Category: Schools

WINNSBORO – The Fairfield County School Board Tuesday night adopted on a 4-2 vote a revised salary schedule for district employees. The schedule is more in line, according to Dr. J.R. Green, Superintendent, with what was originally recommended to the Board by MGT Consultants in 2011, and clears up inconsistencies within the version of the schedule adopted by the Board four years ago.

“There was a study done in 2011 and we ended up adopting part of what was presented from that study,” Green said. “There were some issues in terms of the increments between steps. Whereas (MGT) recommended a 1.5 or 3 percent increase, we were doing kind of a hodgepodge of increments – 1.5 in some respects, .6, .8, 1.2 – it was kind of all over the map.”

Green said the cost to implement the new schedule, including benefits, would be approximately $500,000, and would be part of the 2015-2016 budget.

“We anticipate on what we have done the last three years we will have a fund balance similar to what we have had this year ($6.7 million), so our hope is that we will get some of that from savings that we are able to realize over the course of the year,” Green said. “What we don’t get from savings, we’ll pull it out of the fund balance from next year.”

That the revised schedule would be implemented in the upcoming fiscal year sparked an outcry of protest from District 4 Board member Annie McDaniel.

“We’re going to have third reading of the budget,” McDaniel said. “This was not presented to us up to third reading and now we’re being asked to approve something that wasn’t incorporated after we’ve had third reading, after we’ve had the public hearing, and that’s what we’re doing?”

McDaniel said she questioned the legality of making changes to the budget after the public hearing, but the district’s legal counsel, Vernie Williams, of the Childs and Halligan Law Firm, said the Board was in the clear.

“The discussion you’re having tonight is at a public meeting,” Williams said. “It’s not like you are trying to take some action without having public discussion about it.”

Paula Hartman (District 2) questioned the timing of the matter and asked why the revised schedule had not been brought up earlier.

“It was brought up last month,” Board Chairwoman Beth Reid (District 7) said.

“A few things about it,” Hartman said. “Not any big changes like this. It was commented about checking into it; that was the comment that was stated.”

Green presented the revised schedule to the Board during their May 19 meeting, including the variances between steps. The recommended salary range for middle school principals was also not adopted, Green said last month, while teacher salaries were not competitive in years zero through three. MGT had also recommended an additional $1,000 for non-instructional personnel with a Master’s degree + 30, and $2,000 for non-instructional personnel with a doctorate degree, neither of which was adopted in 2011.

“We get this Friday and we’re supposed to understand all this?” Hartman said, “That’s awful soon as far as I’m concerned. To adopt something like that, this large of an increase and we don’t understand it does not make any sense, and get it Friday and then we’re expected to vote on it on Tuesday.”

Green said he had sent the final revised salary schedule to Board members earlier in the week, not Friday. McDaniel, while asking several times to see the presentation again, said she was concerned about the effectiveness of the new schedule and its ultimate fairness.

“I’m just asking to be able to verify the validity,” McDaniel said. “That’s all I’m asking.”

Green said that with the exception of teachers and hourly employees, steps will be determined by year-end evaluations, something that also concerned McDaniel.

“Now it sounds like we’re saying that if employees are not going to, for lack of a better word, kiss up to their supervisors, then their subject to (not) get a better evaluation and then they can’t get a step,” McDaniel said.

McDaniel and Hartman ultimately voted against the revised schedule.

Budget

The Board also passed third and final reading of a $37,401,195 general fund budget. The operational budget includes no millage increase, holding at 203.1 mills, while the debt service millage will decrease slightly from 32 to 23.6 mills.

McDaniel and Hartman voted against the measure.

To hold the district over until tax bills go out and money begins to flow into the district, the Board unanimously passed a Tax Anticipation Notice (TAN), not to exceed $6,275,000.

William Frick (District 6) asked if it were possible that this might be one of the last TANs he has to vote for.

“No,” Hartman quipped, “you just gave it away in all this salary.”

 

WINNSBORO – Although the Fairfield County School Board conducted a comprehensive salary study just four years ago, and adopted a new salary schedule in 2011, Dr. J.R. Green, Superintendent, told the Board during their May 19 meeting that he intended to clean up what he called “inconsistencies” within that schedule.

