[noahr]

It is noteworthy that Newark delayed releasing these records for two years, and then finally did so on Christmas Eve. If they had nothing to hide, why not just hand them over a long time ago?

And I'm confused about why you think this article is making the story look like a scandal. The headline says it's about how $100 million gets donated, and goes on to say it's a glimpse at what happens behind the scenes of such a large donation. At the very end it does say: "If there is a smoking gun" - that's pretty far from editorializing or sensationalism.

[gwern]

> It is noteworthy that Newark delayed releasing these records for two years, and then finally did so on Christmas Eve. If they had nothing to hide, why not just hand them over a long time ago?

Precedent? Fear that you can hang an honest man? Intrenched bureaucratic inertia and desire for control over info? The belief (justified or not) that Zuckerberg et al prefer privacy on these internal communications?

[noahr]

Zuckerberg didn't give this money to another corporation or a private charity, he gave it to public schools. The money belongs to the people of Newark after that. For parents and teachers who work in the schools there, isn't it expected that they should be concerned about what this amount of money is going to be used for, and whether there are strings attached? If Zuckerberg had something else in mind he could have set up a foundation to create separate, private programs that support public schools (this is what the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation often does).