Tuesday's special-called off-cycle board meeting (workshop) will be held on October 1, 2019, starting at 5:30PM. This is an official meeting of the board. The public can attended (but you will have to keep quiet.
Based on the Agenda, the board ought to be done by midnight. See the Agenda on the District's website.
Click on EXPLORE;
then on School Board;
then on AGENDA;
then on the icon (looks like a calendar);
then on View the Agenda.
No votes will be taken by the board. There will be no public participation.
Look on the left sidebar for the work for this workshop (meeting). Under "New Business - No Action Requested" are listed 28 (count them - TWENTY-EIGHT!) Policies to be reviewed, discussed and edited). If there isn't too much wrangling and horse-trading, the board will be asked to approve these at its next meeting, which is October 15, 2019.
To read the Policy and see the proposed revisions, click on it. Then click on the .pdf link that appears.
For example, Policy IHCF Childcare Programs. Did you even know that Richland 2 provides childcare for ages 5-14 before and after school hours? At no cost to parents?
Do you wonder why some employee is probably getting paid $50,000/year to change "5-14" to "five through fourteen"? And you're still wondering why your property taxes for schools are so high?
Some deal was made by the previous superintendent with the South Carolina School Boards association to update all the Board Policies? Since when does Richland School District Two have to engage in such widespread nonsense.
I think it was at the September 24 that one of the trustees chided the board about the District's feeling like it must do whatever the SCSBA says. It doesn't!!!
A community or parents' watchdog group should be examining every policy and communicating with board members before policies are reviewed. Give them your input. Your children will be affected by what the board decides.
Show up to hear the discussion. The board may or may not record and publish the October 1 meeting.
Spread the word about this blog. Tell your friends and neighbors to see RICHLAND2.INFO
Comments invited.
Friday, September 27, 2019
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Board Alters October Meetings
Community members, parents and others who are interested in the business of the Richland 2 School Board should be aware of changes in the Board's schedule for October 2019. A workshop has been added at the beginning of the month, and the dates of the two Regular Meetings have been changed from the second and fourth Tuesdays..
October 1, 2019 Board Workshop (open to the public*) (not on the Meeting Calendar)
October 15, 2019 First Regular Board Meeting of the Month
October 29, 2019 Second Regular Board Meeting of the Month
Check the District's website for the starting times. Workshops often start at 5:00PM or 5:30PM
The public portion of Regular Meetings usually starts at 6:30PM (after the Executive Session).
* There is no Public Participation segment at Special-Called workshops.
October 1, 2019 Board Workshop (open to the public*) (not on the Meeting Calendar)
October 15, 2019 First Regular Board Meeting of the Month
October 29, 2019 Second Regular Board Meeting of the Month
Check the District's website for the starting times. Workshops often start at 5:00PM or 5:30PM
The public portion of Regular Meetings usually starts at 6:30PM (after the Executive Session).
* There is no Public Participation segment at Special-Called workshops.
Board Needs Parliamentarian
The Richland 2 School Board could use a Parliamentarian and a decision to observe Robert's Rules of Order.
There were too many times during last night's board meeting that one member talked over another. "Kindness" was the word for the night, and kindness was not shown during the discussion of concealed carry on Richland 2 school grounds.
Early in the discussion Dr. Elkins-Johnson made a Motion to replace one word in Board Policy GBEB Staff Conduct. Rather than allowing a second to the motion, the Vice Chair invited a comment by the superintendent, and he passed. There followed extensive conversation and discussion, and then the Vice Chair cut off further discussion with her own motion and quickly insisted on a second, which was provided by Amelia McKie. The Vice Chair then insisted on a vote.
But there was already a motion on the floor, that by Dr. Elkins to replace the word "superintendent" with "Board" in the draft Board Policy. Dr. Elkin's motion was never seconded or discussed as part of her motion, and there was no vote on her motion.
After lengthy discussion the Vice Chair cut off questions and refused to allow Dr. Elkins to continue with comments and questions to staff, so that staff could re-work the Policy revision. The Vice Chair wanted to table further discussion, and she was corrected by James Shadd that the procedure is to postpone, not "table".
