May 1st "vacation"

The board heard a presentation by a staff member on the May 1 fiasco. You know, the day the teachers went on strike and gathered at the State House to clamor for higher wages.

Of course, it wasn't called a "strike" or a "sick-out", but that's exactly what it was.

I had filed a FOIA request for the number of Personal Leave days that had been requested by Richland 2 teachers and employees. The District complied with my request by emailing me a copy of the staff presentation that was to be made last evening at the board meeting.

There are State rules that count the number of days of school closings "due to snow, extreme weather conditions, or other disruptions (S.C. Code of Laws §59-1-425 (HB 3890))."

I'll bet a legal opinion would be that a sick-out didn't qualify within that wording, but the question didn't arise last night.

You can hear the discussion on the YouTube recording.

The District found a fancy term for the sick-out and referred to it as "'All Out' for Education Advocacy."

Basically, it was a cop-out by the board. The board forgot that it is "Management" and the teachers are "Labor". What actually exists in Richland 2 is that the board ("Management") is also "Labor". When you go back to the April 23, 2019 meeting and listen to the comments of board members, you'll hear them supporting the teachers and their strike, rather than taking the position that the schools must operate and educate the students.

Now, how many teachers planned to bail on May 1st? As of April 30, 555 "reported absences" had been requested. According to the staff report "More expected to come in the night before and the morning of". I asked in my FOIA Request how many denials were issued; the District didn't respond with any number. I won't make a big deal out of it; I suspect the answer is Zero.

The staff report indicated "353 unfilled sub jobs".

This was a clear failure of the Administration, which should have anticipated the strike, in view of announcements by SCforED. The Administration (that's the Superintendent, with board backing (which never happened)) should have immediately announced that schools would remain open and that teachers, with the exception of up to, say, five(?) Personal Leave approvals, would be expected to show up on May 1, ready, willing and happy to fulfill their contractual obligation to teach.

The board quickly, and with a great sigh of relief, accepted the staff recommendation to approve "Option 1 - Waive the missed day from May 1 for students and employees."

Not one board member asked what the financial impact of that decision was.