Dissent marks school board's first nepotism talk

Beaufort County school board members sparred Tuesday over whether they should prohibit family members of the superintendent from working in the school district.

Members JoAnn Orischak and Michael Rivers said in a human resources committee meeting that a superintendent has greater influence than other district employees and may require stricter rules to prevent misuse of power.

Several others, particularly Earl Campbell, said they would not support a policy that automatically precludes the hiring of a superintendent's relative, arguing the district's current rule goes far enough by stating no family members can evaluate or supervise each other.

Moss' change to the district's nepotism rule this summer and the subsequent hiring of his wife, Darlene Moss, to an administrative position sparked public outrage. The school board promised on Sept. 21 to remove the rule from the superintendent's control.

Now, two months later, the board is at odds over what changes, if any, should be made as it fashions a new nepotism policy that will be under its purview.

Tuesday, several board members downplayed Jeff Moss' actions and the public's reaction to it.

"If Darlene had been hired for a position for $45,000 over at Whale Branch, we wouldn't be here," board member Geri Kinton said. "Or if we'd known about the rule change. It was a fireball of circumstances that all came together and blew up in our face so we're trying to fix it by changing a policy that really didn't have anything wrong with it."

Campbell called the potential restriction "ridiculous," adding that he does not think members of the public who criticize the district's nepotism rule care about students or education.

Evva Anderson agreed with Kinton that the board was simply trying to appease the public, possibly to the detriment of the district.

"I'm thinking if I applied to a job and I was turned down because of someone I was related to, I'd be looking for the best attorney I could find," Anderson said. "I just don't think it's necessarily correct."

Orischak argued that a superintendent is "top dog," and therefore has greater reach than other supervisors, and Rivers added that employees who stand up to a bullying leader might have jobs today, but "N.F.L., not for long."  

Jeff Moss fired back that he took their words as an accusation that he would bully or threaten to fire staff.

"I do have to interject here. The road you're going down is casting character and ethical decisions on your employee and I can't sit here and listen to that occur," he said.

Orischak threw up her hands and responded, "Who did that?" adding that there is valid fear that nepotism may impact employees' decisions and actions.

"I think it is a reality that the superintendent holds the most powerful position in the district and I'm not intimating the superintendent would fire someone," Orischak said. "I'm not trying to insinuate our superintendent is flying off the handle and firing teachers."

Some community members say the board is still not taking the public's reaction seriously as is evident by it not disciplining or firing Jeff Moss.

David Striebinger of St. Helena Island, who plans to run for the open school board seat, said in the public comment session of Tuesday's regular school board meeting that a sales tax increase that may go before voters next year will fail if board members do not restore the public's trust.

The board has tentatively proposed a November 2016 1 percent sales-tax referendum that would generate $480 million over 15 years.

"The tax increase will become a referendum on the superintendent and the board and not on the merits of the tax (increase)," Striebinger said. "We're talking about (Jeff Moss') conduct, just as if a teacher had done something wrong, and you have to deal with it decisively."

The human resources committee did not reach an agreement Tuesday on the new nepotism policy. Its co-chairman Joseph Dunkle said the conversation will continue at the next committee meeting on Dec. 3.

By then, board chairwoman Mary Cordray said she would like to know how many S.C. school districts prohibit the hiring of superintendents' family members.

Board attorney Drew Davis provided a sample of policies, with most including nothing specific for the head of a school system.

One policy, at Lexington-Richland 5, prohibits family members of the superintendent or a board member from receiving a promotion during their relative's tenure

And the Horry County school district uses the same rule that Moss recently altered without the board's knowledge: "The district will not make a recommendation for the appointment of a family member of the superintendent for a position in the district office, for a position as a principal or assistant principal, or for any other position which is directly supervised and/or directly evaluated by the superintendent."

On Tuesday, board members did not discuss how to interpret that rule though they spoke at length about other aspects of their draft policy.

Committee co-chairman Rivers cautioned members to stay out of the weeds and craft a simple policy.

"I'm hoping we can come to some consensus on what common sense is on dealing with this," he said. "We could sit hear forever. The bottom line is, does it smell good? Does it look good? Is it Ethics 101?"

Follow reporter Rebecca Lurye on Twitter at twitter.com/IPBG_Rebecca.

Related content:

• Moss to keep his job; wife resigns new post, board to revisit nepotism policy, September 21, 2015
• Superintendent changed nepotism rule: Questions arise following wife's hire for new position, September 14, 2015

This story was originally published November 17, 2015 at 1:13 PM with the headline "Dissent marks school board's first nepotism talk."