Memo to Philadelphia School District officials: You're not dealing with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange here

THE WAY top school district officials are acting, you'd think Julian Assange, the mastermind behind WikiLeaks, was roaming the halls of district HQ at 440 Broad St.

The district's general counsel recently issued an e-mail warning employees against disclosing "confidential information concerning property, personnel matters or affairs of the district or its employees, without authorization." It cited the district's ethics code, which states that dismissal and even criminal prosecution could result from such a breach.

District higher-ups are undoubtedly apoplectic about information appearing in the local press about the schools' huge financial gap, as well as the revelation that Superintendent Arlene Ackerman steered the award of a $7.5 million no-bid contract to a specific vendor.

But unflattering articles don't justify acting as if national security is being compromised. The stories were simply about how the school district is spending taxpayers' money.

The recent memo is part of a pattern from the Ackerman administration of attempting to stifle unwanted news or, when it does occur, acting dismissive and defensive about it.

Take the reaction in July when I wrote a column about the salaries of top officials at the district, including Ackerman's, and compared them with other large districts as well as comparable positions in city and state government. The knee-jerk reaction was to issue a decree preventing virtually everyone from accessing the payroll system, including the city controller.

Or consider the district's initial dismissive response when violence against Asian students exploded at South Philadelphia High in December 2009. It downplayed the incident by asserting the charges had been "sensationalized." Almost a year later, the district settled with the state Human Relations Commission, agreeing that "severe and pervasive harassment and bias against Asian students" had taken place.

And when questions were initially raised about the $7.5 million no-bid contract, the district's response was basically to say we'll do what we want. As pressure mounted, Ackerman and her top assistant offered conflicting explanations that resembled Abbott and Costello's famous "Who's on first?" routine.

A short time later, six employees were suspended with pay while the district hired a law firm to investigate the source of the leaks and purported procurement practices. (Several of those employees are former colleagues of mine.)

A month later, they're still out, being paid in absentia to the tune of about $100,000 in salaries and benefits by my quick calculations. When I asked the district what the law firm is being paid, I was told to file a right-to-know request, which can take weeks, even though the district has the answer at its fingertips.

The district's approach to bad press has had an ironic effect: It's been a PR nightmare - at a time when leadership needs all the credibility it can muster to get fiscal help from the city and state.

IMAGINE HOW much different life would be for Ackerman had she been more proactive and empathetic in handling the South Philly situation.

Or if, after a furor arose about the size of district salaries, she'd graciously announced she would take a pay cut like Mayor Nutter and other top city and state officials.

Or if she'd dealt with problems she perceived in the district's procurement process, which she believes favors a so-called "old boy network," by appointing a task force to recommend systemic changes rather than circumventing the process by single-handedly doling out a multimillion-dollar contract to a particular vendor.

When leaks occurred in the press last week about the general counsel's warning not to leak, a district spokeswoman said there was nothing sinister about the memo even though it came on the heels of bad publicity. "It was just a reminder about our code of ethics policy here," she said dismissively.

But it's interesting that out of the many provisions in the 10-page ethics code, the general counsel chose that one and not others. In fact, in the very provision he cited about disclosure of confidential information, he ignored the last sentence, which says that nothing "in this provision shall be interpreted as prohibiting the practice of 'whistle-blowing.' "

Or about the "prohibition of retaliation," which cautions staff not to "harass, punish or retaliate against any employee who has made a good faith complaint."

By choosing the provision that threatens termination, if not prosecution, for unauthorized disclosures, and hiring a law firm to search employees' hard drives, the district appears to be violating, in spirit at least, its own rules.

Phil Goldsmith writes "The Gold Standard" column for It's Our Money (www.ourmoneyphilly.com). He was head of the school district in 2000-2001.