Ex-superintendent called security chief’s higher pay a ‘mistake’ day before resigning

The day before Agnes Slayman resigned as Chester County schools’ superintendent – on the heels of an investigation into allegations against her of a “hostile” workplace – school board Chairwoman Denise Lawson says she and other trustees learned the district was paying its new security chief nearly $30,000 more than they had expected.

“That was a big shock,” Lawson told The Herald in an interview.

The higher pay came to light, she said, when she asked the former superintendent for a copy of the school district’s contract with private security company Defender Services and for information about the salary of the district’s newly hired chief of security, former Chester Police Chief Andre Williams.

Lawson asked questions last month after reading the consultant’s investigative report that details numerous district employee accusations against Slayman, including claims that she told staffers to “gross up” the security chief’s salary and to lie to the school board about some parts of Defender’s services.

The consultant based the report on interviews conducted with several school district employees while Slayman was on personal leave for almost three weeks in August.

The day before Slayman resigned, Lawson said, Slayman told her Williams’ total compensation is about $82,600. That includes a base salary of $61,200 – more than $23,000 higher than the $38,000 salary listed when the district advertised the new position and almost $30,000 more than what board members had expected the position’s total cost to be.

Shortly after the school district hired Williams on July 1, Lawson said, Slayman told the school board she planned to employ Williams as a district employee – not as a contractor under the Defender Services contract as originally planned. The security chief’s job description was then expanded, and board members were told the district would need to provide Williams with benefits – costing the district more money but reducing the overall cost of the security firm contract.

With the change, Lawson said, the board expected Williams’ total compensation package would rise to about $50,000. That was still about $5,000 less than he had been paid as police chief – but, as a district employee, his contract runs 245 days a year.

It wasn’t until Sept. 23, Lawson said – almost three months after Williams was hired – that she learned he was earning far more as Chester schools security chief. When she asked Slayman for the pay information, Lawson said, Slayman told her there had been “a mistake” in setting the salary.

Slayman didn’t blame the district’s human resources or finance staff but said it was possible she had misspoken when giving staff directions, Lawson said. Then, Lawson said, Slayman told her: “I can fix that.”

The next day, Slayman resigned, asking the school board to release her from her contract. After nearly four hours of meeting with attorneys and negotiating behind closed doors, the school board voted 4-3 to accept Slayman’s resignation and pay her $300,000 – equivalent to two years of her salary.

Whether the district will continue to pay its security chief the higher-than-expected salary is a budget decision left to the full board, Lawson said, but the right thing to do would be to honor any official agreement between Williams and the district.

Lawson believes Williams “acted in good faith,” she said, and she doesn’t know whether he took the $38,000 job on the promise his salary would later be increased.

“I believe he came here under good intentions,” Lawson said.

Still, Chester school district employees alleged that Slayman interviewed Williams outside normal hiring procedures and told him prior to interviewing others that he had the job. Those allegations are found in the consultant’s investigative report, commissioned by the school board in late August.

The report was the first indication Lawson said she had that Williams’ total compensation was $82,600. The report was also the first time Lawson heard the employees’ claim that Slayman required them to “gross up” the pay.

The consultant’s report contains other allegations surrounding the school district’s relationship with Defender Services. Earlier this year, school officials announced they would hire Defender to provide security guards to replace Chester County sheriff’s deputies who had been working as school resource officers.

District officials touted the change as a way to afford security officers in every school. Sheriff’s deputies had shared responsibilities across multiple schools.

Some school district employees claim Slayman told them to lie to trustees about certain aspects of Defender’s services, including not sharing with the board that the new security guards would not provide first aid or CPR at schools. Others allege the former superintendent threatened them to keep them from talking to board members and making eye contact or facial expressions during board meetings.

Through her attorney, Slayman has denied all the claims against her.

The complaint that led to the consultant’s investigation was the first indication Lawson had of any serious troubles between the superintendent and her staff, she said. She had been unaware, she said, that Slayman allegedly told employees not to speak with school board members and that Defender security officers cannot perform first aid and CPR.

Lawson stands by hire of security guards

Even before the consultant’s investigation and Slayman’s resignation, the school security issue was contentious in Chester County.

Sheriff Alex Underwood said the switch would make schools less safe. A state Attorney General’s opinion indicated the guards wouldn’t have the authority to make arrests. The change also left security at some high school football games temporarily in limbo as school, city and county officials wrestled over police jurisdiction.

The school district has since signed an agreement with the sheriff’s office to assign deputies to work events like football games and high school graduation.

