School Board Election Results

The following results of yesterday's Richland 2 school board election are being reported:

Monica Elkins                     24,889

Shelley Williams                 20,401

Gary Dennis                       14,350

Lashonda McFadden          13,989

Brenda Branic                     13,833

Dionne Sumpter Fleshman 13,229

Larry J. Smalls                    12,078

Brett Porterfield                    7,592

James A. Mobley                  6,781

Source: scvotes.org

Monica Elkins was re-elected. Shelley Williams and Gary Dennis join the board.

Assuming that the election results are certified by the Richland County Elections Commission by November 8th, the Richland 2 School Board will hold a re-scheduled Regular Board Meeting on November 15 to seat these three for their 2024-2028 terms.

Full Board Evaluations - Read Online

At the October 8th board meeting a very brief summary of trustees' self-evaluations was presented. On the recording of that meeting, fast-forward to 25:05.

Board members made no comments and asked no questions!

The full report of self-evaluations can be read on the District's website. NO ONE on the board made any reference to it. 

It is an eye-opener. Be sure to read it!

"Trust" on the School Board

During the October 8, 2024 Richland 2 school board meeting a very short topic was Item 8.2 Board Self Evaluation Summary.

If you would like to hear the Summary (and lack of board comments), go to the YouTube recording of the meeting and fast-forward to 25:10.

On September 27 a special-called board meeting was held to conduct self-evaluations. As an official "meeting", that cost the District $2,784 (($384x6)+ $480). If you want to watch that Zoom meeting, go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tO-IwKwe6o The length is 2 hours 23 minutes.

When the Sept. 27 special-called meeting was convened, there was a motion to approve the agenda. The vote was 6-0. Somebody was missing, but the Chair did not announce who was absent.

This is why I have, for years, recommended to the Board that the roll be called. It's such a simple, short step for the small school board (seven members). How long would it take? Twenty seconds?

Trustee Porter presented the key findings on October 8th. I suggest listening to the findings. To me, they sounded like general, canned, off-the-shelf suggestions, rather than hard-hitting, specific recommendations.

Later in the week three items from the Self Evaluations were posted on Facebook with the responses from the seven trustees. The responses were in percentages. Below are the questions, with the percentages. I've added the number of trustees in parentheses.

1. There is a high level of trust among Board members.

Responses:

Strongly agree 0% (0)

Agree 0% (0)

Neutral 28% (2)

Disagree 57% (4)

Strongly disagree 14% (1)

2. We do a good job encouraging and dealing with different points of view.

Responses:

Strongly agree 0% (0)

Agree 14% (1)

Neutral 14% (1)

Disagree 42% (3)

Strongly disagree 28% (2)

3. I feel I can speak openly about issues without the threat of retaliation.

Responses:

Strongly agree 0% (0)

Agree 14% (1)

Neutral 28% (2)

Disagree 28% (2)

Strongly disagree 28% (2)

This degree of dysfunction should not be tolerated on a school board.

What it indicates is an unwillingness to work together. The phrase "disagree without being disagreeable" does not apply to this school board.

Too often there are snarky and passive-aggressive behaviors. You see them at almost every board meeting.

What the public does not see are the behaviors between trustees that are not at open, public board meetings.

This won't be corrected on November 5. But your vote can mark the start of correction. 

Vote for candidates with real, live, business experience. Upper-Management expertise. Decision-making experience. Vote for those with executive experience, skills, and talent, rather than those who would be Managers. 

Print Your Sample Ballot

Three trustees will be elected to the Richland 2 School Board on November 5, 2024.

Ten are in the race. Have you picked out three yet?

Print your sample ballot at www.scvotes.org  I suggest you not wait until you are at the voting booth.

There are three Questions to be voted on. You'll want to read them carefully before you vote.

This election may be a chance to begin undoing the dysfunction that has permeated the school board for the past two years. Elect strong candidates who will lead.

Because only three will be elected, they will not be a majority. However, they can be a strong influence for common-sense leadership and direction of the board. The rest of the problem can be fixed in November 2026.

Oct. 8, 2024 Board Meeting - Part 3

This is a continuation of comments about the October 8, 2024 board meeting.

Item 8.3 Budget Update starts at 27:56 on the YouTube recording.

Item 8.4 Internal Auditor's Update starts at [53:44].

Item 8.5 2023-2024 Middle School Achievement Report starts at [1:01:05]. "It was a rough year." "You have to touch Math to learn it."

"Reading on a screen is different from reading on a page."

You'll want to look at the charts presented to the Board. On my scorecard, "Achievement" should be the Number 1 Priority of the District. THAT is where the focus should be. 

