D.C. agency: Did Rhee attempt to protect her job by soliciting private funding.....

[madfloridian]

"from private foundations that reserved the right to pull their funding if there was a change in the school system's leadership."

From the Washington Post today:

D.C. agency to probe Rhee critic's complaint over ethics of school funds clause


DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee goes before the City Council, along with the comptroller, to discuss the recent messy layoffs in district public schools. (Bill O'leary)

The District's Office of Campaign Finance will investigate a complaint, filed by an outspoken critic of Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, alleging that Rhee violated the law by soliciting donations from private foundations that reserved the right to pull their funding if there was a change in the school system's leadership.

..."Cecily E. Collier-Montgomery, the office's director, told Robert V. Brannum on Friday, in response to his complaint, that there was "reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred" and that "a full investigation is warranted in this matter." Collier-Montgomery's finding was first reported over the weekend by WTTG (Channel 5).

Rhee raised $64.5 million from four private foundations (Broad, Walton, Robertson and Arnold) to underwrite pay raises and performance bonuses under the new contract ratified last week by the Washington Teachers' Union. The foundations, which have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to education initiatives across the country, stipulated in letters that they reserved the right to review their commitments if there was a "material change" in the D.C. school system's leadership.

Rhee and Mayor Fenty eventually devised a plan to "shuffle" money for the merit bonuses from other school programs.

Here is more on the topic of how the private foundations were attempting to control the public school system into keeping Michelle Rhee on as chancellor.

Foundations to pull money if Rhee is fired.

The private foundations pledging to help finance raises and bonuses for D.C. teachers have placed themselves in the middle of the city's mayoral race with one of the conditions for their largesse: If Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee leaves, so could the money.

The private donors have told the District that they reserve the right to reconsider their $64.5 million pledge if leadership of the school system changes, further complicating a proposed labor contract that has generated controversy since Rhee and union leaders announced it this month.

That clause, yet to be publicly discussed by D.C. officials, is a standard feature of private grants. But it comes at the beginning of a primary campaign that could leave Rhee out of a job.

Maybe it is "standard feature" of grants, but it's a different story when you are talking about pulling money from public schools and the teachers.

Should the foundations pull their funding after the agreement is finalized, the District could be liable for at least $21 million -- the amount of private money earmarked to pay teacher salaries. According to the contract, the Washington Teachers' Union could sue the city or seek arbitration for breach of contract.

The leadership condition, set out in letters to District officials from the Walton Family Foundation, the Robertson Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and the Broad Foundation, could also be a deal breaker for D.C. Chief Financial Officer Natwar M. Gandhi, who must certify that the money promised in the contract is available before the pact is approved by union membership and the D.C. Council.

As an education blogger said:

Ohanian Comment: Will the teachers accept a contract written by the Wal-Mart/Waltons, prime public school detractors? Not to mention Broad, et al.

Isn't it interesting that the Wal-Mart/Walton goals are so closely aligned with Obama-Duncan education agenda?

This is the first attempt to embed private money in a public collective bargaining agreement and if the teachers agree to it, they are short-sighted beyond help. Or pity. Just let Michelle Rhee stomp all over them.

The DC teachers did vote to accept the contract. I would imagine they felt there was little choice.

[Catshrink]

1. She's corrupt to the core.

[madfloridian]

3. Could have cost the district 21 million

"Should the foundations pull their funding after the agreement is finalized, the District could be liable for at least $21 million -- the amount of private money earmarked to pay teacher salaries. According to the contract, the Washington Teachers' Union could sue the city or seek arbitration for breach of contract."

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Here's hoping they do sue!

Rhee needs to be brought down.

[madfloridian]

9. Her arrogance is astounding.

.

[madfloridian]

2. WP editorial calls it an "inexplicable inquisition".

Her defenders are powerful and numerous. She is fulfilling the privatization plans of the DOE, and that makes her very powerful.

Note the editorial subject line...how dare she be criticized for helping students. Left unsaid is that public school teachers care far more about students than any of the "reformers"

Michelle Rhee faces an inexplicable inquisition for helping D.C. students

IN ANY OTHER city, an official who manages to raise millions of dollars from credible organizations to improve public schools would get a commendation. Not so in the District of Columbia, where the reward for such effort is a suggestion of wrongdoing. Equally incredible is that officials in the city's Office of Campaign Finance are actually investigating these half-baked allegations against Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee. Let's hope reality sets in before there is real harm to education reform.

..."It's hard to think that anyone could conclude that Ms. Rhee sought these monies to ensure her continued employ as schools chancellor. Nonetheless, the Office of Campaign Finance concluded there may be "reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred," and it warned Ms. Rhee of the possible need for "subpoena, depositions, interrogatories, interviews and audits."

NO, it is not hard to think that at all.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. Half baked allegations??

Good grief, the Post has certainly gone downhill since Watergate.

[madfloridian]

7. I have not been paying attention to their editorial page.

Maybe I will do that now.

This is pretty awful.

[laughingliberal]

6. ...

:nuke:

[madfloridian]

8. It's a vicious type of editorial.

Your nuke icon is about correct.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Kick

[Jeffersons Ghost]

11. K&R