Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Superintendent Crystal Hill says the investigation that led to her two-month paid leave found no evidence she violated school board policy, acted illegally or behaved unethically. It's the most detailed account yet of the events that led to her suspension.
Hill discussed the matter Tuesday on WFAE’s "Charlotte Talks" and in a subsequent interview with WFAE.
The first public sign of tension between Hill and the board came when board members voted down her budget recommendation in April. Hill said she knew the vote was coming but was surprised the board told her to return with a different recommendation.
“That is what I was a little caught off guard about, was the motion that I was to go back and come back with a different recommendation,” Hill said.
After several tense meetings, Hill and the board ultimately approved a budget. But Hill said the relationship remained strained.
Placed on leave
Hill said she believed she was meeting with the board in June to discuss a path forward. Instead, she said board members informed her they had received several serious allegations and were placing her on leave.
According to Hill, the board gave her two options: negotiate her departure or remain in her position while the board publicly disclosed that she was under investigation.
“I attempted to negotiate,” Hill said. “But I will say that because I had known that I had not done anything — again, you’re going to hear me say it 15 million times — that was against board policy, illegal, immoral or unethical, I was not going to leave the district for any terms that are less than what’s in my contract.”
The board publicly announced the investigation later that month. After nearly two months and roughly $380,000 in related costs, the board reinstated Hill with little explanation, saying only that it had identified issues it would communicate to her directly.
Hill's account
Hill said the board told her it was investigating allegations involving misuse of federal funds, a hostile work environment and conflicts of interest related to vendor contracts. She said the investigation ultimately found no wrongdoing.
“Because this has become such a distraction and such, rightfully so, and such a huge matter of public concern, I felt it was important for me to speak open and honestly, not as a complaint,” Hill said.
The board voted last month to release a summary of the investigation by the end of September. It remains unclear how much detail that summary will contain because state law requires personnel matters to remain confidential.
Hill said she provided personnel information to the board at the end of August and authorized its release “at any time.”
Still, Hill said she does not have a complete understanding of the allegations against her. She said she requested detailed allegations verbally and later in writing but has not received them.
According to Hill, she received three documents several days before her interview with investigators and subsequent reinstatement.
“So two of those documents did not mention me by name,” Hill said. “The third document was an anonymous survey that the board had launched in March. It had four questions on it. Those questions were designed to elicit, in my opinion, negative feedback. There were 75 responses. And of those 75 responses, I was asked about four of them.”
Hill said the documents addressed issues that were broader than her and included the names of other employees. She said the board has not fulfilled her request to review her full personnel file, including any allegations against her. She also said she has not seen the final investigative report because the board has cited attorney-client privilege.
The school board didn’t respond to an immediate request for comment.
Vendor contracts scrutinized
During Hill’s leave, WSOC reported that the board was investigating consulting contracts awarded to companies owned by Hill’s former colleagues. The Charlotte Observer later reported that those contracts totaled $1.7 million.
On "Charlotte Talks," Hill confirmed the reports but defended the contracts, saying nothing is inherently improper about awarding contracts to former colleagues, particularly when they have produced results.
“If you look specifically at where we were then and where we are now, I hire people because they get results, not because they’re my friends,” Hill said.
Hill said she hoped the matter would end when she was reinstated and expected some form of joint announcement with the board. Instead, she said, the board released a statement saying the investigation had identified issues it would address with her.
“I wanted this to be over,” Hill said. “I am ready to be done with it and to be transparent and truthful and all the things and move forward.”
Despite the tensions of recent months, Hill said she believes she and board members can continue working together because they share a commitment to serving students.
“For three months, too much of our district time, energy and resources have gone to this issue,” Hill said. “We can't get any of that back, but we do have the opportunity to move forward, and I believe that we're all ready to move forward.”
