On January 3rd, the PA Weekly published an editorial: Make 2007 the 'Year of Openness.' It begins by saying, "Both city and school district leaders need to re-commit to idea of open communications and meaning of 'public servants'."
Full article at:
I've been trying to find out who donated $66,000 to PACE for the MI feasibility study. One person points me to another who points me to another, but I never get what I'm looking for, i.e.,
- Who were the individuals/organizations who donated money?
- How much did each individual/organization donate?
- Are all donors residents of the PAUSD?
What I have learned is that even PAUSD board members – in their roles as public servants -- do not know where the money came from, nor do they seem to care.
I understand "public-private" partnerships. But there must be a distinction between accepting anonymous donations for approved school programs vs. donations to promote new programs that are not on any priority list.
In my view, it’s unethical to accept money from unknown sources to push any program that will benefit only a few -- particularly when it diverts resources from existing priorities that the school district told us were in danger of being cut if Measure A wasn't passed.
If programs and subject matter are available for purchase, funding sources MUST be disclosed. I deeply resent the notion that anyone with enough money has the power to control PUBLIC school programs, determining how many children will get what kind of education -- at the taxpayers' expense.
As the Weekly editorial concludes, it is indeed “time to end this longstanding slight of the public's right to know.”