Legislators Press Charter Institute at Erskine on Audit Findings, Travel and Transparency

Members of a legislative subcommittee pressed the Charter Institute at Erskine on oversight and transparency after a Legislative Audit Council (LAC) review.

The hearing opened with the committee chair asking four direct questions about whether dollars retained by an authorizer are defensible, where the institute got oversight right or wrong, which audit findings the institute disputes, and which recommendations it has implemented. Mister Runyon, the institute's representative, said the LAC review was extensive — he said auditors reviewed roughly 14,000 pages — and that the audit did not find statutory violations regarding management companies or evidence of preferential treatment by the institute. "We put the child in the center of the table," Runyon said, describing the institute's governing philosophy.

Lawmakers focused on several themes: travel and professional development, use of nongovernmental funds, leasing and venue income, related‑party and management‑company concerns, program spending such as Teach Right, and disclosure of school and staff financial information.

On travel, Runyon defended international and domestic trips as professional development intended to change school leadership practice. He told the panel that much travel was funded by private (nongovernmental) donations and cited internal audits and a one‑page cohort summary showing longitudinal outcomes. "When we started, the way we got to our leadership cohort was originally we started in this and said, you gotta have a school improvement program," he said, adding that the institute redirected how it spends after earlier pilot efforts "because we put the child in the center of the table."

Committee members repeatedly pressed whether family members accompanied official trips and whether some activities the LAC described as sightseeing constituted recreation. Runyon acknowledged spouses traveled on portions of some trips and said spouses did not participate in school visits or formal program activities.

Lawmakers also asked about the institute's leased office and event space on the 25th floor of the Truist Building. Runyon said growth forced relocation from a smaller 3rd‑floor footprint, described the space as a resource for training and events used by school districts and state agencies, and said event revenue lowers the institute's effective net lease rate. He gave contracted and effective lease figures to justify the decision and said public‑benefit events are often offered free to local schools.

Representative Collins and others questioned the institute's budget and nongovernmental revenues. Runyon told the committee the administrative budget is slightly under 2 percent of program revenues (about $5.06 million in the current year) and that the institute's nongovernmental budget or revenues are larger than the audit's earlier approximation — he cited a current figure of about $406,000. He said FOIA applies to many records and that the institute has adopted a donation policy and other LAC recommendations.

Members raised concerns about related‑party transactions and management companies (EMOs/CMOs). The LAC report flagged instances in the sector where managers or vendors had ties to landlords, uniform vendors or developers; lawmakers asked whether the institute had similar entanglements. Runyon said the institute itself "is not in a legal relationship with an EMO or with a developer," but acknowledged the sector has had problems where management companies swept public bank accounts or sole‑sourced contracts to related parties. He recommended statutory guardrails — for example, requiring that the elected school board control bank accounts and posting management contracts online — to reduce opportunities for misuse.

The panel also discussed Teach Right, a program established to create alternative certification pathways and an apprenticeship bachelor model. Runyon said Teach Right was formed as a separate 501(c)(3) after legal advice and is now independent, repaying start‑up loans under a multi‑year schedule; he said some metrics from early cohorts indicate positive outcomes but deferred operational details to Teach Right's leadership.

Chairlady Erickson pressed for clearer disclosure and said the stack of documents she received did not dispel her concerns about the "smell test" of certain expenditures. "I am concerned that we need more transparency in what the funding is going on," she told Runyon. Runyon said the institute would cooperate with follow‑up requests and that he welcomed further legislative work, including the bill referenced by several speakers (S.454) that incorporates LAC recommendations.

The subcommittee did not take any formal votes at the hearing. Members asked for additional documents and indicated they may pursue statutory changes that would tighten oversight of authorizers and management companies. The chair adjourned the hearing following closing remarks requesting continued cooperation.

Ending: The hearing concluded with lawmakers signaling further follow‑up and possible legislative action to increase transparency and statutory protections; Runyon said the institute will provide additional materials and participate in that process.