South Carolina State University Officials deny former presidents allegations

[ad_1]

James Clark says South Carolina State University officials tried to undermine him with falsehoods while he was president, according to his lawsuit against the school.

In their response, the officials say they were just discussing his job performance.

University trustees put behind closed doors last week to receive legal advice in Clarks lawsuit against the school.

Trustees came out of closed session and did not discuss or vote on the matter. The meeting was held virtually via Zoom.

Clark is suing the university’s governing body and its fundraising board, claiming both bodies breached his employment contract.

Clark is seeking a total of $1,770,136 in damages. That includes $570,136 for breach of contract and failure to render outstanding payments for salary, plus $1.2 million in punitive damages.

People are also reading…

His court filings claim his initial contract stipulated his salary would include state funds and additional compensation from non-state funds held by the university’s foundation.

The state portion of the contract was $195,000, which Clark received. He says he was also supposed to receive $195,000 in non-state funds handled by the foundation.

Clark said he never received the money handled by the foundation.

The SCSU Board of Trustees voted to remove Clark as university president in July 2021.

As part of the lawsuit, Clark is suing former SC State National Alumni Association president John Funny, former SC State Board chair Rodney Jenkins and the Board of Trustees.

Funny, Jenkins and the board asked the court to dismiss the claims, saying that Clark fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action.

In their answers, the defendants denied the allegations made by Clark as inconsistent with any writings which would be in the best evidence of the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s (Clark’s) employment and compensation.

In his complaint, Clark claims Funny and Jenkins tried to undermine him with falsehoods and unverified allegations about his job performance.

Funny says in his answer that he did voice valid concerns with Plaintiff’s job performance, that such concerns were not made with actual malice, were privileged, protected by the First Amendment and were valid matters of opinion and not defamatory.

Jenkins and the board also said in their answer that Clarks job performance was criticized.

The defendants not only requested Clark’s claim be dismissed but that Clark cover any costs and attorney fees incurred.

Clark asked the court to reject the motions to dismiss his claims.

There have been no other substantive documents filed in the lawsuit since the end of August, according to online court records.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

Subscribe to our Daily Headlines newsletter.

[ad_2]