During other Board meetings a Parliamentarian would have observed and corrected board members who engaged in side conversations and who used electronic devices during a meeting.
In an official Open Session of a public body, which the Richland 2 Board is, everything said or written is public record. If two members engage in a side conversation, the public usually cannot hear what they say. If electronic devices are used for email, texting, instant messaging, etc., the public has no way of knowing what is being transmitted.
The Parliamentarian should probably not be one of the board members, because he or she will end up not being too popular among friends. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. Or should.
There were too many times during last night's board meeting that one member talked over another. "Kindness" was the word for the night, and kindness was not shown during the discussion of concealed carry on Richland 2 school grounds.
Early in the discussion Dr. Elkins-Johnson made a Motion to replace one word in Board Policy GBEB Staff Conduct. Rather than allowing a second to the motion, the Vice Chair invited a comment by the superintendent, and he passed. There followed extensive conversation and discussion, and then the Vice Chair cut off further discussion with her own motion and quickly insisted on a second, which was provided by Amelia McKie. The Vice Chair then insisted on a vote.
But there was already a motion on the floor, that by Dr. Elkins to replace the word "superintendent" with "Board" in the draft Board Policy. Dr. Elkin's motion was never seconded or discussed as part of her motion, and there was no vote on her motion.
After lengthy discussion the Vice Chair cut off questions and refused to allow Dr. Elkins to continue with comments and questions to staff, so that staff could re-work the Policy revision. The Vice Chair wanted to table further discussion, and she was corrected by James Shadd that the procedure is to postpone, not "table".
During other Board meetings a Parliamentarian would have observed and corrected board members who engaged in side conversations and who used electronic devices during a meeting.
In an official Open Session of a public body, which the Richland 2 Board is, everything said or written is public record. If two members engage in a side conversation, the public usually cannot hear what they say. If electronic devices are used for email, texting, instant messaging, etc., the public has no way of knowing what is being transmitted.
The Parliamentarian should probably not be one of the board members, because he or she will end up not being too popular among friends. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. Or should.
Concealed Carry and Richland 2
When I arrived for the Richland 2 board meeting, I had my remarks all prepared regarding the selection of a small, general-practice law firm that was selected as bond co-counsel for "purposes of achieving diversity in the legal team". After I arrived, though, a more-timely subject came up.
On the way into the meeting I stopped to inquire who the armed man was at a school board meeting last month. He had been walking around in the board room before the meeting and, as he walked away from me, the butt of his small semi-automatic pistol was visible, tucked in holster under his shirt. I learned that two Richland 2 employees are authorized to be armed on school grounds.
Board Policy GBEB Staff Conduct was on the agenda last night for its first reading. Because of the huge liability exposure to Richland 2 School District, I felt strongly that the authority to allow concealed carry on school grounds should rest with the Board, not with the superintendent. And I said so during the Public Participation portion of the meeting. My comments can be viewed on the YouTube recording for the September 24, 2019 meeting at 21:20 on the meeting timer.
The current Policy reads, in part,
"The following list, which is not exhaustive, includes actions that are considered misconduct while on duty or on or off district property, or at any time when the conduct would disrupt the educational environment or impair the employee’s ability to be effective: ...
● possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law)"
Administration was recommending approval of a change, so that this item would read:
"● possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law and the superintendent)" (emphasis in the original)
When the meeting arrived at Item 12.1 on the agenda, the Board came to life! Teresa Holmes was chairing the meeting in the absence of James Manning, and she voiced her opinion. Monica Elkins-Johnson added extensive comments and questions to the discussion and had many questions for the Richland 2 staff there. James Shadd had questions. Lindsay Agostini, Amelia McKie and Cheryl Caution-Parker stayed out of it.
Discussion was boisterous at times, with trustees talking over one another and interrupting. Incorrect information was stated, and then corrected. Be sure to watch the video. The starting point on the YouTube recording for the Board's discussion is at 56:147 on the meeting timer.
Do you feel it is the Board responsibility to control who carries a concealed firearm on Richland 2 school grounds? Please comment below.