The Board on March 26, 2011 was presented with a recommendation from MGT Consultants on two different schedules, Green said – one with a 1.5 percent variance between steps, and another with a 3 percent variance between steps. But what the Board ultimately adopted, Green said, was not exactly what MGT had recommended.

“It was parts of what was recommended,” Green said, “and parts of it I’m not quite clear how it was determined.”

The schedule for middle school principals, Green said, was adopted with the recommended 1.5 percent step increases, although the recommended salary range was not adopted.

“The salary range based on what was adopted was $54,785,” Green said, “while the recommended beginning salary based on MGT’s market analysis was $66,021.”

MGT’s recommendation, Green said, would have put Fairfield in a more competitive position when compared to neighboring districts. Currently, a middle school assistant principal with a Master’s degree + 30 and six years’ experience earns $59,905 in Fairfield. In Richland/Lexington 5, that figure is $76,313; in Richland 1, $71,945 and in Richland 2, $71,588.

“In terms of what MGT recommended, it put us not necessarily at the high end of the range, but it put us somewhere in the ball park,” Green said. “Currently we are not very competitive.”

Green said there were also inconsistencies in the steps, as adopted by the Board in 2011.

“What (MGT) recommended was a 1.5 percent variance between steps, or a 3 percent variance between steps,” Green said, “and we adopted parts of the 1.5 between steps, and other grades, kind of unexplainably, we have a variance of .7 percent, .9 percent, 1.2 percent, .8 percent, .6 percent, and it’s not even consistent across the board. So employees have a difficult time understanding how they move along the salary schedule.”

Green said he also found that MGT had recommended an additional $1,000 for non-instructional personnel with a Master’s degree + 30, and $2,000 for non-instructional personnel with a doctorate degree. Those would also be included in his recommendation, he said.

Teacher Salaries

Green said that while teachers’ salaries lagged behind neighboring districts in year zero, Fairfield raises those salaries higher and faster than its neighbors. By year three, he said, Fairfield pays higher than Richland 1, Richland 2 and Richland/Lexington 5.

“I think we’re going to make some recommendation to improve our competitive advantage when it comes to year one,” Green said. “One thing I’m bouncing around . . . is maybe a signing bonus and a retention bonus for year one and year two.”

Green also told the Board that his forthcoming recommendation will only bring the District current with 2011 numbers originally recommended by MGT. A new study may be necessary in the near future, he said.

 

WINNSBORO – The Fairfield County School Board, at their May 19 meeting, voted to form a committee to study increasing the Board’s $35 a month salary. The vote and discussion came after State Sen. Creighton Coleman (D-17) and State Rep. MaryGail Douglas (D-41), in whose hands the final decision for a pay raise rests, addressed the Board on the matter.

“We’re open to anything,” Coleman said. “The key is to find the sweet spot. I think the $35 a meeting is very low. I think we need to look at overall compensation statewide. I think it’s absolutely critical that we provide the best education we can for our kids in the most economical way that we can by the taxpayers. That’s the sweet spot that ya’ll are going to have to find.”

Coleman asked the Board to present a recommendation to the legislative delegation and to provide justification for the pay raise, while Douglas said the concept would require some selling to the public.

“It is going to meet resistance,” Douglas said. “You know that already. We need to do our homework and do it well and do it in a way that really educates folks out there.”

Douglas said she has already received some negative feedback from constituents on the idea.

“The comment to me, when they first read it in the paper a couple of weeks ago, was ‘How dare they?’” Douglas said. “The question that I posed to them was ‘Would you do it for that?’ The time that people have is of value. If we do it in the right way and a very respectful way I think it will end on a positive note.”

Board member Annie McDaniel (District 4) prodded the delegation, asking why they were so receptive to an issue she said they had opposed in the past.

“I’m just curious as to what really triggered you guys to think we’re deserving to be paid,” McDaniel said, “when now we meet only once a month and meet for about two hours and not doing nowhere near the work into knowing what’s going on in this district now as we did in the past.”

But Douglas said she wasn’t going to “wallow in what happened years ago.”

What brought her to the table, she said, was a phone call she had received from The Voice newspaper after the matter was first discussed last month.

