AMERICUS — The Sumter County Grand Jury recommends the members of the Sumter County Board of Education (BOE) be removed, according to the  Grand Jury’s investigative committee’s final report released Monday by the Superior Court of Sumter County.

In the February 2012 term the Grand Jury was charged with examining the BOE and its ability to properly function. The investigative committee’s findings overwhelmingly support the opinions of many citizens of Sumter County that have been critical of the operations of the BOE in recent months.

According to the report, the investigation turned up many leads that led the committee to find problems indicative of a “a lack of training and understanding of school board policies and procedures.”

The report states, “In fairness to the Board we did not examine every duty in their chard, but sadly, everywhere we did look, we found problems.”

As the investigation was civil in nature, the report offers recommendations to the BOE, concerning the Grand Jury’s findings. The investigation examined the SACS CASI (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council of Accreditation and School Improvement) inquiry into the Board’s governance and leadership practices and determined its own potential violations based on the evidence gathered by the office of District Attorney Plez Hardin.

The Grand Jury cited confusion, misinterpretation or lack of compliance with Board policies and cited incidents involving insufficient communication among the entire board on issues, interference with school administrators relating to disciplinary actions and the nomination of current school Board attorney, Maurice King without any prior notice or conversation with the Superintendent.

The investigative committee also considered relations between the Board and the community at large and cited the “lack of response” from the majority of the Board when requested to attend a public forum.

The manner in which the Board makes decisions was also questioned, as the Grand Jury examined what it considered “a great concern,” that a special interest group’s leader has been influential on Board votes. The committee charged that this is in violation of the Board’s policy, which states Board members are to “refuse to surrender his or her judgment to individuals or special interest groups.” The investigation also cited that the attorney, King, was seen consulting with a special interest group leader at the courthouse while the Grand Jury conducted interviews with Board members.

The reports also covers the Grand Jury’s reaction to the firing of Superintendent Roy Brooks in April and states the Board was in violation of the Constitution of the State of Georgia by not having an interim superintendent. The report calls the decision irrational, leading to a negative impact on the school system and causing community-wide concern. The report states Brooks feared he would be terminated for his cooperation in the Grand Jury investigation and the threat of his termination had been made by at least one Board member.

In addition, the Grand Jury inspected the actions of the newly hired attorney, King, who earlier this year, replied to a letter from SACS that was addressed to then Superintendent Brooks. Other examples of micromanagement and failure to keep the superintendent informed were also inspected. The Grand Jury determined that “school board business continues to be conducted outside of the work sessions and board meetings without the knowledge and consent of the collective board” and cited that during the recent period in which the final report of the Grand Jury investigation was prepared, no BOE meetings have been arranged to discuss an interim or replacement superintendent.

The Grand Jury, in looking into the Board’s withdrawal of its redistricting plan from pre-clearance by the U.S. Department of Justice, determined that reduction of the school board and alignment with the Sumter County Board of Commissioner seats provided “economic advantage” for the community and “clarity for constituents.” The committee determined the motion to withdraw pre-clearance submissions  was “unexpected” and a contradiction of all previous Board decisions. In addition, the report cites the appearance that some Board members were not surprised by the motion and others were “stunned”  justifies public outrage following the controversial decision as it was not previously discussed at an official meeting.

Possible violations of Georgia’s Sunshine Laws were also inspected, leading the Grand Jury to recommend a parliamentarian be appointed to ensure proper procedures for all Board meetings and to adopt Robert’s Rules of Order.

In reviewing expense reports the Grand Jury determined there is “a lack of accountability for using public funds, concerning travel expenses and mileage.” The reports states that when some Board members provided testimony at the Grand Jury hearings, the investigative committee as a whole found their justifications as to the definition of travel expenses “unbelievable,” as there was a vast discrepancy in interpretation.

“Some members did comply while others blatantly stated that they would not reimburse the system, because they do not feel that they owe the system any money and ‘previous boards do not dictate the current board’ ” the report states.

Concerning the expense accounts the Grand Jury “finds it difficult to entrust the multi-million dollar budget of the system to individual board members who find managing their $2,000 expense accounts too complicated to fully understand and comply.” The report stated the concern of Grand Jury members that there may be a lack of understanding or total disregard for individual responsibility regarding good stewardship of system funds.

Recommendations by the committee include that each Board member pay overages due within 30 days or face possible criminal charges, establishing a procedure for monitoring expenditures and collecting balances and adoption of the state travel expense reimbursement policy for school board travel expenses.

In conclusion the Grand Jury’s investigative committee determined the evidence  points to the abuse of power of the Board and in all made 29 recommendations and stated that in the short-term solutions can be derived from removing power and influence from the Board and be subject to monitoring by an independent,  outside authority.