Richland 2 school board walk out exposes simmering infighting behind the scenes 

Three Richland 2 board members who walked out of, and successfully shut down, a Tuesday meeting say that was only the last straw in an ongoing problem.

Board members Lindsay Agostini, Monica Scott and Lashonda McFadden each told The State on Wednesday that they had been cut out of the decision-making process long before the meeting.

“We have unfortunately developed a school board where the majority of the board is leading with blinders and that’s not the way you want to lead a school district,” Scott told The State on Wednesday. “I think we’re living in a time when Richland 2 has given more power to the board chair and they don’t realize the board chair’s job is to maintain order at board meetings, not dictate how board meetings are run.”

The walkout was prompted when board Chair Teresa Holmes denied a motion to delay voting on amendments to Superintendent Baron Davis’ contract. Agostini and others who sought to delay the vote said they were not given enough time to research and digest Davis’ proposed contract.

“I need a day probably to read through the old contracts. We received the old contracts first thing yesterday morning,” Agostini said Wednesday morning.

McFadden said she did not want to walk out of the meeting, but felt that was the only way to get the board’s leadership to include all members in the decision making process.

“The only way we were able to move forward was if we walked out of that meeting and allowed nothing to happen,” McFadden said. “There is more to it than what meets the eye...in public.”

Holmes said board members were kept in the loop every step of the way and had weeks to get details on Davis’ proposed contract.

“How could they have been cut out of the decision making process when we’re all given the same information at the same time?” Holmes asked.

The walkout meant only four members remained in the meeting. In Richland 2, five members are required for a quorum.

Several of those who stayed noted that prematurely ending the meeting delayed a presentation on COVID-19, delayed staff hires and made students waiting to get into the adult education program have to wait longer.

“I think what happened last night was a dereliction of duty and an irresponsible way to govern,” board Vice Chair James Manning told The State.

Supreme Court case

In August, Richland 2’s board voted to request legal advice on a lawsuit the district was considering regarding mask mandates, but McFadden said she did not cast a vote on whether to initiate the lawsuit. The suit, which challenges a state law against mask mandates in schools, is pending before the state Supreme Court.

“When we had that meeting, we were not informed we were going to go forward with it,” McFadden said. “A few days later I get a call from the chair saying we have filed. That’s in direct opposition to two board members who opposed it in executive session.”

McFadden was one of those who opposed the lawsuit because she said the district should not be suing the state government.

“If we’re not allowed to do something, we’re not allowed to do something. You don’t sue the person or entity” that made the rule, McFadden said.

Scott, who voted in favor of requesting legal advice regarding the mask mandate law, also said she was unaware she was voting to initiate legal action.

“I was misinformed,” Scott said.

Asked about this, Holmes said it was clear the board was voting for legal action and just because some board members misunderstood the motion doesn’t mean they were maligned or cut out of the process.

“Every board member agreed to do the lawsuit,” Holmes said.

Should the superintendent get a raise?

Davis is popular with the majority of board members, but members disagreed whether he should receive a raise.

“I’ve seen good superintendents and I’ve seen bad superintendents,” said Holmes, who works as an assistant administrator in Fairfield County Schools and supports giving Davis a raise. “He’s very knowledgeable. He knows exactly what’s going on in the district… He’s one of the best superintendents I’ve seen.”

Because the details of Davis’ contract are not final, they’re not public. In 2019, Davis’ salary was increased 12.3% to $222,477, The State reported previously.

“That was alarming,” McFadden said of the proposed salary increase. “I didn’t know if that was typical or normal. I didn’t really have time to look at it.”

Scott said giving the district’s highest paid employee a raise sends the wrong message to employees.

“Making the decision to increase the superintendent’s salary, during the time of a pandemic, that is unnecessary, especially when we have bus drivers, cafeteria workers, teachers, school nurses who have been working around the clock… we have all these support staff who have been begging for increases, yet we keep flooding these top employees with raises,” Scott said.

Manning said Davis “absolutely” deserved a raise because the superintendent has improved the district’s academic standing, kept employee turnover low, has led well during the COVID-19 pandemic and communicates well with parents.

Manning implied other districts have noticed Davis and would be happy to have him.

“He is a good superintendent and I will say he is highly sought after — not just in the state,” Manning said.

Policy change?

S.C. open meetings laws require just over half of members to be present for a quorum, which is the minimum number of voting officials needed to hold a meeting. However, Richland 2’s quorum policy requires five of seven members to be present in order to have a quorum.

As a result of this policy, it only takes three board members to walk out to shut down an entire meeting. That means any group of three like-minded board members — even if they are outvoted — are able to block the board from meeting until a vote goes their way.

“I think we’re going to have to re-evaluate” the quorum policy, Manning said.

Holmes, the chair, agrees.

“In my opinion this should never be able to happen again where three people, who are not a majority of the board, can shut down the business of the district,” Holmes said. “If you didn’t like what was presented, every board member is entitled to vote their conscience.”

This story was originally published September 15, 2021 at 5:05 PM.