Partial Report on Investigation Released by Charleston Co. School District

Charleston Co. School District Unveils Partial Report on Investigation

In Charleston County, South Carolina, the School District has revealed a fragment of a substantial investigative report regarding allegations against its district leaders and federal funding. Among the claims are accusations of a hostile work environment made by John Cobb, the Executive Director of Federal Programs for the district.

Allegations and Concerns

Cobb sent the Board of Trustees a letter on June 10, accusing the district of being a hostile place to work. He specifically accused specific individuals: he levelled claims of retaliation and forced forgery by Superintendent Huggins and described ongoing acts of intimidation. Furthermore, Chief Human Resources Officer Bill Briggman was accused of contributing to the unfriendly environment. Ex-Superintendent Don Kennedy was also implicated, with accusations of improperly accelerating funding processes.

Not only were individuals targeted, but the school district’s handling of federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief funds was also called into question. Given Cobb’s role, his responsibilities include the approval of expenses related to the use of these federal funds.

Investigation Results

On July 1, Board Chairman Keith Grybowski revealed the results of the investigation at an extraordinary meeting. Grybowski stated, “External attorneys conducted an impartial and detailed investigation and found no grounds for the claims made against the superintendent or other members of the school district administration.”

Despite the amounting to over 300 pages, including key exhibits and witness statements, the district has only released a small fraction of the total findings, approximately 22 pages, many of which feature redactions.

Redactions and Future Releases

The district has removed certain parts of the released section of the report for various reasons. According to the district, some details were omitted as they were deemed “currently attorney/client privileged,” while others were redacted to “preserve the confidentiality of ongoing personnel issues.” The district has committed to releasing further portions of the report at an unrelated future date.

One significant note is that some pages from the report are completely blacked out or redacted, creating potential concerns about transparency. The district has not clarified whether these sections will remain hidden in future releases or whether they will be shared later on.

In this ongoing incident and ever-evolving story, the key focus to follow will be the district’s actions in response to these serious allegations and their approach to handling public communications about this critical matter.