On the way into the meeting I stopped to inquire who the armed man was at a school board meeting last month. He had been walking around in the board room before the meeting and, as he walked away from me, the butt of his small semi-automatic pistol was visible, tucked in holster under his shirt. I learned that two Richland 2 employees are authorized to be armed on school grounds.
Board Policy GBEB Staff Conduct was on the agenda last night for its first reading. Because of the huge liability exposure to Richland 2 School District, I felt strongly that the authority to allow concealed carry on school grounds should rest with the Board, not with the superintendent. And I said so during the Public Participation portion of the meeting. My comments can be viewed on the YouTube recording for the September 24, 2019 meeting at 21:20 on the meeting timer.
The current Policy reads, in part,
"The following list, which is not exhaustive, includes actions that are considered misconduct while on duty or on or off district property, or at any time when the conduct would disrupt the educational environment or impair the employee’s ability to be effective: ...
● possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law)"
Administration was recommending approval of a change, so that this item would read:
"● possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law and the superintendent)" (emphasis in the original)
When the meeting arrived at Item 12.1 on the agenda, the Board came to life! Teresa Holmes was chairing the meeting in the absence of James Manning, and she voiced her opinion. Monica Elkins-Johnson added extensive comments and questions to the discussion and had many questions for the Richland 2 staff there. James Shadd had questions. Lindsay Agostini, Amelia McKie and Cheryl Caution-Parker stayed out of it.
Discussion was boisterous at times, with trustees talking over one another and interrupting. Incorrect information was stated, and then corrected. Be sure to watch the video. The starting point on the YouTube recording for the Board's discussion is at 56:147 on the meeting timer.
Do you feel it is the Board responsibility to control who carries a concealed firearm on Richland 2 school grounds? Please comment below.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
May 1 and Red4Ed
Remember the May 1st teacher's "strike" and how it affected Richland 2 schools? Just last week I watched again the April 30 school board meeting on YouTube and heard the words of the school trustees. Pitiful...
Today I came across this article titled "The NEA’s radical agenda: coming to a school near you" You can read the article at https://www.nccivitas.org/2019/neas-radical-agenda-coming-school-near/
To whet your appetite, are you concerned about
1. a $15.00/hour minimum wage for all staff?
2. White Fragility?
3. Promoting Black Lives Matter?
4. Teaching Climate Change?
5. union-friendly teaching resources?
6. Ending Criminalization of Border Crossings
7. Lobbying for LGBTQ Curricula?
8. US Government Must Accept Responsibility for Creating Immigration Crisis?
There is considerable concern about the left-leaning nature of today's teachers and a suspicion that they are indoctrinating their students with their own beliefs, rather than teaching critical-thinking skills so that students learn to make up their own minds.
Read the platform of the National Education Association (NEA). If these point concern you, watch for them in your child's class, homework and comments.
It won't be enough to complain only to the teacher, because there is a department and an assistant principal and a principal and a superintendent and a school board.
If you look at the composition of the Richland 2 school board, you will easily detect the lean to the left. While there may be staff members who don't lean left, they know where the power is and whom they'd better keep happy.
Understand what is happening in schools. Decide what you want for your child.
Show up at school board meetings. Bring your friends and neighbors.
Register to speak during Public Participation segments. And speak! Get involved!
Today I came across this article titled "The NEA’s radical agenda: coming to a school near you" You can read the article at https://www.nccivitas.org/2019/neas-radical-agenda-coming-school-near/
To whet your appetite, are you concerned about
1. a $15.00/hour minimum wage for all staff?
2. White Fragility?
3. Promoting Black Lives Matter?
4. Teaching Climate Change?
5. union-friendly teaching resources?
6. Ending Criminalization of Border Crossings
7. Lobbying for LGBTQ Curricula?
8. US Government Must Accept Responsibility for Creating Immigration Crisis?
There is considerable concern about the left-leaning nature of today's teachers and a suspicion that they are indoctrinating their students with their own beliefs, rather than teaching critical-thinking skills so that students learn to make up their own minds.
