Fairfield hires Charlotte firm for supt search

Hope that Broad Superintendents Academy experience isn't part of the search criteria. From reporter James Denton:

After more than two hours in executive session Tuesday night, the Fairfield County School Board voted unanimously to hire a firm to spearhead their search for a new superintendent.

Board Chairwoman Andrea Harrison said Wednesday that the Board had selected Coleman Lew and Associates of Charlotte to lead their search for new leadership, and that the District should have the position posted by Friday. The Board met with the firm’s president, Kenneth D. Clark Jr., during Tuesday’s closed session.

“Coleman Lew gave a very exceptional presentation,” Harrison said. “Hopefully, they will be able to help us avoid some of the pitfalls of the past.”

Harrison said the Board was actually one step ahead of the game, having already completed a candidate profile, upon which Coleman Lew would base their search.

According to the company’s Web site, Coleman Lew and Associates was founded in 1979 and focuses primarily on searches for corporate executives. While the firm has, in the past, successfully completed searches for college presidents, the Web site states, and is currently conducting a search for an executive director of a charter school, Harrison said this would be their first search for a superintendent.

“They look more for leadership skills and management skills,” Harrison said, “but our profile includes superintendent experience. I have confidence they’ll bring in someone who’s a good leader but also has superintendent experience.”

Harrison said the Board hopes to have the position filled by July 1, and because of that sense of urgency, Coleman Lew will be expediting their services. While the District will post the position and recruit candidates, Harrison said, Coleman and Lew would cull through the resumes and whittle down the list of prospective candidates.

The typical fee charged by Coleman Lew, Harrison said, is 30 percent of the salary of the position. But, since the firm is not providing the entire array of its services, the cost to the District will be a flat fee based upon the amount of time spent. That figure has yet to be negotiated, Harrison said.

“Once they start sifting through resumes, that’s when the clock starts,” Harrison said. “I don’t think it (Coleman Lew) was a bad choice, but it might cost us a little bit more money. But the Board will try to constrain those costs as much as possible.”

Are Annie McDaniels's questions inappropriate?

When I read that a school board member can't get questions answered -- questions about public information, about how public dollars are being spent, about public policy, about implementation of plans -- I worry about the professionalism of that board, and the health and well-being of the school district it governs.

This is the case in Fairfield County, as reported by the Herald Independent last week. Board member Annie McDaniel raised several questions that went unanswered, and even said she'd had to file Freedom of Information Act requests to find answers, still to no avail.

What is going on in Fairfield County? Is information being withheld from board members? For a district that advertises itself as "excellence created by example," what sort of example is this setting?

The newspaper's article indicated that some "heated" dialogue began between McDaniel and Board Chairman Ron Smith over a proposed new student conduct code. McDaniel asked seemingly harmless and entirely appropriate questions about parental involvement in the development of the code, and whether the board had allowed sufficient time for public review before approving the new document.

This apparently set Smith on edge.

Board member Annie McDaniel asked for more time to review the Code before the Board voted to approve the document. McDaniel also asked if parents had been involved in the revisions and if the revised document would be available for review by the public.

Danny Miller, Director of Transportation as well as head of school security, was involved, along with the Student Disciplinary Committee, in the revision of the Code of Conduct. He told McDaniel that parents had been involved in the process, although he could not give an exact number.

The Board found themselves under some pressure to approve the revised Code, as they face printing deadlines in order to have the new Code available to parents and students prior to the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year. Board member Henry Miller and Board Chairman Ron Smith suggested that the Code could be voted on now with changes or corrections to come through the committee and administration. Smith, after consulting with the District’s attorney, Ken Childs, suggested reserving July 19 for a Special Called meeting, if necessary, for the Board to vote on any changes. Board member Danielle Miller made a motion to that effect. Henry Miller offered the second.

McDaniel again asked how, under such a time line, the public would be apprised of changes to the Code. Smith then admonished McDaniel for not being prepared and for not having reviewed the Code, which he said had been posted to the District’s Web site last Thursday.

“Just because I asked the question, does not mean I am trying to attack or antagonize you in any way,” McDaniel said. “Why you always take it that way, I do not know. As the Chair, if do not want to answer my question, that’s fine. But you ask all the questions of the attorney like he’s a member of the Board, and he’s not.”

“I’ve asked for legal way to do things so we don’t have to re-do them,” Smith answered.

“The questions I asked were not legal,” McDaniel said.

“We’ve answered your questions,” Smith said. “We have a motion on the floor. We have a second. We’ll allow you time to bring your questions that you could have brought today. Bring your questions to the Committee, to Ms. Harrison. If you see any changes, we’ll have a special called Board meeting. I think that’s being very accommodating.”

