I’m not seeing the problem here. If a donor wishes to remain anonymous, who does that harm? Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

10 years ago, we had a very large controversy concerning individual families making contributions to school PTA's, prior to the establishment of PIE. It became clear district policy that contributions to individual schools were not allowed. This was to prevent one school from having great resources, and another having little to none.

This now takes things to the extreme. One school can be made of gold and silver, and another falling apart. This is perhaps an extreme, but I doubt there are 13 billionaires willing to build an individual elementary school for Palo Alto. So, you know that Addison, Hays and Duveneck will get their gold plated school, and everyone will be SOL if this is the new policy.

I will admit I was not on the side of PIE when it was discussed 10 years ago. But given we have made it the policy, and it has proven to work, why would we now revert and let someone do something like this? Dow e know need to get Zuckerberg to rebuild Duveneck and Larry Page to rebuild Hays?

We are no different than Meno or Sacred Heart if this is the case.

To the poster immediately above:

The District already has safeguards in place to ensure equity across schools and to ensure that one school doesn't become gold-plated and another school falling apart. So I'm not worried about that.

This editorial addresses a different issue: what is the obligations of a public school district to keep the identities of a donor anonymous, if that should be their wish to do so? This issue is more tricky, and I'd like to learn more, but I am currently leaning towards allowing that. That is, I don't see the harm of free anonymous money.

It sounded to me as though the opponents of the policy wished to continue the practice of accepting anonymous donations. Which is in direct contrast to the statement above that all donations should be public.
Perhaps all donations should be made publicly. But the discussion I heard was between no one at the district knowing the identity of the donor vs our trustees considering the donation and discussing their rationale in public. That sounds good to me.

Good editorial. In a district with serious trust issues, how can they figure that this convoluted policy supports trust? The superintendent "tells the board in confidence?" What does that mean? Are they not allowed to repeat it or even write it down? This policy basically describes a conspiracy to keep a secret on an important matter of the public's business. Shame on them for going along.

The fact they think they've figured away around the Brown Act tells you all you need to know about how bad this policy smells.

Time for new board members.

Is the Weekly literally arguing that the district should turn down 15 million dollars? Because the district has a giant budget deficit if you listened to the first part of the meeting (thanks to Max McGee and Cathy Mak).

It occurs to me that there was an editorial IN FAVOR of the Addison gift, so it looks like the Weekly wants to let Addison have 15 million dollars and the pull the ladder up so no other school can have the money.

You know and I know that you don't really mean what you are writing. Let's say the board passed the "Palo Alto Weekly No Anonymous Donation Policy". If a donor came along and wanted to give 20M to Walter Hayes school do you imagine in your wildest dreams that any school board would actually adhere to that policy? They would simply vote to make an exception. The end. That's what happened in the Addison case, a bandwagon that notably YOU were on too.

All this policy does is recognize that reality, and sets a process for that to happen that provides oversight and transparency.

The board can turn down any anonymous donation at any time. So your desired outcome is not foreclosed and I will look forward to reading your editorial -- not like the one you wrote in the case of Addison -- demanding that the board turn down the next $20M that comes in for Walter Hayes on the grounds of your abstract principles.

You should get started writing it now, however, so that you have time to correct the fatal logical flaw in your argument that anonymous donations create the risk of favoritism because people could find out who the donor is, while public donations, in which people find out who the donor is, don't. I think that you should maybe take a closer look at that one.

@WH Mom - By my rough calculations, $20M in bond funds costs about $30 per property taxpayer per year (tax deductible - for now!). We are one of the richest school districts in the state. We can afford it.

The operating budget shortfall has nothing to do with the donation or anything related to building funds. They take this donation or not, the budget shortfall is the same (as you probably know already).

This policy certainly can't be the answer. If they want to say, "we'll just take gifts from unknown sources, we don't care, bring them on" - they should just say that. The policy, really a convoluted sham as far as I can tell, makes it worse - "too clever by half" as my mother used to say.

I hope that Addison donor will read about this controversy and sensibly reveal their identity for the good of the schools and the community, which they obviously value and support. Thanks for giving; now help the school board do the right thing.

