Drayton Hall v. Charleston County School District

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

Drayton Hall Charter
Elementary School, Inc., Appellant,

v.

Charleston
County School District Board of Trustees, Respondent.

Appeal From the Administrative Law Court

 Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-570

Heard December 8, 2011 – Filed December
20, 2011

AFFIRMED

David Guy Pagliarini, of Daniel Island, for Appellant.

John F. Emerson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
This appeal arises out of Respondent Charleston County School District Board of
Trustees' (the Board's) denial of Appellant Drayton Hall Charter Elementary
School's (Drayton Hall's) application to convert a neighborhood public school
into a charter school.  Drayton Hall
appealed the denial by the Board to the Administrative Law Court (ALC), which
affirmed.  On appeal, Drayton Hall argues the Board:  (1) violated its own
policies and procedures by holding a second vote after its initial vote to deny
the application failed; (2) violated section 59-40-70(C) of the South Carolina
Code (Supp. 2010) by failing to show the grant of charter school status would
adversely affect other students in the district; and (3) violated section
59-40-70(C) by improperly finding the charter school application violated the
spirit and intent of state law.  We affirm.

1.  As to Drayton Hall's
contention that the Board violated its own policies and procedures by holding a
second vote at a subsequent public hearing after the first motion to deny
Drayton Hall's application resulted in a tie vote, we find the Board complied
with the statutory mandate to rule upon the application within thirty days.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 59-40-70(B) (Supp. 2010) ("The school board of trustees
from which the applicant is seeking sponsorship shall rule on the application
for a charter school in a public hearing, upon reasonable public notice, within
thirty days after receiving the application.").  Furthermore, we find the
result of a tie vote on a Board member's motion to deny the application
resulted in no action on the application and did not constitute an approval of
the application.[1]  See S.C. Code Ann. § 59-40-70(B) ("Once the application has been approved by the school board
of trustees, the charter school may open at the beginning of the following
year."); see also Robert's Rules of Order §44, 392 ("On a tie vote, a motion requiring a
majority vote for adoption is lost, since a tie is not a majority.").  Because
the result of the tie vote was that no action was taken by the Board, we find
the motion to deny the application made at the subsequent Board meeting did not
constitute a motion to reconsider.  See Board Policy #9365 ("An item or issue decided by the
Board shall not be placed on the agenda for reconsideration for six months
except by a member of the prevailing side or by a member not present when the
issue was decided.") (emphasis added); Robert's Rules of Order §10, 106-07
("If a main motion that interferes with a desired action has
been adopted, . . . the vote on [a motion to reconsider] can be made for a
limited time during the same session . . . .") (emphasis added).

2.  As to Drayton Hall's
remaining arguments on appeal, we find no error of law and substantial evidence
in the record on appeal to support the findings of the ALC.  See S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(d)-(e) (Supp. 2010) (providing the standard of
appellate review of an appeal from a final decision of an administrative agency
is whether the findings of the ALC are supported by substantial evidence or
affected by other error of law); Sanders
v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 379 S.C. 411,
417, 665 S.E.2d 231, 234 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In determining whether the
[ALC's] decision was supported by substantial evidence, this court need only
find, considering the record as a whole, evidence from which reasonable minds
could reach the same conclusion that the [ALC] reached."). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 

[1] We note that at oral argument, counsel conceded that
Drayton Hall is not arguing that it is entitled to a finding that the Board
failed to rule on the application within thirty days.  See S.C. Code
Ann. § 59-40-70(B) ("If there is no ruling within thirty days, the
application is considered approved.").