Item 8.6 on the Agenda was "Discussion: Enrollment and Staffing at Pontiac Elementary." The discussion begins at [1:29:15] on the YouTube recording of the meeting. 

Wil Anderson discussed a chart of enrollment numbers for five years, starting with 2020/2021. The summary of growth to 2024/2025 is:

PK        69-  76

K          84-147 (+75%)

1st        97-134

2nd     107-141

3rd       90-142 (+58%)

4th     102-129

5th       95-117

Totals                     644-885

Building Capacity 700-786

One interesting slide is the Projection (Spring 2024) of number of students versus the Actual number of students at Pontiac Elementary. A new subdivision (Ashcroft) provided 59 new students.

Franklin Foster continued the presentation.

If you are interested in Pontiac Elementary, watch this presentation. 

At the point I stopped watching; there was still 40 minutes left in the meeting.

Oct. 8, 2024 Board Meeting - Part 2

For comments on the beginning of the board meeting, please see Part 1.

At [23:40] on the YouTube version of the October 8, 2024 board meeting, the board addresses Item 8.1 (Policy Revision Proposal) Policy BID - Board Member Compensation and Expenses.

The Superintendent said that the Policy BID "has been updated" to reflect changes discussed at a Special-Called Board Meeting. I suspect what she meant to say was what they were going to look at would be the proposed change to the Policy.

Be sure to go to Board Policy BE and learn how "Board Meetings" are defined. When you read BE closely, it gives examples of Meetings but does not define them. 

Is the Board trying to get trustees paid for planning meetings? committee meetings? These are not defined as Meetings. 

The trustees are being paid well for Meetings. Six trustees each earn $384 per board meeting and the chair receives $480 per board meeting. Most months have two meetings; some have more. Plus expenses. Last night's meeting cost the District $2,784.00. Did the taxpayers get their money's worth?

Item 8.2 on the Agenda was Board Self Evaluation Summary. Trustee and Vice Chair Porter presented a summary of key findings. You can hear this at [25:09] on the YouTube recording. 

Areas for Improvement

"The Board could be more mission-focused and effective in carrying out its duties." Well, duh!

"There are concerns about trust among members and the overall climate could be improved."

Recommendations

"Define the roles of the Board and the Superintendent more clearly."

"Address trust issues and create a more positive and inclusive environment to improve the overall climate."

Action Steps

Board development and coaching.

Amazing! No questions or comments from any of the board members. Were they listening? Did they understand what Niki read? Do they agree? Disagree? Care?

To be continued.

Oct. 8, 2024 Board Meeting - Part 1

The Board meeting started at 5:30PM and went into Executive Session.

When the trustees returned from Executive Session, Chair Monica Elkins-Scott asked for a Motion to end Executive Session. Trustee McFadden made a Motion that the Executive Session was concluded at 6:01. Trustee Nash seconded the Motion.

When the Chair re-stated the Motion before the vote, she added "and resume public session". That was not part of the (verbal) Motion. When the Motion was displayed on the screen before the vote, it showed that Niki Porter had made the Motion and it included the Chair's added words, which were not part of the verbal motion. 

No one commented on the error of who made the Motion or on the addition of words to the verbal motion.

The Chair then gave a lengthy introduction (2:36 minutes), including many mispronounced words, to the woman who would give the Inspirational Moment. I've always wondered, "Why not just briefly introduce the presenter? Why give a lengthy advertisement for the person's business?" 

An Inspiration Moment is supposed to be, in my opinion, a "moment"; that's a minute or two. Maybe three, at the most.

Last night's speaker, wearing a t-shirt promoting her organization, took 4:02 minutes to promote her organization and an upcoming event. Was there anything inspirational about those four minutes?

The Chair should have disclosed her personal interest as a volunteer in the speaker's organization.

I suppose it would have been rude to interrupt the speaker by calling a "Point of Order" and object to the advertising and promotion of the speaker's organization. Should one of the trustees been rude?

Last night it took 1:39 minutes to display the vote on the Consent Agenda. That's after the vote was called. The District seems unable to use electronic voting to speed up voting. 

It should be simple. Call for the vote. The trustees press a button on their tablets: Yes or No. The vote displays. Should take about 15 seconds. The Board should tell the Superintendent: "Fix this."

The Board then voted on Item 5.1 (Consent Agenda).

At this point the Chair skipped over Item 5.2 (Approval of the Minutes) and Item 5.3 (Releases and Transfers) and proceeded to Public Participation. Because these Items are listed separately on the Agenda, they should have been voted on.

Is it really necessary to read all the rules for speakers at every meeting?

There was one speaker, Kanisha McCray, a speech therapist. She made a plea for more money, smaller caseloads, and other conditions for improved employment at Richland 2. Was that an appropriate use of Public Participation?

To be continued.