Legal questions surround Charleston Co. schools superintendent hiring

Legal questions surround Charleston Co. schools superintendent hiring

CHARLESTON COUNTY, S.C. (WCSC) – Following the Charleston County School District’s decision to hire a new superintendent last week, questions surround the legitimacy of her contract. Anita Huggins signed the contract after the district’s Board of Trustees Chair Keith Grybowski made the final signature on the contract. Other board members, including Dr. Carol Tempel, said they were not notified of Grybowski signing off on the contract. The agenda for Feb. 5 special-called meeting also did not state the conversation of any contractual matter, just changes to the superintendent’s power over the district’s organizational chart.

Legal implications

Attorney William Hamilton says the way Huggins’ contract was approved is the third violation of the State’s Freedom of Information Act by the board. “You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand this law, but you do need to understand what violating a law like this means. It means that somebody has picked the most important thing the school board does to clearly and willfully violate a crystal-clear state law,” Hamilton says.

State laws and contracts

South Carolina Code of Laws Section 59-19-80 addresses requirements for teacher and other employee employment but does not specifically mention superintendent contracts. However, Charleston County School District’s Attorney, Wilbur Johnson, argues that the statute may not govern the contract with a superintendent for a school district.

Chairman’s role and board’s actions

While the district’s policy BD outlines the chairman’s duties, including calling special meetings and signing legal documents on behalf of the board, the controversy arises from the lack of explicit approval of the superintendent’s contract by the entire board.

Call for accountability

Hamilton is urging the Attorney General’s Office to get involved and hold the board accountable for the alleged violations. “The law has been violated here,” Hamilton says. “The public has not been heard from. They’ve been deprived of the opportunity to look at the documents that are involved.”