Did Moss threaten, bully school board before it decided not to discipline him?

During a closed-door meeting in which the Beaufort County School Board was deliberating on whether to discipline Superintendent Jeff Moss for admitted state ethics violations, the superintendent made it known to the board that he was aware of their own potential ethics issues, according to two board members who were in the meeting.

In an Aug. 12 executive session, Moss surprised the board by announcing that some members had not reported their annual board income to the State Ethics Commission, as is required by state law, board members JoAnn Orischak and Michael Rivers confirmed for The Island Packet and The Beaufort Gazette.

Orischak said she interpreted Moss’ statements as an “I’ve-got-something-on-you threat.”

Moss did not return three phone calls from a reporter for this story but in a Sept. 19 email said he would not comment on executive session items. He did not say whether he initiated a discussion of the board’s income-disclosure forms, but he did deny attempting to influence a board member’s decision on any topic.

The conflict is the latest in a more than year-long string of embarrassments and dysfunction surrounding Moss and a divided school board that began with the hiring of Moss’ wife to a high-paying, newly restructured district position last September. Since, the superintendent and board have been dogged with questions about their leadership, accountability, transparency and trustworthiness — issues likely to play a major role on Nov. 8, when two contested board seats will be decided and the district’s separate requests for a sales tax hike and a bond referendum will be passed or rejected.

Orischak said she interpreted Moss’ remarks as a veiled threat. Before the Aug. 12 meeting, she had not reported her board income on any of her forms but has since filed amendments.

“It was perceived by several board members — of course I can’t speak for them — as an intimidation piece, which I personally didn’t take kindly to,” she said.

Moss’ actions at the August executive session did not sit well with Rivers, either.

“What bullies normally do, they try to throw the first punch and see if you can take it,” he said. “So, (Moss) threw the first punch.”

The four-hour, closed-door session was called to discuss employee and contract matters, though the ensuing conversation had “nothing to do with either,” Rivers said. The topic of income-disclosure forms wasn’t listed on the agenda of the executive session.

Orischak said Moss did not call out any member specifically, but a statement made by Rivers appears to indicate Moss had specific knowledge of the members’ filing histories.

Rivers said when he asked Moss for clarification about the forms, known as statements of economic interests, the superintendent replied, “Oh not you, Michael, because you turned yours in.”

Rivers has annually reported his $7,500 board stipend each year since 2008, according to a review of online filings with the State Ethics Commission.

Records show seven of the 11 board members were either missing information that should have been disclosed or hadn’t accurately reported it, the newspapers’ review found.

A third board member, David Striebinger, said he would not corroborate Orischak’s and Rivers’ accounts of the Aug. 12 closed session because he did not want to violate the board’s policy about publicly commenting on matters in executive sessions.

But Moss’ emailed response to the newspapers, which was copied to all board members, set him off.

“I can say unequivocally that Moss is being untruthful in his emailed statement,” Striebinger said.

Striebinger said Moss has tried to intimidate the board in the past, though he declined to offer specifics.

The newspapers contacted all 11 board members to discuss their economic interest forms and versions of the closed session.

Board Chairwoman Mary Cordray, along with board members Laura Bush, Geri Kinton and Striebinger, said they would not disclose anything discussed in executive sessions.

Paul Roth and Joseph Dunkle said they didn’t remember whether Moss initiated the discussion about the income-disclosure forms.

Evva Anderson didn’t return seven calls for comment. After a reporter sent six emails over a two-week period, she replied in an email Thursday that she had many other commitments. Earl Campbell arrived late and missed the beginning of the executive session. Bill Payne didn’t attend the meeting.

After returning to the public meeting following the closed session, Cordray read a statement that said the board determined it would take no further action against Moss in connection with his ethics violations.

In an Aug. 9 consent order with the ethics commission, Moss admitted to two violations in connection with the hiring of his wife for a $90,000 district-level director of innovation job in 2015 and the signing of his wife’s consulting contract for a career and technology education program in 2014. The commission publicly reprimanded him and ordered that he pay a fine and fee totaling $3,000.

Behind closed doors

Although the school board has a policy against publicly revealing the specifics of discussions in executive sessions, Orischak and Rivers agreed to speak to The Island Packet and The Beaufort Gazette.

Trying to prohibit board members from talking about what was discussed during an executive session is a tactic often used by superintendents to control the flow of information to the public, said Jay Bender, an attorney for the South Carolina Press Association, of which The Island Packet and The Beaufort Gazette are members.

“The fact that the school board has this policy strikes me as unconstitutional,” Bender said. “If they were honest, they wouldn’t have to have those policies.”

Moss raising the unrelated topic during executive session was illegal, Bender said, but so was the board’s decision to continue the discussion behind closed doors.

That’s why Orischak said she felt compelled to make the information public.

“There is nothing more public than one’s Statement of Economic Interest,” Orischak said in an email. “A public body’s (income-disclosure forms) should only be discussed publicly, not behind closed doors.”

The purpose of the Aug. 12 closed session was stated as a discussion about the “employment, appointment, compensation, promotion, demotion or discipline of employees,” according to the board’s executive assistant, Robyn Cushingberry.

Closed sessions often are called to shut the public and news outlets out of important issues, said John Crangle, executive director of Common Cause South Carolina, a government watchdog organization.

“That’s where the dirty work is done,” he said. “It’s a chronic problem for local government that’s been going on in South Carolina since Adam and Eve.”

The problem is particularly prevalent among school boards, said Bender, who noted he was familiar with Beaufort County’s school board.

“This board is in the noncompliance hall of fame — or the hall of shame, if you look at it from another perspective,” he said.

Still, many of the board members cling to the confidentiality of executive sessions.

“I hold executive sessions sacred,” Bush said.

Cordray, the board chairwoman, denied that the board has used executive sessions for matters that should be discussed publicly.

“It sometimes naturally occurs for conversation to drift,” she said. “It’s not intentional. It can get off focus in public session as well. You bring it back in focus.”

This story was originally published September 30, 2016 at 2:58 PM with the headline "Did Moss threaten, bully school board before it decided not to discipline him?."