Last May, in a column about Greater Clark County Schools’ hiring of Dr. Stephen Daeschner, I wondered who might actually donate to pay the portion of his salary in excess of the budgeted amount and whether we would eventually be told that the people donating need to be kept private.
It looks like I don’t have to wonder anymore. The people involved in raising the money seem to have successfully set up a fund in a way that will hide the identity of individual donors. Of course, this would make no difference if the people who donated stood up to be counted.
But they’re not exactly tripping over each other to do so.
I wonder why. It seems to me they would be out front and center loudly proclaiming, “Yes I support this man and you should too.”
But for some reason it’s all being done behind closed doors.
It’s fascinating, because many organizations accept donations for their causes, and I’ve noticed that these groups often proudly point to the individuals who make voluntary contributions.
They print up colorful, shiny programs and brochures which specifically list donors, sometimes even grouping them into categories of amounts given. They naturally want to publicly thank the donors, as well as show people that their neighbors think enough of their organization to contribute money.
Of course, these same organizations also respect those who would like to donate anonymously. The community at large seems to respect this privacy, because I’ve never heard of it ever being controversial.
I’ve also never heard of newspapers filing lawsuits to see who the anonymous donors may be to these organizations. So what’s the difference in this instance?
The difference is that these organizations are based on freedom of association, and government schools are not. The people who are donating to help pay Daeschner’s salary are supporting a person who is in charge of an institution whose very foundation is based upon compulsion and coercion.
So naturally, those who are forced to be involved want to know everything they can about the source of any money that flows into such an organization, especially when the money goes directly to the person who has the most power.
It’s similar to campaign contributions. Campaign donations are totally voluntary, too, but since the donations end up affecting how government force is used, some folks have worked hard to make campaign finance contributions more transparent.
It’s not difficult to understand why.
So if you want more transparency on who is paying Daeschner, there’s no need to be disheartened by recent events. There might be a way to get inside the box they’ve built around themselves by using a powerful problem-solving tool we should have all learned in school: The process of elimination.
All that needs to be done is to start an initiative to have everyone who is NOT donating to publicly stand up and be counted. As more and more people publicly out themselves as nondonors, the pool of possible donors will get smaller and smaller and it will become easier to figure out who donated money, even if they haven’t acknowledged it.
Where to compile this information? It would be very easy to set up a Web site for this, or maybe someone could just start a thread on ClarkCountyChatter.com, the site residents created to bring people together on issues of local interest.
No matter how it’s done, it’s certainly within the realm of possibility to end up with a very good idea of who is involved. And it could be more fun than discovering it was Col. Mustard who did it in the parlor using a candlestick.
Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson finds the process of elimination very helpful after ingesting too many martinis with Professor Plum in the billiard room. Write her at Debbie@debbieharbeson.com
Columns
HARBESON: Columnist issues elimination challenge
- Columns
-
-
CLERE: Walkout is absurd
The walkout by Indiana House Democrats entered its third week yesterday as tensions continued to rise and misinformation proliferated.
-
LADD: New Albany has new energy
New Albany is evolving. Public art has become more prevalent in the downtown, drawing more locals and outside visitors to our community; bringing more publicity.
-
DODD: Vegas is always a good bet
It was the Dodd family in Las Vegas. We went ostensibly to celebrate my son Cameron’s 17th birthday. That was simply a smoke screen. My real plan was an early retirement from my ill-gotten casino fortune. Before my risky sojourn we had many hours of family fun.
-
STAWAR: I’m not exaggerating, I’m aspiring
Exaggeration is a commonplace phenomenon. For one thing, it lies at the heart of the advertising industry.
-
NASH: Holding officials to higher standards
A few weeks ago in my weekly column, I discussed a growing trend of people, mostly elected officials, who believed that they are above the law.
-
HARBESON: It’s super living in Indiana
My husband and I attend an annual Super Bowl party, which is normally a small gathering of friends, but this year our host’s home was bursting with guests.
-
GESENHUES: The Susan G. Komen precedent
My mom is a breast cancer survivor.
I have walked many a mile in support of the cause and raised a sizable number of dollars for breast cancer research. The Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure initiatives are not lost on me. -
BEAM: Just smile
Whispers will soon abound outside of school as the corporation enters negotiations this summer with the teacher’s union over a new contract. Aides are not covered under the union.
-
HOWEY: Keeping Peyton in the Hoosier pantheon
The critics of keeping Manning suggest he would return to a team struggling to contend. I’m not buying that. The Colts were decimated for a second consecutive year with injuries, particularly on defense. With the top choice in each round, they can quickly reset, as San Francisco and Cincinnati did this year.
-
CUMMINS: How to live a stable life
Then I heard Newt Gingrich say that he will establish a colony on the moon by the end of his second term. I’d vote for him if he would go.
- More Columns Headlines
-







