One of the questions is
"Q: A newspaper article stated that Dr. Davis was listed on the SC Ethics Commission website as owing a fine. Is that correct?
A: Dr. Davis was never assessed a fine by the ethics commission and was never listed on the website as owing a fine. At the February 12, 2019 School Board meeting, Dr. Davis stated that he was unaware of the requirement of "filing a Statement of Economic Interest (SEI) form within 10 days of officially becoming the superintendent in Richland Two. Instead, Dr. Davis followed the practice of his predecessors and of superintendents across the state by filing the SEI after receiving the annual notification from the Ethics Commission in December.”
A: Dr. Davis was never assessed a fine by the ethics commission and was never listed on the website as owing a fine. At the February 12, 2019 School Board meeting, Dr. Davis stated that he was unaware of the requirement of "filing a Statement of Economic Interest (SEI) form within 10 days of officially becoming the superintendent in Richland Two. Instead, Dr. Davis followed the practice of his predecessors and of superintendents across the state by filing the SEI after receiving the annual notification from the Ethics Commission in December.”
"When he learned of the requirement, he self-reported this omission to the ethics commission, updated the files submitted for the 2017 calendar year that he submitted in 2018, and voluntarily paid the $100 fine."
If that answer were put through the Snopes.com True or False wringer, the Answer would be "Mixed".How so?
True. Dr. Davis was never assessed a fine by the S.C. Ethics Commission.
True. Dr. Davis was never listed as owing a fine to the Ethics Commission.
True. Dr. Davis acknowledged not having filed a SEI.
FALSE. What is the so-called ten days after period?
The South Carolina Ethics Commission, according to S.C. law, requires the SEI to be filed before the appointee takes the oath of office and engages upon official duties.
Dr. Davis did mention a period of ten days following becoming the Superintendent, but that is NOT how the law reads. S.C. Code of Laws §8-13-1110(A) is crystal clear. Read it yourself. Where does it say you have ten days after...?
Wasn't the notification that Supt. Davis received in December 2018 a Notice that he had not filed a required SEI, rather than an "annual notification" that one was required? And wasn't that because The Voice newspaper had blown the whistle on District 2 officials?
The District shouldn't be writing a partial truth and calling it the "Real Deal", or Truth.
If his predecessors were wrong or other superintendents across the state of South Carolina were wrong, does that excuse the Richland 2 Superintendent? That's like saying "Well, I speed because everybody speeds."
And that's also too much like saying, "The dog ate my homework."
No comments:
Post a Comment