“I want to address what is good for this county and in this particular school district,” Douglas said. “I don’t know if you think there’s an underlying agenda here. There is no agenda here except that whenever that discussion started among you, we were brought into that. We are on a level playing ground, as far as I’m concerned, as to how we move forward from here.”

The Discussion

Henry Miller (District 3), who first brought the matter to the floor last month, proposed a monthly payment of $625 for each Board member, plus an additional $100 for the chairperson. If the chairperson was absent from a meeting, that additional $100 would go to whoever chaired that meeting – in most cases, the vice chairperson.

Andrea Harrison (District 1) asked if the $625 would take the place of any other monthly payments made to Board members, such as mileage. Miller agreed that it would.

William Frick (District 6) suggested that, since it was not likely that the matter could get through the General Assembly before this year’s session ends next month, the Board create a committee to study the question.

“You have some districts that don’t pay anything,” Frick said, “and then the ones that do pay, there are about five or six that pay less than we do. The vast majority pay fairly well. Some $10,000 a year. To have some sense of where we belong in a category that goes from zero to $25 a month to $10,000 a year, I would like to see if we could get a sense of where we fit in with those other districts.”

“This absolutely cannot be a fly by night, hand out one sheet of paper kind of deal,” Harrison agreed. “I’m willing to serve on the committee. It has to be done thoroughly and in detail, and we have to justify every dime.”

The committee passed on a 5-1 vote, with Paula Hartman (District 2) voting in opposition and McDaniel casting no vote at all. Harrison, Miller and Carl Jackson (District 5) will serve on the committee.

 

School Budget Squeaks by Second Reading

WINNSBORO – The Fairfield County School Board Tuesday night passed second reading on a more than $37 million budget for the 2015-2016 fiscal year, but not before Board member Paula Hartman (District 2) hammered the administration on the legal fees budget, which she said was being used as a “slush fund.”

Kevin Robinson, Director of Finance, told the Board that the $37,401,195 (up from $35,548,351 in 2014-2015) has not changed since the April 7 first reading or the April 21 work session. The operational budget includes no millage increase, Robinson said, holding steady at 203.1 mills, while the debt service millage will decrease slightly from 32 to 23.6 mills.

As she had done during the April 7 first reading, Hartman again questioned why the District was budgeting $307,707 for legal fees when actual expenses last year were down to $83,547. During the April 7 meeting, Robinson said that $282,707 had been budgeted under “Legal Fees,” while $25,000 was budgeted under “Legal Services,” the latter of which Robinson said was for the expenses associated with recruitment and retention of foreign teachers. Hartman said the legal budget could be lowered and, if necessary, money could come out of the fund balance, which Robinson said stood at $6.7 million at the end of last year.

“If we run into a problem there, there’s always money there (in the fund balance) that it could come from,” Hartman said, “instead of using this as a slush fund, a fund to take whatever out of it.”

But Dr. J.R. Green, Superintendent, said he took exception to the term “slush fund.”

“Because my first question would be ‘a slush fund for whom?’,” Green said. “Who is using it as a slush fund?”

Hartman said the legal fund had been dipped into on two occasions in the last fiscal year, but Green said that hardly rose to the level of “slush fund.” Both expenditures – one to pay for holiday gift cards for employees, and the other to pay a portion of the expense to send the Middle School chorus to perform at Disney World – were approved by the Board, Green said.

“I find it hard to imagine that two expenditures that were approved by the Board can be characterized as a slush fund,” Green said. “When you use the term ‘slush fund,’ that provides a connotation that people are just using these funds for these kinds of extravagant junkets or something, that we’re just spending money. It’s not a slush fund for me and I don’t think it’s a slush fund for Board members.”

Green said last month that two or three years of decreasing legal expenses did not constitute enough of a trend to lower the legal fees budget. If the reduction continues, he said, the administration would revisit it.

Hartman also suggested reducing funds for substitute teachers by at least $100,000, noting that the proposed amount of $518,412 was more than double what had been spent last year.

“The amount for substitutes that’s in the budget is not a static amount from year to year,” Robinson said. “It’s going to fluctuate depending on many factors. If we have a rash of long-term illnesses, that means we’re going to mean a higher amount of substitutes. If we have a number of teachers that are out on leave for pregnancy, that’s going to mean a higher increase.”

