At least something good has flowed from the Philadelphia school district's $700,000 management audit that was lost and will be little used.
New School Reform Commission chair Sandra Dungee Glenn and interim district chief executive officer Tom Brady showed excellent leadership this week by making the management review public. They acted despite the district lawyer's opinion that the draft report did not fit the legal definition of a public record.
Whether the district was legally required to release the report or not, it needed to be made public.
Transparency in decision-making has been a precious commodity in district offices lately. But it is a prerequisite to restoring trust in the schools' management after a rocky period that has included financial problems.
The audit contract looks like it was more boondoggle than boon for the school district. It certainly doesn't seem that the project was well-managed by former SRC member Daniel Whelan.
Whelan proposed the review and suggested that Noreen Timoney, wife of former Philadelphia Police Commissioner John Timoney, be a consultant. She reportedly had done management audits for other school systems. Whelan also oversaw the project for the SRC.
Any large bureaucracy - and the district's $2.18 billion budget certainly puts it in that league - ought to be constantly reviewing its operations to make sure they are as effective as possible.
The need for making the best use of resources grows still more when that large bureaucracy is a public school system.
But the audit contract remains shadowed by questions, including whether Noreen Timoney was the best person for the job.
Even if she and Florida-based Evergreen Solutions, another consultant on the project, were the best, why didn't the SRC (including Glenn) better monitor their work?
Most SRC commissioners didn't even know until recently that the consultants had submitted a draft report. By last week, according to school officials, many of the 188 recommendations were moot.
Presumptive Mayor Michael Nutter has the best idea: to have a full and public debate on the recommendations and which ones might still be of use to the district.
Such a hearing would be another move in the direction of openness and regaining public trust. The cause would be furthered still more if the sloppy handling of the contract itself also were part of the discussion.
It could start with these questions: Could a management audit have been done by other arms of the city, such as the controller's office, at much less expense? Why didn't district officials know City Hall was doing the same kind of report?
And most important, how will the SRC prevent similar bungled efforts from impeding the district's mission to educate children?