Read the platform of the National Education Association (NEA). If these point concern you, watch for them in your child's class, homework and comments.
It won't be enough to complain only to the teacher, because there is a department and an assistant principal and a principal and a superintendent and a school board.
If you look at the composition of the Richland 2 school board, you will easily detect the lean to the left. While there may be staff members who don't lean left, they know where the power is and whom they'd better keep happy.
Understand what is happening in schools. Decide what you want for your child.
Show up at school board meetings. Bring your friends and neighbors.
Register to speak during Public Participation segments. And speak! Get involved!
Friday, September 20, 2019
District Actions - how transparent?
Recently, a small, black-owned, law firm was added as bond co-counsel for the Richland 2 School District.
How did it happen?
On January 22, 2019, the School Board passed a resolution involving bond matters. It appears to have relinquished absolute decision-making control over bond matters to the office of the superintendent, presently held by Baron Davis. The resolution is mentioned, but not described or attached, to the Minutes of the January 22, 2019 School Board Meeting.
The resolution is ten (10) pages long, including signatory pages. On the final page of wording, seven lines from the end, is the following wording:
"Burr Forman McNair is authorized to associate co-counsel at the direction of the Superintendent for purposes of achieving diversity in the legal team."
Were the trustees cross-eyed and delirious by the time they read all the way through the resolution that they would be expected to approve on January 22?
Jabber & Isaac P.A. (jilawfirm.com) is a small firm with two principals, both of whom are female and black. Well, there is diversity for you.
The Board of Trustees should demand answers about their selection. How did that sentence get into the resolution? Did the Board direct it? Or did the superintendent request it? Or did one board member request it?
I don't have any problem with Burr Forman McNair inviting an experienced lawyer or law firm to partner up on bond work, IF a partner is needed to handle the work load. It seems to me that Burr Forman McNair would seek a highly-qualified co-counsel. Bond work requires high expertise in a very specific field of law. When you inspect the website of Jabber & Isaac P.A., you should be asking yourself, "Where is their bond experience?"
As of today, their website lists the types of work they do. The list includes real estate; family and domestic law; estate planning and probate; business law; governmental relations; personal injury; workers' compensation; and Social Security Disability. There is no mention of municipal bond work or school bond work.
Did Burr Forman McNair select Jabber & Isaac P.A. and tell Supt. Davis that they like to pull in Jabber & Isaac as co-counsel?
Did Supt. Davis direct Burr Forman McNair to select Jabber & Isaac? If he did, why that specific form? Because the principals are women? or because they are black women?
Is there a potential conflict-of-interest between any Board Trustee and either principal at Jabber & Isaac for personal, professional or business reasons? Did the superintendent pick Jabber & Isaac on his own, or was there a "suggestion" from a board member?
On the School District website the profile of Amelia McKie includes "She is a founding partner of Nfusion, LLC, which provides governmental relations and communications/public relations services for municipal, state and private agencies. She advocates for various institutions of higher education throughout South Carolina."
The words that jump from the page are "governmental relations" and "services for municipal, state and private agencies."
Interestingly enough, the April 11, 2019 document for the sale of $26,000,000 sale of Bond Anticipation Notes lists Amelia McKie's occupation as "Community Volunteer". The document does not mention her work as a lobbyist or consultant or her position as School Board Trustee, for which she received IRS W-2 income.
Amelia McKie has been filing Lobbyist Reports since May 2009. The most recent report was filed January 28, 2019.
See ethics.sc.gov
On the homepage, click on the link for Public Reporting
Scroll down and click on Lobbying Activity
Under Individual Reports, click on Lobbyists
Enter McKie, then click Next
Click on McKie, Amelia B
Her own firm (Nfusion, LLC) is not there, but NextEra Energy, Inc. is. (if you wonder what that is, click here.)
How did it happen?
On January 22, 2019, the School Board passed a resolution involving bond matters. It appears to have relinquished absolute decision-making control over bond matters to the office of the superintendent, presently held by Baron Davis. The resolution is mentioned, but not described or attached, to the Minutes of the January 22, 2019 School Board Meeting.
