Shaw v. Moss

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Phillip C. Shaw, Respondent,

v.

Jeffrey C. Moss, Ed. D., Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000407

Appeal From Beaufort County
Marvin H. Dukes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-286
Heard May 20, 2016 – Filed June 15, 2016

REVERSED

Allen D. Smith, Kenneth L. Childs, Vernie L. Williams,
and Shirley M. Fawley, of Childs & Halligan, PA, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Clifford Bush, III, of The Law Offices of Clifford Bush
III, LLC, of Beaufort, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this employment action, Dr. Jeffrey Moss, the Superintendent
of the Beaufort County School District (the District), appeals the circuit court's
reversal of the Beaufort County School District Board of Education's (the Board's)
decision to terminate the employment of former H.E. McCracken Middle School
(McCracken) principal, Phillip Shaw. On appeal, Dr. Moss argues the circuit court
erred by (1) improperly applying the substantial evidence standard of review, (2)
disregarding the substantial evidence in the record, (3) reversing the Board's
decision regarding Shaw's termination, (4) issuing an order containing erroneous
facts and conclusions, and (5) failing to grant Dr. Moss's motion for
reconsideration. We reverse.

We find substantial evidence supported the Board's decision to terminate Shaw's
employment under section 59-25-430 of the South Carolina Code (2004)1 on the
ground that he willfully violated the District's financial policies.2 See Barrett v.
Charleston Cty. Sch. Dist., 348 S.C. 426, 431, 559 S.E.2d 365, 368 (Ct. App. 2001)
("[T]he proper standard of review regarding the propriety of a teacher's
termination . . . is the substantial evidence test."); id. at 432, 559 S.E.2d at 368

1
Section 59-25-430 provides,

Any teacher may be dismissed at any time who shall fail,
or who may be incompetent, to give instruction in
accordance with the directions of the superintendent, or
who shall otherwise manifest an evident unfitness for
teaching; provided, however, that notice and an
opportunity shall be afforded for a hearing prior to any
dismissal. Evident unfitness for teaching is manifested
by conduct such as, but not limited to, the following:
persistent neglect of duty, willful violation of rules and
regulations of district board of trustees, drunkenness,
conviction of a violation of the law of this State or the
United States, gross immorality, dishonesty, illegal use,
sale or possession of drugs or narcotics.

2
Dr. Moss recommended the Board terminate Shaw's employment on numerous
grounds, including ten violations of the District's financial policies. The Board
held Shaw manifested an evident unfitness for teaching based on his (1) willful
violation of the Board's rules regarding the handling of finances; (2) violation of
the confidentiality of employment-related information; and (3) questionable
behavior or dishonesty related to his administrative and medical leave,
confidentiality, and storage of undeposited student funds in a lockbox under his
desk.
("Therefore, this [c]ourt is limited to examining the record to determine whether
substantial evidence existed to support the [s]chool [b]oard's decision to terminate
[the teacher] . . . ."); S.C. Code Ann. § 59-1-130 (2004) ("'Teacher' means any
person who is employed either full-time or part-time by any school district either to
teach or to supervise teaching." (emphasis omitted)). Dr. Moss asserted Shaw
committed ten violations of the District's financial policies. Although we
acknowledge the Board needed only one ground to terminate Shaw's employment,
we address several of Shaw's financial violations herein.

First, Dr. Moss recommended the Board terminate Shaw because cash receipts
were being accepted and not receipted through the school bookkeeper in violation
of District policy. Section I.B.8.3 of the District's Student Activities Policy and
Procedure Manual (the Manual) provides, "A receipt should be written for all
money deposited, whether collected in the school or received by mail." In
addition, Section I.B.3 of the Manual provides, "Middle and High school teachers
are not permitted to collect monies from students. All Middle/High school
students must be receipted by the school bookkeeper." The District's chief
administrative and human resources officer testified McCracken's bookkeeper
reported that the student council had held many fundraisers at the school and raised
large amounts of money but none of that money had been funneled through the
school bookkeeper as required by District policy. There was testimony that the
two teachers who sponsored the student council were not following the District's
policies regarding the proceeds of fundraisers. According to the chief
administrative and human resources officer, both of the sponsors reported that
Shaw had instructed them to collect the money raised by the student council and
take it to his secretary. One of the sponsors stated Shaw told her to give the funds
to his secretary—instead of the school's bookkeeper—so the secretary could
deposit the funds into the Parent-Teacher Organization's bank account. The
sponsor also stated she never received receipts when she gave money to Shaw's
secretary. The District's chief operational services officer testified her staff
provided financial training to principals at a summer leadership retreat and at
monthly leadership meetings and gave each principal a binder containing the
District's policies and procedures. In addition, the bookkeeper stated she notified
Shaw several times that money was being collected by the student council but was
not being brought to her for depositing, as required by the District's financial
policies. Based on the foregoing, we find there was substantial evidence that, upon
Shaw's orders, cash was accepted and not receipted through the school bookkeeper,
and that Shaw willfully violated the District's financial policies.
Dr. Moss also recommended the Board terminate Shaw because reimbursements
for expenses were made from undeposited cash receipts in violation of District
policy. See Manual, Section I.B.6 ("Under no circumstances should purchases be
made or invoices paid from undeposited cash receipts."); id. at Section I.C ("No
purchases should be made or invoices paid from undeposited cash on hand."). The
District's chief operational services officer testified one of the student council
sponsors said she routinely took envelopes full of cash—that was student money
and school money—to Shaw's secretary, who placed the cash in a filing cabinet in
Shaw's office. The sponsor testified that on one occasion when she gave money to
Shaw's secretary, Shaw's secretary opened the bottom drawer of the filing cabinet
in Shaw's office and she saw several envelopes of cash from "weeks prior" still
sitting in the drawer. The sponsor testified she asked Shaw's secretary why the
money had not yet been deposited in the bank and Shaw's secretary responded, "I
don't have time to go to the bank every time you give me money." The sponsor
explained that when a teacher requested funds from her for a school activity, she
would ask Shaw for approval and Shaw's secretary would give her an envelope
containing cash to give to the teacher. We find this constitutes substantial
evidence that reimbursements were made with undeposited cash receipts in
violation of the District's policies.