Robinson said the District budgets high in that account to avoid a shortfall, which would force the District to have to dip into the fund balance to make up the difference.

First reading passed on a vote of 4-3, with Hartman, Andrea Harrison (District 1) and Annie McDaniel (District 4) voting against.

The Board will hold a public hearing on the budget at 6 p.m. Tuesday at the District Office.

WINNSBORO – The Fairfield County School Board took the next step in achieving a pay increase during their April 21 budget work session, agreeing to invite the County’s local legislative delegation to the table for talks. How a local school board is compensated is, by state statute, determined by their local state representatives.

“I would love to have that conversation with our local representatives,” Henry Miller (District 3) said.

Board member Carl Jackson (District 5) questioned why there should be such a difference between compensation rates for Board members and County Council members, a question raised by Miller at the Board’s April 7 meeting.

“When you’re looking at it in terms of what we do and what other boards do, and one is being compensated one way and one is being compensated another way, and we’re all supposed to be serving the same people, why is there such a big difference?” Jackson asked. “We ought to treat all the same.”

Board compensation currently stands at $35 per meeting. County Council members receive a $15,000 a year base salary, with an additional $4,800 for the chairperson and $3,000 for the vice chairperson.

“I think there’s something wrong with that picture,” Jackson said.

Of the 81 school districts in the state, 31 offer no compensation. Of the 50 that do pay members, those range from as low as $25 per meeting (Florence 1) to $800 a month (Richland 2). For a complete list, see: http://scsba.org/general/aboutus_schoolboardfacts_boardmemberpay.pdf

“I don’t know if $35 a meeting will be an incentive to get good folks to serve,” State Rep. MaryGail Douglas (D-41), who along with State Sen. Creighton Coleman will have to make the final call on a School Board pay raise, said. “I’m not saying pay them a salary, but people’s time has a value.”

Sen. Coleman said he would be willing to consider the possibilities of a pay increase.

“I told them I would be happy to sit down and take a look at things,” Coleman said, “but I think it’s a fine balance between protecting the taxpayers and attracting good people.”

Behavioral Services

Vernon Kennedy, Director of Fairfield Behavioral Health Services (FBHS), came before the Board during their work session to clear up what he said was a misconception about his organization. FBHS is seeking $60,000 in funding from the District again this year to help cover the cost of services offered in Fairfield County Schools.

“We are not a County organization,” Kennedy said. “We are a non-profit that gets funds from the County, our Board is appointed by the County, but we are a public non-profit.”

Kennedy said funds for FBHS also come from the state and federal governments, through grants, and from other organizations such as the School District.

Andrea Harrison (District 1) questioned the funding during the April 7 meeting and requested a financial breakdown of services provided by FBHS.

“We may have been advised previously that this was a budget shortfall on their part, which to me doesn’t necessarily constitute the School District being responsible,” Harrison said during the April 7 meeting. “Behavioral Health is a County entity.”

During last week’s work session, Kennedy said FBHS had lost some of its funding several years ago from the state and federal government and turned to the School District for assistance.

“We felt there was no other way to continue at least with the level of services we’ve been providing to the District for a number of years,” Kennedy said.

Responding to William Frick (District 6), who asked if this year’s $60,000 request was the same as in the last two budget years, Kennedy said, “Yes. It will allow us to hopefully continue services and maybe expand them as well.”

 

Hartman: Legal Budget a ‘Slush Fund’

WINNSBORO – As the Fairfield County School Board, during their April 7 meeting, passed first reading of a more than $37 million budget for the 2015-2016 fiscal year, Board members took up the topic of travel expenses, Board compensation, legal fees and funding for Fairfield Behavioral Health Services.

Weighing in at $37,401,195 (up from $35,548,351 in 2014-2015), the 2015-2016 budget includes no operational millage increase, Kevin Robinson, Director of Finance, told the Board April 7. The operational millage will remain at 203.1 mills, Robinson said, while the debt service millage will decrease slightly from 32 to 23.6 mills. Robinson said he expects an increase in local revenues from $22.5 million last year to $24.3 million this year, based on an expanding property tax base in Fairfield County. The budget passed first reading on a 4-1 vote, with Andrea Harrison (District 1) voting against and Annie McDaniel (District 4) and Paula Hartman (District 2) abstaining.

