Beaufort Co. school board member alleges ‘campaign of harassment’ by employees, board
On the same day Beaufort County’s school board voted to publicly reprimand board member William Smith, his attorneys wrote the school district, demanding it “cease and desist” any “disparaging statement about or concerning Smith,” documents obtained by the Island Packet and Beaufort Gazette show.
The board voted 6-3-1 on Oct. 21 to publicly reprimand Smith for violating a board policy that says members cannot make official visits to schools without notifying the school’s principal.
In June 2019, at least four district employees made formal or informal complaints to the district claiming that Smith “created a hostile work environment” by making unannounced visits to their offices, records obtained by the Packet and Gazette show.
In October, board member Richard Geier moved to reprimand Smith, stating that he had disrupted “the day-to-day operations of schools” and visited schools in his official capacity without notifying principals he was coming — both of which are board policy violations.
“Unfortunately, we’ve had multiple violations of this policy over a year ago, and we did not make our displeasure obviously known, because it’s happened again,” Geier said at the board’s Oct. 5 meeting.
But according to the letter from Smith’s attorney Maureen Coffey to district attorney Wendy Cartledge, Smith was never asked whether he made three unannounced visits to a district school in September, or given the chance to explain “the unofficial nature of his visit.”
Coffey, who works for the Hilton Head-based law firm CoffeyKubec, wrote in the letter that “there appears to be a campaign of harassment launched against Smith by certain actors in the District and Board.”
She also claimed that board member Geier violated two board policies: one that says members should “not publicly disparage the superintendent, staff, or other board members,” and one that says members “should never intentionally embarrass each other or the school system.”
“Smith wishes to do the job he was duly elected to perform free from the stifling efforts of those who either disagree, do not like, or do not understand his objectives,” Coffey wrote.
“Any further unlawful interference with his official duties and/or tarnishing of his reputation will result in prompt legal action against the offenders and those acting in concert with them.”
Reached Friday, Coffey said that the cease and desist letter was sent either right before or during the school board meeting in which Smith was reprimanded, and likely board members had not seen it when the vote was taken.
Asked whether Smith planned legal action against the district or any board members, Coffey said it was a “complicated situation.”
“We’re exploring things that may have to be resolved in court,” she said. “But the true goal here is really for the school board to focus on educating all of the children, including the ones that they’re trying to silence (through) Will and his district.”
What were the 2019 complaints against Smith?
On Friday, the Packet and Gazette obtained five complaints made by four employees against Smith in June 2019, illuminating the details of the issues raised against him to the public for the first time.
Two of the complaints — one alleging harassment and one a grievance — were filed on June 13, 2019, by a district school employee who claimed Smith had made unannounced visits to her school between January, when Smith was sworn in as a board member, and June of that year.
She highlighted two such visits — one on May 31 and one on June 3 — as instances where Smith “called me away from my work” to discuss the school’s graduation ceremony and “demand that I change the attire requirements” for students.
“The aforementioned actions of Mr. William Smith are unwanted, unwelcomed and have become unbearable,” she wrote. “His harassment has caused me emotional and mental distress thereby making it difficult to serve in my assigned role.”
She requested that Smith schedule all visits to the school with a stated purpose and a week of advance notice to her, and that he “refrain from meeting” with the school’s employees during those visits.
She also requested that Smith “schedule appointments with me only for conducting official business” under the school board’s scope.
One district administrative employee also filed a grievance against Smith. The form is undated but describes a June 13 incident where Smith “verbally confronted me in my office.”
“This interaction was extremely intimidating, and created an unsafe, hostile work environment,” he wrote. “I no longer feel there is a proper line of authority because of this behavior.”
Another district administrative employee drafted a letter to then-superintendent Herbert Berg on June 11, stating that Smith “came abruptly into my office” on June 3 and “told me to get on my computer and put an email out telling principals that they had to allow the students to decorate the caps and wear bowties” for graduation ceremonies.
She declined to do so, according to the letter, and added that Smith “is creating a hostile environment” and “distractions” for staff.
On June 20, a district teacher wrote to Berg to say Smith had shown up to a district teachers’ meeting on June 6 that she thought he was “uninvited” to, and that he had complained to her about her school’s leadership team needing “more diversity and transparency.”
“I feel that his behavior and comments to me in a public setting exhibits a position of non-support that is coupled with racial undertones,” she wrote.
What’s happened so far?
School board chairwoman Christina Gwozdz announced that there were employee complaints against an unnamed board member for the first time at the board’s meeting June 25, 2019.
Nearly a year and a half later, the public still does not know what the board did in a closed-door session in August 2019 to resolve these complaints.
Also unknown: Whether Smith was disciplined last August as a result of the complaints, or what drove then-superintendent Herb Berg to order a seemingly illegal concealed weapon permit check on Smith in June.
David Grissom, the district’s chief security officer, and Andrea White, the board’s attorney for the 2019 grievances, ran background checks on Smith without his knowledge before the complaints were resolved.
A private investigator contracted by White’s firm ran a background check on Smith during their investigation, which cost the district upwards of $16,000.
In June, then-superintendent Berg asked David Grissom, the district’s chief security officer, to check whether Smith had a concealed weapon permit.
In an email to Gwozdz, Berg said Grissom had not found a permit for Smith, though Smith said in an interview with the newspapers that he has had a concealed weapon permit for several years.
According to state law, Grissom should not have been able to confirm whether Smith had a permit, as he is not a law enforcement officer.
Geier, along with board members Tricia Fidrych and Cathy Robine, confirmed in February that they had been briefed on “the general details” of the complaints and that they did not involve anything illegal or sexual in nature.
“It was nothing more than a misunderstanding, period,” Geier said in February.
This story was originally published November 2, 2020 at 4:30 AM.