MARLBORO COUNTY — Last week, the Marlboro County School District Board of Directors voted 5-4 to appoint Carla Mathis as superintendent, replacing Helena Tillar, who vacated the top spot back in November.
South Carolina Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver said no.
Last July, the State Board of Education approved the district’s financial takeover following a declaration of a fiscal emergency in February 2025. The local board has continued to operate under guidance and oversight — with state approvals required for all financial transactions, contracts and hires.
According to MCSD, Mathis has 29 years of experience and currently works as an executive director with Richland One. She was one of the three proposed candidates for the role, along with Sterling J. Mosby and — Weaver’s pick — Elizabeth McDonald, an assistant superintendent up in Oconee County.
The day after the vote where Mathis was selected, Weaver emailed the board arguing McDonald was the highest-rated candidate and she required written justification for their choice of Mathis.
MCSB Chairman Michael Coachman responded to Weaver via the board’s attorney that Mathis’ hire was in the best interest of the district, citing community input as well as interviews with the three finalists for the job.
Weaver wasn’t buying it.
In a letter written May 8 to Coachman, Weaver called Coachman’s response “insufficient” and “largely conclusory,” not including the qualitative or quantitative analysis necessary to support advancing a candidate outside of the board’s own established evaluation framework and stakeholder input.
“Accordingly, the SCDE has determined that the current search process cannot be approved as conducted and no contract may be issued,” Weaver wrote, adding the MCSD board’s current process had “irreparably failed.”
“As previously communicated, the Board’s structured evaluations, professional references, combined with community and stakeholder feedback, reflected a clear and consistent alignment in support of one candidate,” Weaver wrote. “That conclusion was based on the totality of the process the Board itself agreed upon prior to the interview process.”
Specifically, Weaver said the board’s response failed to explain how its final decision aligns with the agreed upon evaluation tool; how it reconciled differences between individual member scores and the overall outcome; what criteria were used to include or exclude community feedback, including references to responses deemed “outside of the immediate community;” what data set ultimately informed the decision and how that data was weighted; how the board ensured that its deliberations were conducted in a fair, objective, and criteria-driven manner, given statements and conduct during the process that raise serious concerns about whether the established evaluation standards were applied consistently; and finally, what objective, student-centered factors support the conclusion that the selected candidate is best positioned to lead the district forward.
“Notably, the Board’s response does not articulate how this decision advances student outcomes or even reference its impact on students,” Weaver said. “That was specifically requested and the omission is significant.”
Additionally, Weaver said the SCDE must correct a misunderstanding that appears to have influenced the board’s actions — that the SCDE approved both candidates, Mathis and McDonald.
“As clearly stated in prior correspondence, any preferred candidate required prior engagement with and approval by SCDE before the Board could proceed to contract negotiations.,” Weaver wrote. “That expectation was explicit and consistent with both the MOU and the agreed-upon procedures. The Board’s decision to proceed without that engagement or approval represents a clear deviation from those requirements.”
Weaver said the concerns didn’t stop with the board’s deviations from the approved process and failure to provide a justifiable basis for its vote, that additionally, the SCDE had received “credible and concerning allegations of improper conduct” by at least one sitting board member in past superintendent searches.
The allegations were conveyed to the State Inspector General’s Office due to the nature of the concern and the possibility of similar conduct in the current superintendent search process, she said.
Weaver called the possibility that MCSD board member conduct had deprived all candidates of a fair review process “exceptionally troubling.”
Weaver said since the vote, the SCDE had received “a significant number” of concerns and complaints.
“Most troublingly, multiple administrators have confidentially expressed that they are considering resigning from their employment with the District,” she said, adding the episode has “further degraded the community’s already tenuous confidence in the Board.”
“The widening disconnect between the Board and the people it serves reflects a persistent and deeply troubling failure to demonstrate the judgment, transparency, and accountability required for effective governance focused on student success,” Weaver wrote.
So … What’s next?
In short, the board can not extend a contract to Mathis.
In the meantime, the SCDE said they will continue to provide a technical provider who will serve as the interim superintendent of the district. Additionally, the SCDE will continue to cover the cost of the interim superintendent’s salary as work continues to stabilize the district’s degraded financial condition, they said.
“Going forward, the SCDE will evaluate and take all steps necessary under the law to ensure stability and effective governance for Marlboro students, educators, and families,” they said.