School philanthropy demands transparency

Ray Dalio has done well when he’s stuck to his principles. The Greenwich resident is one of the world’s wealthiest people by virtue of his success at Bridgewater Associates, one of the world’s largest hedge funds. And he has climbed to the top by adhering to a set of guidelines he regularly extols and has had published as a bestselling book, titled, appropriately, “Principles.”

Included among those principles, considered by Dalio to be the foundation for Bridgewater’s success, are directives such as “Understand nature’s practical lessons” and “Own your outcomes.” But the list is best known for something that has not only been credited with vaulting Dalio to the top of his field but has also likely made for fascinating office culture over the years, and it’s known as “radical transparency.”

Nothing happens behind closed doors, including highlevel decision making and personnel choices. “Don’t let fears of what others think of you stand in your way,” Dalio’s guidebook states. “Embracing radical truth and radical transparency will bring more meaningful work and more meaningful relationships.”

What a disappointment, then, to see how radical a shift away from even basic transparency his move into philanthropy has taken.

Dalio’s announcement earlier this year that he would donate $100 million to some of Connecticut’s neediest schools, to be matched by $100 million in public funds and an equal amount from other sources, was met with rapturous applause from nearly all corners. This was someone who had done well looking for a way to give back to people who need the most.

But it didn’t take long for questions to rise. These are public schools at issue, and a huge amount of public money. No matter what else is involved, that means the public’s right to know what is happening is fundamental, and nonnegotiable.

The latest dispute concerns a fivemember executive committee that would oversee most activities of the $300 million plan, and as proposed by representatives of Dalio Philanthropies, it would exclude all the elected state officials who are subject to Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act.

That plan seems dead on arrival in Hartford, and an agreement remains far away. Legislators say there is a basic disagreement between Dalio Philanthropies and legislators on the degree of public access that should be guaranteed. Dalio wants a “transparency commitment” policy that would guarantee one public meeting per year with various reports issued at certain times, but without a guarantee of what types of information would be available.

This is not acceptable. And Gov. Ned Lamont is not helping the matter, telling the CT Mirror, “We can talk about transparency or we can start making this money available.”

He seems to agree with Dalio Philanthropies, which has said private discussions are necessary to solve Connecticut’s educational challenges.

The opposite is true. The Dalio initiative is welcome, but it can only work with full public participation and a guarantee that the people of Connecticut will know how their money is being spent and how their children’s lives will be affected.

We could call it “radical transparency.”

No matter what else is involved, that means the public’s right to know what is happening is fundamental, and nonnegotiable.