If you think that the City of Philadelphia is in desperate need of ethics reform, try the School District.
Last year parents raised concerns about the most basic ethical violations, including no-bid and/or sweetheart contracts for politically established firms, a School Reform Commission (SRC) chair with a penchant for regular dining at the Four Seasons on the School District dime, an SRC budget padded with consultants who duplicated extant district services, a CEO who wrote a letters to public school parents explicitly supporting a state legislator during election season (Perzel), and a budget process that appeared secretive and back door.
Including the capital budget, the School Reform Commission is in charge of $4 billion a year, almost comparable to the City of Philadelphia. As we discuss bringing more money to the public schools, the District needs ethic guidelines to prove that it is a responsible steward of such money.
With a politically appointed commission, some of whom run their own businesses and move in highly political circles, keeping business above board is not always a given. Outgoing Chair James Nevels, for example, ran one of the nation’s largest private equity firms, but had no responsibility to divulge any conflict of interest as he signed off on billions of dollars in questionable contracts some of which didn’t even require open review. One consequence was the revelation that Edison Schools had received a contract which guaranteed enrollment and paid them for almost 20% more students that they didn't even have. Every month the SRC meets for hours in “closed session.” In June, parents pointed to the closed sessions as violations of the Sunshine Law, especially after Commissioner James Gallagher was quoted in the media as admitting to “probably” having violated the law.
So how do we create a basic ethics agenda for the School District? Post your ideas here, and expect to see us raise them with the District in the new year. Our initial suggestions:
1. Eliminate no-bid contracts;
2. Eliminate pay-to-play: if you contribute politically, you can’t bid;
3. SRC Commissioners, district leaders required to file statements of financial disclosure, including conflict of interest statements, financial interests, as well as political contributions;
4. Guidelines re: gifts, meals, credit cards, etc.;
5. Two-year lobbying restrictions on ex-employees;
6. Conduct School District business in public and avoid the appearance of secrecy and back door deals.
I am not sure I can add any
I am not sure I can add any suggestions, but thanks for the post. The thing about our pre-Vallas/SRC days was that the one thing no one generally accused the District of (and it was accused of a lot), was that it was corrupt or engaged in pay-to-play.
Actually, there is history of corruption in the school district
Actually, there is a history of corruption in the school district—anyone remember Superintendent Marcase? Constance Clayton made a contribution by cleaning up that mess.
Whenever you have a budget the size of the school district, corruption and cronyism inevitably seep back in-- although I don’t think we have ever had anything on the scale Helen describes.
Helen, thanks for the information.
Thanks, and I wasn't really
Thanks, and I wasn't really aware of that. I think Constance Clayton was my first superintendent that I was awake for. Of course, it was much less about school policy, and much more about whether she would give us snow days.
Constance E. Clayton?
Is that right? I mostly remember her name on report cards.
Snow days . . .
Were not plentiful in those days either!
At the time, I think I was more afraid of Constance Clayton than I was the Jason Vorhees. Just sayin'.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Another great post, Mansei
I find it pretty amazing that so consistently in your excellent posts, you continue to provide solid evidence for what I intuitively sense (based on Vallas' lack of focus on pedagogical issues): that Vallas was a terrible "CEO." I say amazing because even while I sensed he was terrible, I didn't realize that his incompetence/malfeasance/duplicity was as extensive as you spell out.
And while I wouldn't want Sam or Tim to get the impression that I'm hopeful about Nutter or anything like that, I feel quite encouraged that Nutter was very direct about demanding accountability and transparency from Vallas. I hope that he continues in that vein with Vallas' successor.
Right on; Mansei's posts are
Right on; Mansei's posts are always good, and the focus on schools is helpful. It's easy for some parts of Philly politics to get forgotten in the day's news cycle, so it's always helpful to have someone smart working a beat. (Likewise with BradyDale on HealthCare, and many others.)
I can't speak for Sam, but "quite encouraged" is good enough for me.
The blame falls on more than Vallas
Hey I'm in competitive company here at YPP, so I am humbled to live up to a tough crowd.
RE: Vallas. I go back and forth between labeling him a "bad" or "good" CEO. Vallas is and was a man of the moment. He probably was a positive force in 2002 when he came in. He brought energy, resources, connections, and promised people the world; it wasn't honest but it felt good at a time when people felt crummy about the schools.
But Vallas didn't bring "vision" in the long term sense; his style couldn't last and significantly turn around the deeply institutionalized problems of the schools re: funding, low achieving school cultures, test heavy assessments, lack of professional development. By sticking around for so long, he did become duplicitous and the lack of focus on real classroom turnaround in favor of more headline grabbing antics hurt all of us.
I actually think a significant amount of blame needs to be owned by the very polticized School Reform Commission that ignored what was happening in the schools in favor of signing off on billions of dollars worth of contracts. I think a strong investigation into the business dealings of the SRC and whiich contracts are awarded to whom would be merited. It was kind of eye opening to see how willing Nevels could trade off his SRC Chairmanship for a Chester soccer team. Another part of the blame has to be owned by the Mayor, Council and state who were all too happy to let Vallas take the spotlight and heat of the schools off their hands. They basically washed their hands of the schools and watched Vallas go down on the sidelines. Whether or not he deserved it, all of our schools went down with him. And I have to say I was let down by our unions who could have been a strong force for openess and transparency on this issue, but really didn't push for reforms.
Turning a district around is slow, heavy work requiring the engagement of lots of other entities well beyond the district (state, city, neighborhoods, unions, businesses and non-profits). So with the District all but hitting rock bottom, Nutter can only go up. But it is encouraging that he is deeply invested in the issue and Lisa Nutter has her finger on real needs and classroom impact.