Will Nutter's report on the charter school choice for MLK High answer the tough questions?

WITH all that's embroiled the Philadelphia School District over the last three months - a surprise deficit topping half a billion dollars, staff layoffs by the thousands, evidence suggesting possible widespread cheating on standardized tests - it's no surprise that the contract controversy at Martin Luther King High has faded from the headlines.

But with Mayor Nutter's investigation into the whole tangled affair said to be nearly complete, Philadelphians may soon learn much more about why a high-stakes process that started so smoothly collapsed so completely.

We may learn exactly what happened to King's charter - a five-year contract worth an estimated $12 million a year.

We may learn why School Reform Commission Chairman Robert Archie called a closed-door meeting that helped state Rep. Dwight Evans steer that charter to a nonprofit run by his friends and political supporters, even after a panel of King parents and the SRC both voted to give the contract to another company.

We may learn why Superintendent Arlene Ackerman spent weeks denying any knowledge of Archie's meeting, even though one of her top aides, Deputy Superintendent Leroy Nunery, was present. We may also learn why Ackerman now says Nunery was "shocked" by what transpired - and if it's true that she never asked him what was so shocking.

Speaking not only as a reporter who's covered the story from the start, but as a Philadelphian who cares about education, I hope the mayor's report gives everyone involved a full and fair hearing. (Full disclosure: SRC member Joe Dworetzky and my father are law partners.)

But what I'd really like to know is whether the parents who get involved with the district's planning processes can expect this to happen again.

King High, readers may recall, is a 1,000-student school in Germantown that sits next to Evans' district. Ackerman's plan to make it a charter school collapsed after WHYY's NewsWorks and the Public School Notebook broke stories showing Archie and Evans working behind the scenes, hoping to privately shape what was meant to be a public, parent-driven process.

Our reports showed Archie helping Evans influence the King contract even after the SRC voted to settle the matter. What's more, Archie did so despite a conflict of interest requiring him to recuse himself from King-related votes.

When Archie acknowledged his involvement, after avoiding questions about it for a month, observers across the city howled in outrage. In one of the more measured assessments, Zack Stalberg of the Committee of Seventy called Archie's role "highly improper." The Inquirer editorial board called for Archie's resignation. Nutter, who appointed Archie to the SRC, launched an investigation.

Almost three months later, Nutter's probe is almost complete. And while I'm hoping for detailed answers to the many unanswered questions, I also hope Nutter's report doesn't shy away from the heart of the matter - was Archie following acceptable decision-making practices for the school district?

After all, the whole idea of the King charter-selection process was to make it public. Dozens of parents, students and alumni took part in weeks of lively debate. A district-approved panel, mostly King parents, picked Mosaica Education of Atlanta over Foundations of New Jersey. The SRC voted unanimously to approve the choice, with Archie scrupulously abstaining because his law firm has represented Foundations.

With that, King's public selection process was officially over. But because Evans was unhappy, a very private process began.

Evans badly wanted the King contract to go to Foundations. The nonprofit is his trusted partner in education projects, and its executives routinely donate thousands to his campaigns. Evans lobbied hard to persuade the SRC to approve Foundations - "like a bulldog on a bone," as he put it to me - but the commission vote for Mosaica appeared to end his hopes.

That's where Archie stepped in. After the key SRC vote, but before Mosaica's John Porter left district headquarters, Archie summoned Porter to a private meeting with Evans and Nunery.

Little has been said about what took place behind those closed doors. But the next day, Mosaica voluntarily walked away from King, knowing full well who would get the contract: Foundations.

Evans was delighted. No one - not Evans, not Porter, not Nunery, not Ackerman, not the other SRC members - mentioned Archie's meeting.

And Foundations would be preparing to run King today, if Archie had not eventually admitted his role.

In the subsequent outcry, Foundations withdrew. King is now back in district hands.

All that's left are unanswered questions: What exactly was said in the Archie meeting? Why did Ackerman change her story?

Did Nunery, a former candidate for Ackerman's job seen by some as her possible successor, really sit silent throughout the Archie meeting, as she says? What did the other SRC members know, and when? And above all: What does the mayor think?

Is a process like King's - featuring secret meetings, misleading public statements and officials privately influencing decisions about which they've publicly recused themselves - acceptable?

If it is, Philadelphia's parents should know, especially those who spend long hours in dim auditoriums taking part in the district's public processes, trying to make their schools better.

Their time is valuable. They deserve to know what to expect.

Bill Hangley Jr. is a freelance writer who lives in West Philadelphia. He is a regular contributor to WHYY NewsWorks and the Philadelphia Public School Notebook.