Chester school board, attorneys discuss superintendent in closed meeting

For the first time this month, the Chester County school board publicly acknowledged on Monday night that trustees have discussed behind closed doors the employment of district Superintendent Agnes Slayman.

Slayman, who is on unexplained, indefinite leave, was absent during the public portion of the board’s meeting Monday. It’s unclear whether she or her attorney spoke with school trustees during executive session – a part of the meeting closed to the public.

Trustees started the meeting at 6:30 p.m. and quickly moved behind closed doors to talk privately with at least one attorney about the superintendent’s employment and an unspecified employee “grievance.” By 9 p.m., they’d adjourned, returning to public session only to vote to “hear an employee grievance” at a later time.

School district officials and attorneys said they could not comment on the grievance.

Monday’s school board meeting was a special-called session – the third of its kind this month. No action was taken at the other meetings this month.

Since at least the beginning of September, Slayman has been on “personal leave.” School district officials have refused to provide any details about how long Slayman has been gone, why she’s not working, and whether she’s being paid.

Slayman has not returned several phone calls and an email from The Herald over recent weeks.

Earlier this month, the school board met in a three-hour, closed-door meeting that included discussion described only as “employment matters,” and to receive legal advice. Officials would not say which district employee they discussed.

On Sunday, The Herald asked school district officials to review their obligations under state law to offer some details about topics discussed in board executive sessions. During Monday’s meeting, board Chairwoman Denise Lawson provided the additional information that trustees were discussing Slayman’s employment.

South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act allows public bodies – such as Chester’s school board – to meet in executive session for certain purposes, including to discuss some issues related to personnel matters. The law requires those public bodies to state the specific purpose for the group holding closed-door meetings.

Simply stating “employment matters” is too vague and keeps parents and community members in the dark about school district business, said Bill Rogers, government transparency advocate and executive director of the S.C. Press Association. The press association provides legal and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidance to member newspapers, including The Herald.

S.C. FOIA law does not require officials to specify which employee they are discussing in private. But, “they need to be as specific as possible,” Rogers said before Monday’s meeting.

Tiger Wells, an attorney and government affairs liaison with the Municipal Association of South Carolina, said he advises elected bodies for towns and cities to cite the specific legal reason for entering executive session. He encourages governmental bodies to “give a specific description” of what will be discussed in private, while balancing the need to preserve the confidentiality of those conversations.

School boards, city councils, county councils and other government and elected groups are all considered “public bodies” under S.C. law. Wells said he believes in most cases public bodies can offer more detail about executive session discussions than simply stating “employment matters.”

For example, Wells said, a council or board could state that executive session will include discussion about an employee in a certain department. Still, he said, if a department has only one or two workers, that presents a challenge to keep executive session private while also giving a sufficient descriptive reason for meeting outside the view of the public.

This story was originally published September 14, 2015 at 9:45 PM with the headline "Chester school board, attorneys discuss superintendent in closed meeting."