SC Education Leaders Feud Over Authority, Federal Funds

The stage is set for a standoff at Thursday’s state Board of Education meeting, and the outcome could affect who gets a say in whether South Carolina requests federal education funding.

In their November meeting the board passes a directive asking Education Superintendent Mick Zais to give monthly reports on available federal pots of money larger than $10 million, and his reasoning for pursuing or passing on them.

But Zais, a first-term Republican from Newberry who was elected to the statewide office last November, says that he won’t be turning in his assignment at Thursday’s meeting when it’s first due.

He contends that the board is overstepping its legal bounds and has no authority to make demands of the state superintendent. His spokesman Jay W. Ragley said that per the Administrative Procedures Act, passed in 2007, all state boards have to give new policies two reading, a public comment period and submit it to the General Assembly before it becomes a regulation.

“The state superintendent of education is hired by the people, he’s popularly elected,” Ragley said. “Their [the board’s] job is to write policies that become regulations that go through the general assembly. What they decided to do was to pass a resolution that has no force of law and try to enforce that on a constitutional officer in this state which is not allowed for in statute and we believe is illegal.”

But some board members say that following their directive is well within state law’s requirements of the superintendent: “Assume such other responsibilities and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law or as may be assigned by the State Board of Education.”

Tim Moore, who was appointed by the legislature to serve Aiken, Bamberg and Barnwell counties on the board, is a retired principal and football coach and works as an attorney now, said the board has autonomy for general policies and that he’s concerned Zais is adamantly resisting a “matter of transparency.”

The board’s request comes after Zais chose to pass up two large pots of federal money since taking office. First he decided not to apply for the federal “Race to the Top” grant that could have given South Carolina $10 to $50 million. Then in August Zais wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Education saying he would not apply for $144 million afforded to the state through the Education Jobs Fund, part of President Barack Obama’s stimulus package, which would have created at least 3,000 teacher jobs. South Carolina was the only state not to receive money through the fund.

But Ragley said Zais has never hidden his opinion that the two programs would not be beneficial to South Carolina.

"On these two specific federal programs, Dr. Zais has been transparent for over two years that he didn’t think they were good programs. As a candidate for office he didn’t support them, as superintendent of education at the very first board meeting he attended he said he didn’t support them and would not be applying for them, so he’s been extremely transparent.”

On multiple occasions Zais has echoed Gov. Nikki Haley’s sentiment that it is bad policy to rely on one-time federal money for recurring South Carolina expenses. He also frowned on the economic and policy “strings” attached to the funds.

“I don’t know what he’s got against federal money ... All money has strings attached to it. That’s what happens when you get paid for a job. We know some strings have political rhetoric. But we’re [the board] entitled to know why he’s decided some strings aren’t worth it,” Moore said.

But Moore, as well as board members David Longshore who serves the first judicial circuit and Bonnie Disney of the third circuit, say they still think the request is reasonable and will stand by their decision.

Moore said the board is already approved through the Attorney General’s office to get a contracted lawyer. If Zais does not give a report Thursday the board could decide in executive session to either seek Attorney General Alan Wilson’s opinion on the differing interpretations of the law, or could take it straight to a court.