Legal Fees

Hartman questioned why, with actual legal spending on the decline in recent years, the District continued to budget a total of $307,707 for legal fees ($282,707 under the Board’s “Legal Fees,” and $25,000 for the District’s “Legal Services,” the latter of which Robinson said was for the expenses associated with recruitment and retention of foreign teachers).

Hartman said money had been redirected from the Legal Fees budget to fund teacher Christmas bonuses, as well as a field trip in 2014-2015, and suggested the amount budgeted be lowered and shifted into the fund balance.

“This looks like this (the Legal Fees line item) is being used as a slush fund, because it’s been used for bonuses, it’s been used to send the chorus class to Disney World, instead of for legal fees,” Hartman said. “I certainly think we’re budgeted way too much when a very little amount has been spent.”

During the 2013-2014 fiscal year, the District spent $96,987 in legal fees, according to a draft of the upcoming budget provided to The Voice, while the 2014-2015 legal expenses are expected to top out at $39,765. Legal Services expenditures, meanwhile, are projected to hit just $13,782 by the end of this fiscal year.

Dr. J.R. Green, Superintendent of Fairfield County Schools, told The Voice this week that referring to the legal budget as a “slush fund” was “absurd.”

“We had two expenditures out of the legal fund this year,” Green said, “for the employee gift cards at Christmas and to pay part of the expense of sending the Middle School chorus to Disney World. Both were presented to the Board and they voted on them.”

The gift cards, Green said, set the legal fund back approximately $35,000, while the portion of the trip to Disney World paid out of the fund was approximately $12,000.

“I don’t know if a couple of years reflects enough of a trend to reduce the budgeting (for legal fees),” Green said. “I would hope that we continue down this road we’re going down.”

Green told the Board during the April 7 meeting that he would “wait until this (reduction in legal spending) continues for multiple years before we determine we don’t necessarily need that amount to be budgeted.”

Behavioral Health Services

Green said Fairfield Behavioral Health Services (FBHS) was, like last year, requesting $60,000 from the District to provide services to students. The funding last year surprised some Board members, specifically Harrison, who questioned its inclusion in the 2014-2015 budget. During the April 7 meeting, Harrison asked for a financial breakdown of services provided by to the District by FBHS.

“The issue is that funding is limited and we’re assisting them with providing funding so they don’t have to cut services,” Harrison said. “Then we need to know specifically what we’re paying for. We may have been advised previously that this was a budget shortfall on their part, which to me doesn’t necessarily constitute the School District being responsible. Behavioral Health is a County entity.”

Green said he would provide the documentation before the second reading of the budget.

Travel

William Frick (District 6) said the Board may want to consider a discussion on the amount and expense of travel taken by Board members throughout the year, particularly when considering what he said was the public perception of extensive travel.

“The public perception is that it is a paid vacation,” Frick said. “I assure you it is not. I certainly think folks should go to the state annual conference. I think there’s a benefit of the national conference. But I think it is something we should be aware of, as far as public perception.”

Frick said some districts limit the number of trips board members can take in a year, as well as limit the number of board members who can attend any given trip.

McDaniel said her concern over travel was a methodology to “ensure when Board members travel, we get the best value for our dollars.” The issue came up, she said, when she and Hartman traveled recently to Nashville for the National School Boards Association conference. McDaniel said she had found a cheaper flight and cheaper rooms, but ran into difficulty at the District level when attempting to rearrange her travel plans.

“Last minute finding a flight and a hotel that’s cheaper, that’s a noble attempt,” Board Chairwoman Beth Reid (District 7) said, “but at some point it’s too late. If the Board clerk has been directed to make these hotel reservations or plane reservations, the wheels have started turning at that point and Board members shouldn’t be making their own travel arrangements.

“If you want the cheapest rate, then find it, put it on your credit card and get reimbursed,” Reid added.

Hartman asked Reid why she was “making an issue” of Hartman and McDaniel, who switched to less expensive hotel rooms in Nashville, saving $1,500 on the trip.