“But my question was regarding the students,” McDaniel said, “the people that we serve, and the people that elected us to serve them.”

“And they elected us to serve them and make the decisions on these types of functions without having a community forum,” Smith said.

That wasn't the only issue causing heartburn. Apparently various entities have developed communications plans for the district, but none has been adopted. The board contracted with a public relations firm, Maxim Communications, which developed a communications plan that was scrapped -- without any further explanation -- when the contract with the firm was terminated. The board's own Safety Committee, chaired by board member Bobby Cunningham, has drafted a crisis communications plan to be incorporated into a comprehensive plan, but Cunningham's contribution has been ignored, too. Now, a new Communications Committee, which once was called the Student Recognition Committee, has been tasked with drafting another one. When McDaniel asked Smith to outline the new committee's responsibilities, and why the district is no longer using the plan that it paid Maxim Communications to develop, the answers she received were oddly unsatisfactory.

“I’ve never seen a PR plan,” Smith said, “other than the PR agency (Maxim Communications), which we terminated the contract with. It saved the District a lot of money.”

McDaniel asked why a plan that was paid for by the District was being thrown out. Dr. Patrice Robinson, Superintendent, told the Board that there was no comprehensive PR plan for the District and that the Committee was working on one. Board member Bobby Cunningham said the Safety Committee, which he chairs, had developed a crisis communication plan to be part of the overall communication plan, but that it had been shelved.

“My people worked very hard on what we did on that committee and it got shelved right quick,” Cunningham said. “I’m through with it.”

Is there a reason why the Fairfield School District paid for a public relations and communications plan, then threw it out when the contract with its developer was ended?

Is there a reason why the crisis communications plan developed by the board's own Safety Committee isn't being included in the newest version of a communications plan?

Are some board members' right and privileges being taken more seriously than others'?

And why are the fees paid to the school district's attorney not considered public information? Is the district's attorney being paid with public dollars? Aren't board members themselves the ones who contract with, and approve the expenditures paid to, its board attorney? If these things are so, then why can't board members be given information about the attorney's fees?

McDaniel then, as she has done in several previous meetings, asked for an itemized accounting of the District’s attorney’s fees. McDaniel said she has even gone as far as submitting a request for the fees under the S.C. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but has yet to see them.

Dr. Robinson said McDaniel had been supplied with the legal fees, but that McDaniel was asking for details to which, under advice from the attorney, she was not privileged. Childs said some of the details of his activities are protected by attorney-client privilege and that they belong to the entire Board, not to one member of the Board.

“The same man whose information we’re asking to see is making the decision as to whether or not we can see it?” McDaniel asked. “I want that on the record.”

Something about this answer does not compute. McDaniel has asked for details of an attorney's expenses, which are paid for by the school board. The attorney's answer is that the details of his expenses "belong to the entire Board" but apparently cannot be given to "one member of the Board."

Then why not make those details available for review by the entire board?

What is going on in Fairfield County?

Are Fairfield's parents paying attention to budget talks?

If a public hearing is held on the school budget and no parents attend to examine the proposal, what does it mean?

Such a thing happened in Fairfield County last Tuesday. Parents and other interested parties had an opportunity to discuss or ask questions about next year's budget, as required by law before the school board holds its regular meeting to adopt the plan. Their next board meeting is tomorrow night.

It's not that Fairfield's financial situation is so sweet that it runs on autopilot. In fact, there are some real issues to address.

The District’s $31,745,695 budget represents an increase in spending of $720,173, or 2.32 percent, over last year. The figure also represents a potential tax increase — something the School District has said it was not going to do this year. The potential increase, of approximately 6 mils, is more than twice the amount allowed by law. General fund revenues for 2011-2012 are budgeted at $31,397,035, a shortfall of $427,895.

A spokesperson for Fairfield County said the County would not be able to process an unbalanced budget from the School District. The tax increase would also have to be amended, they said. An increase of 3 mils is allowable, but would need the approval of County Council.
...
Although the budget will be approved by the Board at the June 28 meeting, the numbers are subject to change, the District said, contingent upon funding from the state. Right now, state revenues are budgeted at $7,066,401, a 15 percent decrease from the 2010-2011 numbers.

Here's hoping a few Fairfield residents will step up and pay attention.

P.S. Holding budget hearings in May, before parents leave for beach vacations, might help boost attendance at public hearings on the budget. That said, having a General Assembly and governor who adopt their own budgets early enough that local districts can get their own work done in May would be a real help, too.