LEDGER COLUMNIST

This new construction package, is it $34 million or $44 million? The superintendent explains the additional $10 million over and above actual (and originally publicized) construction costs, but if we are selling $44 million in bonds to finance it, isn't it a $44 million project? Where's the master plan for 10 years? 20 years? Is this reactive building? What's the harm in hiring an independent building inspector for the projects just approved? It wouldn't be fair to blame Cherokee County School Board Chairperson Sandra Greene for all of the problems associated with the construction of Gaffney High School, even though she was chairman when the contract to build the school was signed with Mitchell Construction in May 1997.

After all, she was only one of nine trustees sitting on the board at that time. However, according to an article in The Gaffney Ledger, her fellow "Trustees directed school board chairperson Sandra Greene not to sign the new GHS contract until the district administration finalizes checking the background and financial resources of the company."

The public has been assured that the company was checked out. The district administration at the time was headed by Superintendent Willie Ross. Remember him?

I'm not going to cite chapter and verse of all of the controversy that seems to follow Ms. Greene.

That's in the past. She was defeated in her bid for re-election to the school board in 2000 and when she ran again in 2004 she asked me, "You aren't going to write anything to hurt me, are you?"

"No, Sandra. What's done is done. That's all in the past," I assured her.

That was a huge mistake on my part.

We should have dredged up every detail of her previous service on the board to remind the voters of just what they could expect if they put her back in office.

Two sons on the school district payroll. A daughter-inlaw on the school district payroll. And just last week Rance Cobb, the man she has introduced as her finance but now says is a 'friend,' was hired for an $87,600 administrative position.

But once again, it wouldn't be fair to place all of the blame for these hirings on Greene. No, there is plenty to go around.

Superintendent Bill James went along with it, as did personnel director Andy Jones. Her fellow trustees voted for the hires. The news media, including The Gaffney Ledger, should have known these hirings were about to happen and alerted the public. Last, but certainly not least, are the voters who put her back into office.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that all of these hires were on the up and up, no strings were pulled, no deals were made and the most qualified applicant got the job.

If that's so, the odds of such an occurrence - family and 'friends' of the school board chairman getting highly sought-after jobs - must be astronomical. Of all those who applied, these were the most qualified? One, OK. Two maybe. Three is stretching it. Four? No way.

Those responsible for making this last recommendation of Ms. Greene's 'friend' - James and Jones - must have known how hiring another person with close ties to the chairperson would appear to the public. The other eight trustees who voted to hire him must have known the same thing.

Some trustees have said they did not know of the relationship that exists between Greene and Cobb and therein is another problem with Cobb's hiring.

At the very least, their relationship should have been made known to the other trustees prior to the vote to hire him. Also, even though ethics laws do not require it, Greene should have abstained from the vote.

I've had conversations with dozens of Cherokee County residents who are absolutely livid about the issue of Greene's family and 'friends' being on the school district payroll.

I've held off criticizing the board and superintendent on several issues of late, hoping against hope that they were doing the right thing.

Cobb's hiring makes me think they weren't.

For example, the board awarded millions of dollars of repair work at the high school without securing bids. Their story is that the bonding company picked the contractor. Did they really? How about the new facade? Did the bonding company mandate the contractor for that as well?

This new construction package, is it $34 million or $44 million? The superintendent explains the additional $10 million over and above actual (and originally publicized) construction costs, but if we are selling $44 million in bonds to finance it, isn't it a $44 million project? Where's the master plan for 10 years? 20 years? Is this reactive building? What's the harm in hiring an independent building inspector for the projects just approved?

Another issue I've held my tongue on is the new stadium. I see both sides: a new stadium versus renovation of The Reservation. I had hoped trustees would understand the magnitude of this decision and how passionately the residents on both sides of the issue feel about it and let them decide with a referendum.

Granted, they are elected to make decisions, but some are better left to the voters. I could go on and on, but the list of questions is too long. I do have room for one more question.

What else is going on that we don't know about?

(Cody Sossamon is publisher of The Gaffney Ledger. You can contact him via e-mail at cody@gaffneyledger.com)