District 5 Leader Urges Public Evaluation After Process Challenged in Op-ed

Editor's note: The article has been updated to reflect the change in location for the board's June 11 meeting. 

An op-ed from the head of the South Carolina Press Association called on Lexington-Richland 5 Board of Trustees to open the superintendent evaluation process after learning board attorneys were going to call board members one by one to gather his or her review of the superintendent. 

"The Lexington-Richland District 5 School Board – in collusion with its attorneys – is about to slap public accountability in the face by doing a secret telephone performance evaluation of its superintendent, Dr. Stephen W. Hefner."

Bill Rogers said after the calls the board attorneys "would present to the board in executive session a version of what they were told over the telephone by board members."

Rogers said conducting the evaluation in that manner was "problematic" in many ways.

"First, it is a waste of money. Why pay a high-dollar law firm to do employee evaluations when it could be done internally. Oh, I forgot to mention that if the attorney does it, the board can claim attorney-client privilege and refuse to release the results. Believe me, that will happen, and that is problem number two."

He went on to say that the review should be completed in a "written and public manner."

Buddy Price, the district’s director of community services, said the calls were never intended to be “that as it was categorized” but a way to make the process a little smoother and to give more accountability.

"Given the fact that the perception has been something different than that, [Superintendent Dr. Stephen Hefner's] recommendation is that they just conduct his evaluation in public in an open session," Price said. "Unless any board member has a strong objection to that, that’s recommended that they do."

Price said Hefner has strong community and board support, and has no problem with having an evaluation in public. 

Follow Irmo-Seven Oaks Patch on Facebook and Twitter. 

In an email to the board, Hefner said he regrets "the proposed process for conducting my evaluation has generated controversy."

"If the Board wishes to conduct my evaluation in public, I am more than willing for the evaluation to be conducted in public," Hefner said in the email.    

Price said the intent has always been to make the process more accountable by allowing board members to give unfettered responses and that the information was going to be compiled and presented to all board members to discuss. 

Price agreed with Rogers saying the process "certainly could’ve been manipulated" but that never was the intent.

Board vice chairwoman Beth Watson echoed Price saying the board attorney was merely acting as a facilitator.

"What the facilitator does is gather information from each board member and then we come back to the meeting with all the board members in executive session and the facilitator lays it out," Watson said. "It doesn’t disallow any board member from saying whatever their thoughts may be, it just helps get the group going."

"We don’t want to appear to be hiding anything but quite honestly, I’ve never known of any personnel evaluation to take place in public. The idea that we were doing something wrong is totally misleading."

When asked why the board would consider the telephone calls instead of evaluating the superintendent at one time with all members, Watson said the calls were really a chance for each member to express everything they wanted to.

"If someone wants to record what they said during the telephone call and play it for the board, they could," Watson said. "It’s an organized way for seven people to evaluate one person. It just makes sense."

"I’m sorry that people are making this into something it’s not. We are very open. Why not try to find the most efficient way. I think it makes it a more efficient process."

Watson questioned Rogers' opinion of the board and asked why he didn't contact board members to get their side before writing his article. 

Watson said the board wasn't wasting money on the attorneys if they were able to get a quality evaluation. 

"It’s not a waste of taxpayers’ money if we’re able to get a good evaluation especially compared to the $12 million that we’ve wasted on lawsuits brought by [board member] Mrs. [Kim] Murphy."

Watson later gave Hefner praise for being willing to go public with his evaluation.

"Thankfully we’ve got such an incredible superintendent who is so gracious. He is rising above the fray, which I have to commend Dr. Hefner for."

School boards have traditionally discussed superintendent evaluations in executive session and later provided a summary. No action can be taken while in executive session except for returning to the public session. 

According to section 30-4-70 of the state Freedom of Information Act, a public body can hold a meeting closed to the public for several reasons including discussion of employment, compensation and discipline. 

At the board's next meeting, which is scheduled for Monday at 7 p.m. at CrossRoads Middle School, the board will discuss holding a public evaluation 

The board is scheduled to complete the superintendent's evaluation at its June 11 meeting at . 

Get breaking news alerts and the daily headlines by subscribing to Patch's FREE newsletter.