Newspaper sues school district 5

Cites alleged Freedom of Information Act violations

Posted 7/29/21

The State newspaper has filed suit against Chapin-Irmo School District 5.

The suit argues the district school board violated the state’s open meetings laws in Superintendent Christina …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Subscribe to continue reading. Already a subscriber? Sign in

Get 50% of all subscriptions for a limited time. Subscribe today.

You can cancel anytime.
 

Please log in to continue

Log in

Newspaper sues school district 5

Cites alleged Freedom of Information Act violations

Posted

The State newspaper has filed suit against Chapin-Irmo School District 5.

The suit argues the district school board violated the state’s open meetings laws in Superintendent Christina Melton’s resignation.

The suit was filed last week for senior editor Paul Osmundson on behalf of the newspaper by attorneys Joel Collins and J.C. Nicholson of Collins and Lacy.

The suit alleges the Lexington-Richland 5 school board approved a settlement agreement with the superintendent Christina Melton in secret and without public discussion or a vote as required by law.

Melton will be paid a year’s salary of $226,368 on top of her remaining salary and benefits.

Melton announced her resignation at a June 14 board meeting following a closed-door session.

The State’s attorneys said they obtained a copy of an agreement to accept Melton’s resignation in exchange for the additional payout of taxpayer dollars.

The agreement was never presented for approval at public meeting, they said.

“(T)his is an established practice in our state, providing a mechanism for school boards and superintendents to mutually resolve employment matters to the satisfaction of both parties and in the best interests of school districts,” an unsigned press statement issued for the school board June 17 read.

The suit says chairwoman Jan Hammond told the New Irmo News that Melton would have had enough votes to stay on.

The suit says this is evidence that the board voted in secret, a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

Hammond defended the board meeting as standard practice in personnel actions and decisions.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here