Band boosters urge pause and rewrite of Berkeley County uniform contract, cite cost and transparency concerns
Summary
Band booster representatives told the school board the proposed district band uniform contract is financially burdensome, removes director and booster input, and ties funding to mandatory state competition participation; they asked the board to delay implementation and form a collaborative committee.
Several representatives of Berkeley County band booster organizations told the Board of Education on Dec. 15 that a proposed district band uniform contract must be paused and rewritten, arguing it would impose undue costs and restrict local decision-making.
"The terms, as they are currently stated, not only present a bad-faith offer of significant funding for uniforms that not all of our programs require, but they also impose restrictions that hinder our programs and mission," Jennifer Meador, speaking for band boosters from multiple high schools, told the board. Meador said boosters were given an unrealistic signing timeline and that some groups declined to sign as a result.
Amanda Shremlow, who said she represents band directors and parents, told the board the contract links district funding to participation in the South Carolina Band Directors Association state marching competition and removes local directors’ ability to prioritize student readiness and fiscal constraints. "A contract mandating participation in a single competition limits the ability to prioritize our students' best interest and adapt to fiscal constraints," Shremlow said.
Elizabeth Vertthaler, speaking on behalf of Berkeley Bands, said the contract could shift costs to families and flagged transparency questions about who drafted the agreement. Vertthaler referenced state law and federal non‑discrimination rules in describing legal risks and asked the board to delay implementation to allow a collaborative committee of band directors, boosters and district leaders to develop a different approach.
Speakers offered several concrete concerns: design restrictions that would force replacement of recently purchased uniforms, prohibitions on common school colors, and a lack of clarity about whether funds earmarked for uniforms could instead be allocated to instruments or other needs. Meador and Vertthaler also described significant fundraising burdens for some programs.
Board members discussed budget categories in a later committee session; administration representatives said band uniform purchases had been handled through capital funding in this cycle and that budgets include restricted funds and encumbrances. The board did not take an immediate formal action on the contract during the meeting.
The public record shows calls for clearer drafting, a transparent development process and a delay to allow stakeholder negotiation. The speakers asked the board to require that any future contract be developed collaboratively and include clearer funding commitments.
