, perhaps, run it past the Fraternal Order of Police attorney for conformity with any laws governing organizations of this type. 

        Then make sure that the Upper Perk Police Commission gets a copy of those rules for their records.  If the rules include not accepting donations from those in legal or ethical categories, as defined by the association with legal input, they shouldn't be accepted.  The names of anonymous donors will be known only to the association.

        The police officers do a fine job and deserve our support.  Clearly defined, written rules can protect the commission members and the officers and will allow those who prefer to make an unnamed donation stay anonymous.