Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Conflict Of Interest topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee reviews conflict‑of‑interest rules for board members employed by the district

Horry County Schools Policy Committee · December 9, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Legal research cited South Carolina Code section 59‑19‑300 and a 2016 Attorney General opinion indicating trustees cannot be paid as teachers in the district they serve; the committee asked staff to draft policy language clarifying paid employment, subcontracting and certain volunteer roles that could create conflicts.

The policy committee discussed a gap in GC8: no current policy explicitly addresses board members who are employed by, or subcontract with, Horry County Schools. A committee member noted the lack of wording and thanked staff (Kenny) for gathering statutory and sample language.

Kenny summarized the legal background, saying the "South Carolina code of law section 59‑19‑300" bars a school trustee from receiving pay as a teacher in the same district. He also referenced a South Carolina Attorney General opinion from January 2016 that extends the pay prohibition’s application and described how some boards expand their policies to cover other paid positions and clarifications about volunteers.

Committee members asked whether volunteer activities — such as chaperoning, band support or substitute teaching — could create a conflict. Kenny cautioned that volunteering that places a board member in a supervisory, substitute or staff‑equivalent role could create a conflict of interest; brief volunteer tasks (for example, reading to students) are less likely to do so.

The board debated the scope of recusal when family members or close associates receive district benefits. One member said he plans to request an opinion from the South Carolina Ethics Commission to clarify the recusal rules for the district's policy language. The committee asked staff to draft policy wording that mirrors the statute and the attorney general opinion and to propose language for committee review at the December special‑call meetings.