The resolution is ten (10) pages long, including signatory pages. On the final page of wording, seven lines from the end, is the following wording:
"Burr Forman McNair is authorized to associate co-counsel at the direction of the Superintendent for purposes of achieving diversity in the legal team."
Were the trustees cross-eyed and delirious by the time they read all the way through the resolution that they would be expected to approve on January 22?
Jabber & Isaac P.A. (jilawfirm.com) is a small firm with two principals, both of whom are female and black. Well, there is diversity for you.
The Board of Trustees should demand answers about their selection. How did that sentence get into the resolution? Did the Board direct it? Or did the superintendent request it? Or did one board member request it?
I don't have any problem with Burr Forman McNair inviting an experienced lawyer or law firm to partner up on bond work, IF a partner is needed to handle the work load. It seems to me that Burr Forman McNair would seek a highly-qualified co-counsel. Bond work requires high expertise in a very specific field of law. When you inspect the website of Jabber & Isaac P.A., you should be asking yourself, "Where is their bond experience?"
As of today, their website lists the types of work they do. The list includes real estate; family and domestic law; estate planning and probate; business law; governmental relations; personal injury; workers' compensation; and Social Security Disability. There is no mention of municipal bond work or school bond work.
Did Burr Forman McNair select Jabber & Isaac P.A. and tell Supt. Davis that they like to pull in Jabber & Isaac as co-counsel?
Did Supt. Davis direct Burr Forman McNair to select Jabber & Isaac? If he did, why that specific form? Because the principals are women? or because they are black women?
Is there a potential conflict-of-interest between any Board Trustee and either principal at Jabber & Isaac for personal, professional or business reasons? Did the superintendent pick Jabber & Isaac on his own, or was there a "suggestion" from a board member?
On the School District website the profile of Amelia McKie includes "She is a founding partner of Nfusion, LLC, which provides governmental relations and communications/public relations services for municipal, state and private agencies. She advocates for various institutions of higher education throughout South Carolina."
The words that jump from the page are "governmental relations" and "services for municipal, state and private agencies."
Interestingly enough, the April 11, 2019 document for the sale of $26,000,000 sale of Bond Anticipation Notes lists Amelia McKie's occupation as "Community Volunteer". The document does not mention her work as a lobbyist or consultant or her position as School Board Trustee, for which she received IRS W-2 income.
Amelia McKie has been filing Lobbyist Reports since May 2009. The most recent report was filed January 28, 2019.
See ethics.sc.gov
On the homepage, click on the link for Public Reporting
Scroll down and click on Lobbying Activity
Under Individual Reports, click on Lobbyists
Enter McKie, then click Next
Click on McKie, Amelia B
Her own firm (Nfusion, LLC) is not there, but NextEra Energy, Inc. is. (if you wonder what that is, click here.)
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Selection of small minority law firm explained
If you are short on time, the explanation is at the bottom of this article.
When I heard a second bond lawyer introduced at the September 10th school board meeting, I wondered what was up. And when I watched the re-run of the meeting on the school district's YouTube, I watched the face of Board Chair Manning carefully.
When Attorney Frannie Heizer, of Burr & Forman, was introduced, Mr. Manning nodded at her. Obviously, he recognized her name and her, because Burr & Forman created the documents for the April 11th sale of $26,000,000 in Bond Anticipation Notes. Recall that it was the two additional certifications to those documents that had resulted in the resignation of Lindsay Agostini from her position as Board Secretary.
When the superintendent introduced a second lawyer, Tameika Isaac Devine, I watched Manning's face carefully through several re-runs of the YouTube recording. He didn't nod; he didn't smile. He didn't seem to know who she was. (I immediately thought, "I'm never playing poker with James Manning!" (And this is a compliment.))
Looking back through Minutes of Board meetings, I came to the January 22, 2019 meeting, where I found one line that began to explain things. In Item 10.1 there was a Motion "To authorize the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds not exceeding $468,406,000 and to authorize the superintendent or his designee to determine matters relating to the bonds and notes as outlined in the resolution."
The Motion was made by Shadd, seconded by Elkins-Johnson. There were six Yes votes, zero No votes, and one Abstain (by Agostini).
