Lexington School District 1 holds workshop on board duties, FOIA and superintendent relations

Andrea White, an education attorney with White & Story LLC, told members of the Lexington School District 1 Board of Trustees at a Dec. 10 workshop that the board’s power lies in its actions as a group and that most day-to-day authority rests with the superintendent.

White led a roughly 90-minute orientation for newly seated trustees and discussed board responsibilities ranging from policy adoption and budget oversight to limits on individual trustees’ interactions with staff and the public.

Why it matters: trustees approved by voters set policy and hire the superintendent, but White emphasized that courts and state law limit individual trustees’ authority and that improper actions can expose the district to legal risk. She urged trustees to coordinate with the superintendent and board chair on agendas, public statements and personnel matters.

White opened by describing the board’s principal roles: adopting policy, hiring and evaluating the superintendent, and setting district goals. “All powers of the Board of Trustees lie in its action as a group,” she said, adding that trustees should avoid acting unilaterally. She cautioned that trustees “only have authority to act when you are sitting in a dually called Board meeting where we've complied with FOIA.”

On the superintendent and employees, White said the superintendent is the district’s chief executive and the only employee the board directly hires: “The superintendent is ultimately in charge of all the other employees of the school district.” She explained that, while boards may reject superintendent hiring recommendations, doing so repeatedly typically signals a breakdown of trust and can prompt the superintendent to seek other employment.

White reviewed personnel boundaries: trustees should share constituent concerns with the superintendent but must not independently investigate staff or student cases. Doing so, she warned, can expose trustees and the district to legal claims such as defamation. She also noted many districts use a hearing officer for expulsions; appeals may reach the board only after administrative steps are exhausted.

The presentation addressed open-meeting law and executive-session limits. White cited the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (Title 30) and the state school-law provisions (Title 59) as the legal framework and warned against “executive-session drift,” where discussion in private strays beyond the stated reason for the closed meeting. She said executive sessions are appropriate for narrowly defined topics — personnel, pending litigation, contractual negotiations — but not for general policy debate or to consult an attorney on routine policy drafting.

Trustees also received practical guidance on meetings and agendas: White recommended the superintendent prepare agendas in consultation with the board chair, urged trustees to read materials before meetings, and suggested aiming for two-hour board meetings when possible. She discouraged standing committees, favoring ad hoc groups for special studies, and reminded trustees that most board business must be performed in public session.

On communications and media, White urged caution. She recommended the board chair and the district public information officer be primary spokespeople and advised against spontaneous interviews. She also warned trustees about social media: posting live updates from active incidents or unverified information can create confusion and legal exposure. “Not post that,” she said in response to a hypothetical of a trustee posting live updates about a school safety incident.

White answered trustees’ procedural questions about evaluation instruments for the superintendent and said evaluations should combine objective metrics with space for narrative comments. She advised trustees to surface concerns about the superintendent outside the formal annual evaluation and to work through the chair if issues persist.

The workshop included multiple hypothetical scenarios to clarify conduct: a trustee receiving detailed complaints about a student disciplinary matter was told to stop the conversation and instead refer the constituent to established procedures; another scenario about trustees emailing each other about board business was used to illustrate how such exchanges can create a meeting under FOIA.

The session closed with logistical reminders: new-member orientation in February, the district’s annual budget and audit responsibilities, and a note that the next regular board meeting is Dec. 17. White thanked the board and concluded the workshop.

The presentation focused on norms and legal guardrails rather than proposing any specific policy changes; trustees asked clarifying questions about agenda-setting, participation in interviews, and whether they may visit schools without notifying the superintendent and principal. White recommended trustees notify administrators before school visits to avoid confusion.

Quotes in this article come from Andrea White’s remarks at the Dec. 10 workshop and from trustees’ recorded exchanges during the session.