Richland 2 Board - still minus 2

UPDATE

To my knowledge and belief Richland School District Two still lacks two board members. The problem identified months ago has not been remedied.

What's the problem?

Two persons elected to the School Board on November 6, 2018 have never been legally seated on the Board. They have assumed positions on the Board and have been allowed to do so. But - legally - they are not on the Board.

Why not? It's really simple. A third-grader could understand it.

On November 6, 2018 Amelia McKie was re-elected to the Board and Teresa Holmes was elected to the Board.

On November 13, 2018 each took the Oath of Office and entered upon her official responsibilities by attending the November 13th school board meeting. Therein lies the problem.

South Carolina Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A) reads, in part, "“No public official … may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests in accordance with the provision of this chapter with the appropriate supervisory office.” Violating this Section is a misdemeanor under Code of Laws Section 8-13-1520.

Neither McKie nor Holmes had filed her Statement of Economic Interests Report with the South Carolina Ethics Commission. Thus, neither was eligible to take the Oath of Office. And each committed a misdemeanor by so taking the Oath.

On December 4, 2018 both McKie and Holmes filed the required Statement of Economic Interests Reports.

As of December 4, 2018 each became eligible to take the Oath of Office. But neither has taken the Oath of Office since December 4, 2018.

On March 18, 2019 the District informed me that neither had taken the Oath after December 4. I believe neither has taken it since March 18.

Thus, the Richland 2 School Board has five legal members and two persons allowed illegitimately to be seated at the Board. Why do the five legal members allow this?

The problem is further compounded by McKie's assuming her role as Board Chair. That role terminated on November 6, 2018. Yet the Board has not challenged her or elected a new chairman, as is required by S.C. Code of Laws Section 59-19-70.

The question is not how to remove McKie and Holmes from the Board. They have never been legally on the Board. It should be no problem for the five legal members of the Board to refuse McKie and Holmes seats at the Board.

Why isn't the legal counsel for the District advising the Board of the importance of correcting this very serious problem?