Naturally, I wondered what was in the resolution which, conveniently, was not attached to the Minutes. So I requested a copy of the resolution.
The resolution is ten pages and has to be a $1,000 document by itself; maybe more. On the one hand, for a large bond-oriented law firm or section thereof, much of it is probably a boiler-plate document. It wasn't created from scratch for that sale. But it had to be careful read and edited, and I'll bet it is more like a $10,000 document; maybe a lot more.
Basically, it grants full authority to the (office of) superintendent for anything and everything pertaining to the $468MM bond issue that voters approved in November 2018.
And, when you read all the way to the end, in Section 21 there is one sentence that explains the addition of a small, Columbia law firm with no apparent experience in multi-million dollar bond work. That sentence reads, "Burr Forman McNair is authorized to associate co-counsel at the direction of the superintendent for purposes of achieving diversity in the legal team."
And that, folks, is a crock. Burr & Forman (the correct name since January) probably said, "What the hell?" But they will do what the superintendent tells them to do (and pays for them to do).
Look at the areas of practice of Jabber & Isaac, P.A. You'll find them listed on their website. You'll read "real estate; business law; Social Security disability; workers' compensation; automobile accidents and personal injury; family law; governmental relations."
Bond law is a full-time job, requiring expertise, study, knowledge, training. Why should Richland 2 pay a small "diverse" law firm to learn how to practice in the area of bond law?
How much money will Richland 2 School District waste because of 23 words tossed unnecessarily into the resolution?
When I heard a second bond lawyer introduced at the September 10th school board meeting, I wondered what was up. And when I watched the re-run of the meeting on the school district's YouTube, I watched the face of Board Chair Manning carefully.
When Attorney Frannie Heizer, of Burr & Forman, was introduced, Mr. Manning nodded at her. Obviously, he recognized her name and her, because Burr & Forman created the documents for the April 11th sale of $26,000,000 in Bond Anticipation Notes. Recall that it was the two additional certifications to those documents that had resulted in the resignation of Lindsay Agostini from her position as Board Secretary.
When the superintendent introduced a second lawyer, Tameika Isaac Devine, I watched Manning's face carefully through several re-runs of the YouTube recording. He didn't nod; he didn't smile. He didn't seem to know who she was. (I immediately thought, "I'm never playing poker with James Manning!" (And this is a compliment.))
Looking back through Minutes of Board meetings, I came to the January 22, 2019 meeting, where I found one line that began to explain things. In Item 10.1 there was a Motion "To authorize the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds not exceeding $468,406,000 and to authorize the superintendent or his designee to determine matters relating to the bonds and notes as outlined in the resolution."
The Motion was made by Shadd, seconded by Elkins-Johnson. There were six Yes votes, zero No votes, and one Abstain (by Agostini).
Naturally, I wondered what was in the resolution which, conveniently, was not attached to the Minutes. So I requested a copy of the resolution.
The resolution is ten pages and has to be a $1,000 document by itself; maybe more. On the one hand, for a large bond-oriented law firm or section thereof, much of it is probably a boiler-plate document. It wasn't created from scratch for that sale. But it had to be careful read and edited, and I'll bet it is more like a $10,000 document; maybe a lot more.
Basically, it grants full authority to the (office of) superintendent for anything and everything pertaining to the $468MM bond issue that voters approved in November 2018.
And, when you read all the way to the end, in Section 21 there is one sentence that explains the addition of a small, Columbia law firm with no apparent experience in multi-million dollar bond work. That sentence reads, "Burr Forman McNair is authorized to associate co-counsel at the direction of the superintendent for purposes of achieving diversity in the legal team."
And that, folks, is a crock. Burr & Forman (the correct name since January) probably said, "What the hell?" But they will do what the superintendent tells them to do (and pays for them to do).
Look at the areas of practice of Jabber & Isaac, P.A. You'll find them listed on their website. You'll read "real estate; business law; Social Security disability; workers' compensation; automobile accidents and personal injury; family law; governmental relations."