“Right,” Reid said. “And how much did you spend?”

Reid said the District did not have problems with every Board member who travels, to which McDaniel replied was only because some Board members do not travel.

“If you would travel and go to some of these conferences you would learn a lot,” McDaniel said to Reid, “and not make some of the mistakes that you’re making up here.”

Compensation

Henry Miller (District 3) said it may be time for the Board to take a look at its compensation rate, which currently stands at $35 per meeting.

“Other boards around the state, their compensation is higher per month,” Miller said. “I know we serve the same constituents as County Council. In my opinion, we do more work. I think we should be (paid) at least half of (what) County Council (makes).”

County Council members receive a $15,000 a year base salary, with an additional $4,800 for the chairperson and $3,000 for the vice chairperson.

“We didn’t get on the Board for the money,” Miller added, “but we didn’t get on the Board to lose, either.”

Frick said he had researched board pay throughout the state, citing as an example Lancaster County, which pays its board members $400 a month. Harrison, however, noted the apparent paradox in the Board’s recent discussions.

“So, in one breath we’re saying the perception of the public is we spend too much money on travel to become educated, yet we turn around and asked to be paid (more),” Harrison said. “I think we need to thoroughly talk this out and work through it more. We meet once a month. I don’t care if I’m compensated or not.

But, she added, “I’m not recommending against it, if that’s what the Board wants to do.”

Frick said it was just a discussion topic. The $400 example, he said, came to $4,800 per Board member per year. Travel, he said, averages between $1,500 and $3,000 per trip.

“And there are some folks who have taken three or four trips a year,” Frick said. “If you’re taking that many trips, that gets pretty high.”

Of the 81 school districts in the state, 31 offer no compensation. Of the 50 that do pay members, those range from as low as $25 per meeting (Florence 1) to $800 a month (Richland 2). For a complete list, see: http://scsba.org/general/aboutus_schoolboardfacts_boardmemberpay.pdf

The Board took no action on either travel or compensation. The Board will hold a budget work session on Tuesday at 6 p.m.

 

No Motion for Second Reading

WINNSBORO – A move by the Fairfield County School Board to revise the way for-the-record statements are recorded in meeting minutes was stopped dead in its tracks when it failed to get the motion necessary to bring it to the floor for second and final reading during the Board’s March 17 meeting.

While the effort to amend the Board’s policy on minutes, which some critics said was merely an attempt to silence the Board minority and that conflicted with the state’s open records’ laws, may have perished, efforts to simplify the way minutes are kept may be ongoing.

The proposed changes to Policy BEDG, Minutes of Board Meetings, would have limited for-the-record comments by Board members to “written materials germane to the public agenda.” Those materials would have been limited to five pages, front and back, unless granted a special exception by the Board chairperson. The chairperson would also have had the power to rule such materials out of order and exclude them from the official minutes.

“I think it’s dead,” Board Chairwoman Beth Reid (District 7) told The Voice this week. “What we’re looking at now is an interpretation of our current policy. I am checking around on some legal opinions on exactly what the FOIA (S.C. Freedom of Information Act) entails regarding word-for-word transcriptions of minutes.”

The S.C. FOIA, under Section 30-4-90, requires that all public bodies keep minutes of public meetings. Minutes must include, but need not be limited to: 1) The date, time and place of the meeting; 2) The members of the public body recorded as either present or absent; 3) The substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided and, at the request of any member, a record, by an individual member, of any votes taken; and 4) Any other information that any member of the public body requests be included or reflected in the minutes.

It was the Board’s attempt to reword the fourth provision that raised eyebrows.

“That is a problem,” Bill Rogers, Executive Director of the S.C. Press Association, said earlier this month, “when they can stifle Board members from putting things on the record that they (the majority) don’t agree with.”

Board members Paula Hartman (District 2) and Annie McDaniel (District 4) both questioned the proposed changes during the Feb. 17 meeting. Early in the March 17 meeting, Hartman again raised her objections.

“I wanted to say that I still think (the policy amendment) is against the FOIA,” Hartman said after the Board had approved the agenda. She was ruled out of order by Reid, who told Hartman the Board would address the policy when it came up under the superintendent’s report.