In addition, Dr. Moss recommended the Board terminate Shaw because cash in
excess of $600 was kept in Shaw's office at the school overnight in violation of the
District's policy that "[u]nder no circumstances shall funds totaling over $25 be left
in the school overnight." There was testimony that the chief administrative and
human resources officer and the acting superintendent found a lockbox under
Shaw's desk that contained Shaw's personal financial statements, personnel files,
and more than $600 in cash. Dr. Moss testified the fact that "an H.E. McCracken
school sheet" was "in the money" in the lockbox led him to believe the money was
student money. In addition, as stated previously, one of the student council
sponsors observed that several envelopes of student council money received from
sales to students were left in the filing cabinet in Shaw's office for weeks without
being deposited in the bank. Therefore, we find there was substantial evidence that
Shaw kept more than $25 in cash received from students in his office overnight in
violation of the District's policies.

Dr. Moss also recommended terminating Shaw because reimbursements were
made without documentation and authorization in violation of District policy. See
Manual, Section I.C.4 ("All disbursements must be supported by documents that
indicate what was purchased. If for any reason an independent, outside document
(such as a vendor invoice) is not available, a 'School Voucher' form should be
completed to support the disbursement. . . . School vouchers must be signed and
approved by the principal before the disbursement is made."). The District's chief
operational services officer testified reimbursements were made without any
authorization from Shaw or any supporting documentation other than a receipt.
She explained that in a school environment, Shaw would have known about the
lack of authorization because he would have seen purchases being made that he
had not authorized. We find this constitutes substantial evidence that
reimbursements were made without the proper authorization and documentation
required by Section I.C.4.

Dr. Moss also recommended terminating Shaw because disbursements were made
outside of the Concentration Account and Imprest Account in violation of Section
I.C. of the Manual. See Manual, Section I.C ("All disbursements should be made
from the Concentration Account. Only emergency purchases may be made from
the school Imprest account. No purchases should be made or invoices paid from
undeposited cash on hand."). One of the student council sponsors explained that
when a teacher requested funds from her for a school activity, she would ask Shaw
for approval and his secretary would give her an envelope containing cash to give
to the teacher. In addition, the bookkeeper testified that she received an email
from a teacher about purchasing food for her horseshoe crab and that the teacher
stated Shaw usually gave her a prepaid credit card to buy food for the crab. The
bookkeeper testified she did not use cash or prepaid credit cards to pay for
purchases because those methods of payment were untraceable. The bookkeeper
explained the teacher's email showed items were not being purchased through the
proper procedure. Based on the forgoing, we find substantial evidence showed that
disbursements were made outside of the concentration and imprest accounts in
violation of the District's policies.

Dr. Moss further recommended terminating Shaw because an unauthorized
checking account was used for student activity purposes in violation of Section I.E
of the Manual. See Manual, Section I.E ("Each school will have one checking
account not to exceed $500.00, $1,000.00[,] or $1,500.00. This account will be for
emergencies only. There shall be no other bank account with the school as the
agency or the primary holder. All funds collected in the school are to be deposited
in the selected bank by the Beaufort County Schools."). The bookkeeper explained
she usually received cash and personal checks for field trips; however, in May
2012, one of the student council sponsors brought her a single check for $1,288 for
a drama club and student council field trip to Carowinds. The bookkeeper testified
the check read "H.E. McCracken Middle School" and looked like one of the checks
she used for the imprest checking account. According to the District's chief
operational services officer, law enforcement determined this unauthorized
McCracken bank account was not the imprest account. The bookkeeper stated she
showed the check to Shaw and informed him that the student council was
collecting money and not bringing it to her for depositing into the school's activity
account, that the student council had access to a checking account in the school's
name, and that the check looked identical to the school's imprest checks.
According to the bookkeeper, Shaw "didn't say much" in response and "just held
his head down and pretty much brushed [her] off." Thus, we find substantial
evidence showed an unauthorized checking account was used for student activity
purposes in violation of the District's policies.

Based on the foregoing, we find substantial evidence supported the Board's
determination that Shaw manifested an evident unfitness for teaching based on his
willful violation of the District's policies regarding the handling of finances.
Because we find substantial evidence supported the Board's decision to terminate
Shaw for violating the District's financial policies, we need not address the Board's
numerous other grounds for terminating Shaw. See Barrett, 348 S.C. at 436, 559
S.E.2d at 370 (stating based on the court's finding that substantial evidence
supported the school board's decision to terminate the subject teacher for
dishonesty in dealing with the school's ice cream account, the court need not reach
the issue of whether substantial evidence showed the teacher was dishonest in her
representations on a grant application).

REVERSED.

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.