Former JDLH Interim President Settles SC Ethics Complaint

Spartanburg News | postandcourier.com

MCCORMICK – The former head of a governor’s school has been found to have violated state ethics laws after taking a consulting job worth $1,500 per day with a company she had hired as a contractor, a consent order revealed. Sharon Wall, who led the South Carolina Governor’s School for Agriculture at John de la Howe in McCormick County, has agreed to pay a fine of $800 and admit to an ethical breach as part of the settlement.

Uncovered Allegations

Wall’s actions came to light following an investigative report in 2021 that exposed cronyism and ethical breaches within the governor’s school. The report detailed problematic purchasing practices, bypassing of HR policies, and attempts to silence a whistleblower through secretive emails. Subsequent investigations by the state inspector general and auditors further highlighted violations of state laws and improper expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

Ethics Investigation Launches

The State Ethics Commission began its investigation into Wall’s case after a complaint was filed in December 2020. The investigation revealed that Wall, a retired superintendent who served as interim president of the school, had breached state ethics laws by immediately taking up a consulting position with a company she had previously awarded a contract to.

Resolving the Complaint

Wall, who was represented by a prominent lawyer, admitted guilt in the case and agreed to pay a reduced penalty of $800. While the commission found that she had violated state ethics laws, it acknowledged that Wall had been encouraged to take up the consulting job by board members, lawmakers, and others. The settlement marked the end of a three-year-long case that had been ongoing since Wall’s departure from the governor’s school in 2020.

Implications of the Settlement

The settlement serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding ethical standards in public service and the consequences of violating state laws. The case highlights the need for transparency and accountability in government agencies and the potential repercussions of unethical conduct.