McDaniel, during the first reading debate, said the policy change was nothing more than an attempt by the Board’s majority to muzzle its minority.

“Disrespect for the minority on the Board, that’s what’s causing this,” McDaniel said on Feb. 17.

But Reid said the attempted policy change was not an effort to silence the minority, but to make life easier for the Board clerk. Reid said after first reading that said so many for-the-record statements were slowing down the compilation of the minutes.

“I understand the sentiment,” Board member William Frick (District 6), a Winnsboro attorney, told The Voice this week, “but legally, I don’t know what you can do.”

Frick, who placed the motion on the floor to approve the policy change during its first reading on Feb. 17, said his view of the policy changed over the last 30 days.

“I looked at it and realized my interpretation was not correct,” Frick said. “I thought it would allow you to say what you wanted to say at the meeting and submit written material. That’s not correct.”

Frick said the provision giving the chairperson the authority to reject for-the-record statements created a problem that he could not overcome and support. Revisiting the policy, he said, may also be a waste of time.

“As far as someone wanting to revise it and change it, I say good luck,” Frick said. “The way I look at it is we’ve got other things to worry about, so let’s move on.”

 

WINNSBORO – With the final reading pending on a revision to the School Board’s policy on how for-the-record statements are recorded in meeting minutes, the Board Chairwoman has indicated some uncertainty in how, or even if, the policy change can move forward. One of the minds behind the state’s open records law, meanwhile, has weighed in on the revision, calling the proposed change “problematic.”

The Board passed first reading of the revision during their Feb. 17 meeting on a 4-2 vote, with Annie McDaniel and Paula Hartman offering the only opposition to Chairwoman Beth Reid, Henry Miller, William Frick and Carl Jackson (Andrea Harrison was absent from the Feb. 17 meeting). The proposed changes to Policy BEDG, Minutes of Board Meetings, would limit for-the-record comments by Board members to “written materials germane to the public agenda.” Those materials would be limited to five pages, front and back, unless granted a special exception by the Board chairperson. The statement “must be presented in writing to the board’s secretary or the board chairman at the time of the meeting.”

The written statements would be “designated as an attachment to the minutes,” the revision states, and not as part of the minutes themselves. The chairperson would also have “the prerogative to rule any such request out of order for the reason that such materials are not germane to the agenda, are inappropriate as an attachment or that the materials are otherwise publicly available; such ruling by the presiding officer will stand unless overturned by the board majority.”

The S.C. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), however, which governs, among other things, how public bodies maintain records of meetings, contains no such provisions or restrictions regarding the minutes of meetings. Placing restrictions at the local level on a state law is “problematic,” according to Bill Rogers, Executive Director of the S.C. Press Association.

“That is a problem,” Rogers said this week, “when they can stifle Board members from putting things on the record that they (the majority) don’t agree with.”

Reid said the intent of the policy revision was not to silence the minority, but was instead an effort to make the compilation of minutes more efficient. An overwhelming number of for-the-record comments during every meeting, Reid said, was hampering efforts by the Board clerk to compile minutes in a timely manner. Furthermore, she said, the District consulted with it attorneys from the Childs and Halligan Law Firm before proposing the change.

“We have from legal counsel advice that (the policy revision) does meet the standard of the FOIA,” Reid said.

Reid added that the policy is taken verbatim from a policy that has been in place at the Lexington-Richland 5 school district since at least 2012. But Rogers said Lexington-Richland 5 has a poor track record when it comes to transparency.

“Lexington-Richland 5 is not a good role model for openness,” Rogers said.

Frick, a Winnsboro attorney who serves with the Public Defender’s Office, placed the motion to adopt the change on the floor during the Feb. 17 meeting. This week, however, he said he was on the fence heading into the second and final reading.

“I don’t know if I can vote in favor of it as it is written,” Frick said, “but I do think something needs to be done about (the number of for-the-record comments).”

Frick said he supported the revisions in first reading so that the Board could discuss the issue.

“I knew we would have a second vote on it,” he said.

Reid told The Voice this week that changes could be implemented to the revision prior to final reading.