“Is (the switch to private security) perfect? Apparently not,” Lawson said. “But the plan is good.”

Since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., claimed the lives of 20 children and six adults, Lawson said, she and other school officials have wanted more security workers in Chester schools.

Under the school resource officer program, the county and the school district shared the cost of paying four deputies who primarily served at Chester’s middle and high schools. Defender Services has placed guards at all nine school facilities, with Williams spending time at each, as well.

Lawson anticipates moving forward with a program that keeps armed personnel on all school grounds, she said, but she’s open to changes that could beef up security. Earlier this year, The Herald reported that, since 2013, Chester schools have spent nearly $1 million on other security upgrades, including new surveillance cameras and more secure doors.

Soon, the district will sign an amended contract with Defender Services, since learning only recently that Slayman never finalized the deal removing the cost of the security chief position. Officials said last week security will continue to operate as it has been and the new contract won’t result in practical changes for schools.

Board asked Slayman for ‘interpersonal’ improvement

Slayman’s leave of absence in late August – at the time, unexplained by district officials – was prompted, Lawson said, by an employee’s allegation about the way the superintendent treated her staff.

Before then, Lawson said, she had been happy with Slayman’s performance during her nearly four years as superintendent.

“I had absolutely no clue” about the alleged behaviors,” Lawson said. “The revelation was shocking.”

Before Slayman’s Sept. 24 resignation, school board members and district officials refused to say why the superintendent wasn’t at work, and no one would say on what date she would return.

Now, Lawson said, she wants to answer questions about what happened to help parents and district employees move forward.

Here’s what happened, according to Lawson:

▪ Late August: The board chairwoman learned of an employee complaint about Slayman. The board called its attorney for advice, aiming to proceed “methodically.”

▪ Aug. 24: Lawson told other trustees she planned to meet with Slayman soon.

▪ Aug. 25: Lawson learned another trustee had told Slayman about the complaint, so the two spoke by phone instead. Lawson told Slayman the district needed to investigate the complaint and she asked the superintendent to use personal leave time during the investigation.

▪ Aug. 27: The board met privately and hired the consultant to investigate the allegations.

▪ Aug. 31: The consultant began a multi-day investigation, which included interviews with Slayman and numerous employees.

▪ Sept. 3: The consultant met in private with the school board to share her findings. Over the next two weeks, the board met several more times behind closed doors with lawyers.

▪ Sept. 16: Slayman returned to work.

▪ Sept. 18: Board members received a written copy of the investigative report.

▪ Sept. 23: The board learned new information about the school security chief and Defender Services contract.

▪ Sept. 24: Slayman resigned.

Lawson said she opposed Slayman’s returning from leave last month in light of the employees’ allegations, which include claims that the superintendent threatened to kill people and made racist comments.

The consultant’s report accurately depicts what district employees experienced while working for Slayman, Lawson said. She did not specify which board members had supported the superintendent’s return from leave.

“There are seven members on this board,” she said. “You can imagine that we don’t always agree.”

But, because the school board allowed Slayman to use personal leave instead of placing her on administrative leave, a board vote on whether Slayman could return on Sept. 16 was not required.

Instead, the board acted more than a week later, agreeing to let Slayman resign and to pay her for half of the term remaining on her contract.

Before she returned from leave last month, Slayman and the board discussed a plan for improvement, given the complaints from district office staff. But, Lawson said, the board’s expectations and Slayman’s goals “never meshed.”

While not a condition of her return to work, Lawson said, “it was very important” that the board and the superintendent find consensus on their goals. There were no specific objectives discussed, she said, but the key points of the plan focused on improved “interpersonal skills,” Slayman’s interactions with her employees, and “professionalism.”

Some parents and others in Chester have complained about the $300,000 payout, approved when the school board accepted Slayman’s resignation. When asked about those concerns, Lawson again said board members don’t always agree but spent hours negotiating to reach a decision in the district’s best interest.

Lawson was one of the four board members who voted in favor of accepting Slayman’s resignation, paying her $300,000 and continuing her district-paid benefits through January. Asked whether any board members wanted Slayman to remain as superintendent, or wanted her to be fired or resign with no pay, Lawson said she could not comment on behalf of other members.

The three board members who voted against the motion to accept Slayman’s resignation – Patricia Hensley, Maggie James and Eugene Boyd – have not said publicly why they were opposed.

This story was originally published October 6, 2015 at 7:11 PM with the headline "Ex-superintendent called security chief’s higher pay a ‘mistake’ day before resigning."