@Reader: There are good reasons for donors to remain anonymous. Once you make a large donation, you're a mark for a million other grifters with their hands out. You can never go out in public again.

Forcing charitable givers into the spotlight really deprive the schools of benefits they otherwise could have had.

@Old Timer, funny, I see Dick Peery out in public fairly often, and his donations add up to pretty big numbers. (Thank you Mr. Peery! You are awesome.)

As far as I know, the only big donation where the donor is not known to the district is the Addison donation. Do you know of any others? And the Addison project could simply be done with building bond money if the district thought it was a high enough priority.

I get that people want to make anonymous donations - most for good reasons, though, sadly, some for bad reasons. My view is that a public agency doesn't have the wherewithal or the luxury to sort it out; they should "just say no."

The idea that bond money is free and so anonymous donations are fine to turn down is belied by the recent school board discussion of the renovation of Hoover. Todd Collins argued that the project is good but maybe not as good as projects that could be done with the money at other schools and voted against it. Increasing the pie makes it possible to fund more projects with the same public dollars. Unless we're going to have a billion dollar bond measure, private donations are going to make it possible to fund projects that otherwise wouldn't happen. Turning down free money isn't free.

The problem is not just that the public is being kept from knowing about the public's business, but that the $15M gift is with major strings attached (9 months of working with the donor's rep), in terms of the project plan and also the secret influence of this donor going forward. It is not just an anonymous cash donation. It is a project where the donor is involved and dictating what they want for our public schools in secret. This is wrong and a real shame.

Nothing ever remains anonymous forever.
At some point the name of Addison donor will leak out, could be years from now after all is said and done.

Board members keeping silent on a name of a donor should the anonymous situation arise again, is slim. Secrets are hard to keep
and prized info so easy to share!

Donations or no Donations special treatment in schools is rampant
Principals favor their pet fmilies or moms or certain kids.
They seem to easily get extra support when others who need can’t qualify, or they get placed with more desirable teachers .
Hard not to take care of your friends.

People are vain - anonymous donations might not be your problem moving forward and your challenge may become donors that want their name on everything!!

Everybody knows the donor is Marisa Mayer.

Secrecy? The Palo Alto Daily Post makes it unquestionabley clear who write its editorials Dave Price.... Whereas, your editorial staff remain behind a shroud of secrecy.

JFK On Secrecy And Censorship Web Link

“The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.”

PaloAltoOnline.com and it’s entire staff is one of the cities most pronounced offenders of media censorship...

I don't believe the donation is secret, but it is anonymous, which has been a long standing option in making charitable donations.

The Peerys want their names attached to the monies that they give and request naming rights. This anonymous donor is probably wanting to avoid having a spotlight on them or their children so as to not single them out as being wealthier than others.

@Bitsy, you are mistaken, I'm afraid. They've said many times that no one at the district knows the identity of the donor - it is secret from them, as well as from the public. It could be Marissa Meyer; it could be a drug lord; it could be [fill in your favorite]. That's what makes it so unusual and problematic.

Transparency and openness and a commitment to complying with the spirit and intention of state and federal laws that protect all of our interests is something the District has been shown to be lacking in, per the sexual assault incidents, and the prior, multiple OCR investigations. While no one would want to refuse any thoughtful and generous donation to our public schools, those values and that commitment stated above are more important, in my view, than any one time or ongoing gift. It's unfortunate that the donor was uncomfortable with their identity being made public.

I suggest a reasonable compromise: annual donations up to a certain amount (let’s say 10k) may be given anonymously; anything more in a school year then requires disclosure. There are pros and cons to anonymity, we get this. There is also the risk and APPEARANCE of *possible* favoritism and influence, so let’s be fair to the general public. This means - I will argue - something like my compromise idea.
Insofar as the rumored donor, I am sure a public figure like that already gets approached a lot because prospecting for donors has already become quite sophisticated.

Most people who can give $17 million to a local elementary school are well known to the asking community. I wish the donor here would just come forward. They put the school board in an awkward position - take secret money, keep a secret, or turn down helpful money. All three are pretty unattractive. Donor, please come out! While I'm sure you secrecy was well-intended, it has now become a problem, which I'm sure you never intended. We will welcome and thank you - for your generosity and your transparency!