A unanimous vote during an Oct. 25 special called meeting of the Jasper County School District Board of Trustees continued to move forward to fire the district’s Superintendent Rechel Anderson.
The board voted 7-0 to present Anderson, in consultation with its legal counsel, with the notice of intent to fire her, referencing Paragraph 11(d), Discharge with Cause.
The seven board members voting in favor of the motion included Daisy Mitchell, Tom Balliet, Priscilla Fraser, Shalonda Toomer, Berty Riley, Joyce Gerald and board chairperson Priscilla Green. While board member Carolyn Bolden had attended the closed session via Teams, she did not vote after the board returned to open session as she was not able to be present for the vote. Board member Tedd Moyd was not present at the meeting and did not vote.
Following the meeting, Green read a prepared statement concerning the investigation, stressing that misappropriation of funds was ‘not the subject of this (the district’s) investigation.’
Green said in July, the Jasper County School District Board of Education authorized outside legal counsel to conduct an investigation of allegations regarding possible breach of contract issues related to the job performance of the district’s superintendent Rechel Anderson.
Following that meeting, another meeting took place Oct. 9 and the attorneys hired by the board to conduct the investigation, the Haynsworth Law Firm, presented a summary of their findings to the board. Green said board members then reviewed the information during closed session at its regular Oct. 14 meeting.
Green said although the board did not reach any conclusions regarding the findings, the board voted 7-2 to allow her, as chairperson, and through legal counsel, to discuss with the superintendent’s legal counsel separation as contemplated through Paragraph 11 of the superintendent’s employment agreement.
According to the contract, Paragraph 11, known as ‘Termination,’ the contract may be terminated by mutual agreement of the parties, retirement of the superintendent, or disability of the superintendent.
The paragraph also has section (d), discharge for cause, stating, “‘discharge for cause shall be based on conduct that is prejudicial to the district, including but not limited to, unprofessional conduct, neglect of duty, suspected criminal conduct, or incompetency.’
“While we understand the community’s vested interest in this matter, unfortunately, it now appears that there is much speculation about the investigation, including, but not limited to, a determination about misappropriation of funds,” Green said in a statement. “On behalf of the board, I would like to make it clear that misappropriation of funds was not the subject of the investigation from outside legal counsel.”
Green said shortly after the board voted to place the superintendent on leave, they were notified by the State Department of Education that they would be requesting that S.C. Inspector General’s Office would also be conducting an investigation.
“In addition, due to this being a personnel matter, the board is very limited as to what it might state about the investigation,” Green said. “Dr. Anderson is entitled to respond to the report, and until such time, this matter is still pending.”
Green said the board appreciated the community’s concerns and will be making further statements as the matter progresses.
“We have much work ahead,” Green said. “We are currently facing challenges, but we are committed to working together to educate and empower our students.”
link
More Stories
Access to justice for all: MLK Day legal clinics offer free legal support across Alaska | Community Perspectives
25 things for solicitors to look out for in 2025
Browne Jacobson Appointed to Serco Group plc Legal Services Panel