Charleston, SC- SC Code of Laws SECTION 59-19-80. Requirements as to purchases and teacher employment provides as follows:
“No teacher or other employee shall be employed or any purchase made except in a duly called meeting of the board, of which meeting each member has been notified in writing by the clerk of the board at least three days in advance thereof, unless a written waiver of such notice of meeting is signed by each member of the board, and unless such action or the memoranda of the terms of any such contract of employment or purchase shall be duly recorded in the minutes of such meeting and approved by the board.”
It is critical to understand that the statute refers to the full board (not a member or committee) being vested with the power to hire. It provides for three days’ notice, a period longer than that required by the Freedom of Information Act (SC Code) 30-4-80), which would also have to be complied with. The statute makes it clear that the entire board must act after extra notice and that their decision shall be recorded in the minutes, which of course implies that they were considered at and voted on at a board meeting.
The Chairman of the Board does not have independent, executive authority in these matters and has no capacity to act alone. Approval of the entire board is required after having been placed on the agenda at a properly noticed meeting at which a quorum is present, and a vote taken. Detailed memoranda of the terms of the contract must be included in the record of the meeting.
A contract which has not been approved by the board during a properly called and noticed meeting satisfying this statute and the requirements of the states Freedom of Information Act (which specifically treats hiring decisions in section 30-4-70) is invalid, null and void. Employees of the district may not be legally secure in executing it, meaning that issuing paychecks or providing benefits pursuant to such invalid contract would be illegal. Such activity could be enjoined in an action filed in the Court of Common Pleas.
This is the third, major violation of the States Freedom of Information Act since the decision to hire the new Superintendent was not properly noticed for the January board meeting at which the board, without meaningful notice, hired the superintendent and evidently amended the agenda in executive session to change the substance of an agenda item. Both the amendment of the agenda without required notice and the hiring itself were separate violations. Since hiring a specific Superintendent was not on the agenda it should not have been discussed, even in executive session, much less acted upon.
The critical, oft violated section of the State’s Freedom of Information act provides in section 30-4-80 Notice of meetings of public bodies. provides that:
“All public bodies, except as provided in subsections (B) and (C) of this section, must give written public notice of their regular meetings at the beginning of each calendar year. The notice must include the dates, times, and places of such meetings. An agenda for regularly scheduled or special meetings must be posted on a bulletin board in a publicly accessible place at the office or meeting place of the public body and on a public website maintained by the body, if any, at least twenty-four hours prior to such meetings. All public bodies must post on such bulletin board or website, if any, public notice for any called, special, or rescheduled meetings. Such notice must include the agenda, date, time, and place of the meeting, and must be posted as early as is practicable but not later than twenty-four hours before the meeting. This requirement does not apply to emergency meetings of public bodies. Once an agenda for a regular, called, special, or rescheduled meeting is posted pursuant to this subsection, no items may be added to the agenda without an additional twenty-four hours notice to the public, which must be made in the same manner as the original posting. After the meeting begins, an item upon which action can be taken only may be added to the agenda by a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting; however, if the item is one upon which final action can be taken at the meeting or if the item is one in which there has not been and will not be an opportunity for public comment with prior public notice given in accordance with this section, it only may be added to the agenda by a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting and upon a finding by the body that an emergency or an exigent circumstance exists if the item is not added to the agenda. Nothing herein relieves a public body of any notice requirement with regard to any statutorily required public hearing.”
I would strongly suggest that every member of the majority faction on the board be required to inscribe the above section on the chalkboard of a public school room with their own hand while it is dictated to them by a eighth grader.
Given the repeated violations of the Freedom of Information Act by the Board majority and an apparent utter disregard for the plain wording of this statute, I would expect the court to declare the contract invalid, grant an injunction against its execution and award attorney’s fees to the moving party.
The board majority operating under the control of Moms for Liberty seems to have a recurring and fundamental problem with the most basic elements of how the law requires it to function. The decisions contemplated by the board must be disclosed to the public in the manner required by these statutes. The board must vote, in public, as a group to make its decisions. While the board can discuss some matters in executive session, it cannot decide them there, nor elsewhere and is even prohibited from polling the members as circulation of an email appears to have attempted to do here.
Sincerely
William J. Hamilton, III
Attorney at Law
(843) 870-5299