“I want to work together to make it right,” Reid said. “We don’t want to stifle freedom of speech. We don’t want to violate the law or create the appearance in any way that it’s more than it is, which is to make the minutes more efficient in the future.”

 

New Policy Would Require Statements in Writing

WINNSBORO – A second attempt in as many months by the Fairfield County School Board to revise the way for-the-record statements are recorded in their minutes passed first reading during the Board’s Feb. 17 meeting, although not without considerable debate. Indeed, should the policy clear second and final reading next month, the revision may well be in direct conflict with state law.

Where previously Policy BEDG, Minutes of Board Meetings, provided for the inclusion of “any other information that any member requests be included or reflected in the minutes,” the proposed revision to the policy would require those for-the-record statements to be submitted in writing.

According to the revised policy, for-the-record comments will be “limited to written materials germane to the public agenda.” Those materials would also be limited to five pages, front and back, unless granted a special exception by the Board chairperson. The statement “must be presented in writing to the board’s secretary or the board chairman at the time of the meeting.”

The written statements would be “designated as an attachment to the minutes,” the policy states, and not as part of the minutes themselves. The chairperson would also have “the prerogative to rule any such request out of order for the reason that such materials are not germane to the agenda, are inappropriate as an attachment or that the materials are otherwise publicly available; such ruling by the presiding officer will stand unless overturned by the board majority.”

The S.C. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), however, which governs, among other things, how public bodies maintain records of meetings, contains no such provisions regarding the minutes of meetings.

The S.C. FOIA, under Section 30-4-90, requires that all public bodies keep minutes of public meetings. Minutes must include, but need not be limited to: 1) The date, time and place of the meeting; 2) The members of the public body recorded as either present or absent; 3) The substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided and, at the request of any member, a record, by an individual member, of any votes taken; and 4) Any other information that any member of the public body requests be included or reflected in the minutes.

An attempt to reword the fourth provision altogether during the Board’s Jan. 20 meeting, replacing “any other information that any member requests be included or reflected in the minutes,” with “specifically, the minutes will include what is done, not what was said,” was pulled from consideration after Board member Paula Hartman (District 2) pointed out that such a change was not in compliance with the FOIA.

During the Feb. 17 meeting, Hartman again questioned the policy change, as did Annie McDaniel (District 4), who said the policy change was an attempt by the Board’s majority to muzzle its minority.

“Disrespect for the minority on the Board, that’s what’s causing this,” McDaniel said. “I’m pleading with this Board to come up with a better way to deal with the conflict that we have other than trying to put policies in place.”

Henry Miller (District 2) said the policy was a way for Board members to stand behind and take ownership of statements they make for the record, while William Frick (District 6) said his understanding was that the policy would ensure statements were reflected accurately in the minutes.

But McDaniel said a written statement provided after the fact would be less accurate, not more.

“If a person says they want a statement for the record and they go back and rewrite that statement, it is not going to be the same thing,” McDaniel said. “The minutes are supposed to reflect that particular statement.”

Board Chairwoman Beth Reid (District 7) said so many for-the-record statements were slowing down the compilation of the minutes. The change in policy would relieve some of that pressure from the Board clerk. Frick agreed, but cautioned the Board to be wary of the law.

“The statute is pretty broad, and the First Amendment is pretty broad,” Frick said. “I just want to make sure that we’re clear as we discuss this, you will have that opportunity to revise and extend your remarks as necessary as long as they comport with the germaneness of the issue that’s being discussed.”

Dr. J.R. Green, Superintendent, said the District had drafted the policy based on a similar policy in place at Lexington-Richland District 5. A nearly verbatim policy can be found on that district’s website, which shows the policy was last revised in June 2012.

“The minutes are not an opportunity for someone to write a statement to put in the (minutes) that was not something that was actually said at the meeting,” McDaniel said. “The Freedom of Information Act gives a person an opportunity to put things on the record, even if (that person is) in the minority.”

First reading passed 4-2, with McDaniel and Hartman voting against. Frick, who placed the motion on the floor, Miller, Reid and Carl Jackson (District 6), who offered the second, all voted in favor. Andrea Harrison (District 1) was not present. The Board will meet again on March 17 at 6 p.m. in the District office.