Bond law is a full-time job, requiring expertise, study, knowledge, training. Why should Richland 2 pay a small "diverse" law firm to learn how to practice in the area of bond law?
How much money will Richland 2 School District waste because of 23 words tossed unnecessarily into the resolution?
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Elkins-Johnson case diverted
Yesterday's newspaper, The State, reports that the January charges against Monica Elkins-Johnson in Richland County Central Court have been addressed. According to The State, the case was "diverted to an intervention program", rather than continuing to a jury trial.
I've been following this case since January. Elkins-Johnson was charged with disorderly conduct after a verbal conflict following the January 23 school board meeting. A video of the incident was published numerous times in The State. According to print media, Elkins-Johnson shoved Erica Davis after a January 23 [sic] school board meeting. (The correct date of the school board meeting was January 22.)
Davis is the sister of South Carolina State Senator Mia McLeod.
According to a January 31, 2019, article in The State by reporter Lucas Daprile, Elkins-Johnson shoved Davis, referencing a report by a deputy of the Richland County Sheriff's Department. That article also mentions the incorrect date of the school board meeting as Jan. 23, a Wednesday. Richland 2 holds its school board meetings on Tuesdays.
Daprile's article includes "Stacy McKie told police Elkins-Johnson punched 'an unnamed victim in the chest area,' but the report provides no details regarding that allegation."
What kind of dumb witness statement is that??? If police (deputies) are going to receive a witness statement and give it any credence at all, there must be a victim and the victim must be identified or described. Otherwise, such a statement is worthless.
Stacy McKie is the husband of Amelia McKie, who the Board would say was Board Chair at the time. Amelia McKie was the subject of resignation demands at the January 22 school board meeting. Over a period of four years she violated numerous Ethics laws and owes over $51,000 in fines and penalties to the Ethics Commission and, even to this date, has not paid them.
When you look at the video of the incident from the recording by the lobby video camera (without sound), it is clear that some man accosted and provoked Dr. Elkins-Johnson. He approached her and shoved what looks like a cell phone right in her face.
Over the months since January, I have followed this case closely. It took the courts a long time to find a judge who did not recuse himself, and a court employee told me they had to find a judge outside Richland County to hear the case. Before yesterday I was told that yesterday's court date was canceled, so I didn't go to court for the scheduled hearing.
Yesterday's court date wasn't canceled. I thought there would have been a hearing, at which a judge received and approved a deal made by the prosecution and Elkins-Johnson's attorney (and accepted by her). However, this morning I learned from Central Court that a defendant can "self-refer" to the diversion program and, if permitted by the Solicitor's office, can enroll in a diversion program.
All things considered, going that route was probably the right thing. It stops the meter running in her attorney's office and it temporarily eliminates a jail sentence and monetary fine. Rolling the dice with a jury (or even a judge in a bench trial) is risky. No matter how strong your defense and how weak the prosecution, a defendant doesn't really know what the outcome will be. And when the prosecution's witnesses include a State Senator, a sister of that senator, and the husband of an elected official, I would say the cards are stacked against a defendant.
What would I have done? I would have spent the money and rolled the dice. I would have hired a killer-shark of any attorney and demanded that she clean all the meat off the bones of the prosecution's witnesses. If the Sheriff's Department report was not exactly right, I would have expected my attorney to rip it to shreds.
The mention of two reports at the sheriff's department reminded me of the March 20th report against me by Teresa Holmes. The deputy's report contained so many false statements that it was unbelievable. A one-hour conversation resulted in a finding of "a crime did not occur". I've wondered whether the deputy required Holmes to write a personal statement, on which he based his report. Or did he just listen to her and then write it up? The only crime that occurred was all the lies in the report against me.
I've been following this case since January. Elkins-Johnson was charged with disorderly conduct after a verbal conflict following the January 23 school board meeting. A video of the incident was published numerous times in The State. According to print media, Elkins-Johnson shoved Erica Davis after a January 23 [sic] school board meeting. (The correct date of the school board meeting was January 22.)
Davis is the sister of South Carolina State Senator Mia McLeod.
According to a January 31, 2019, article in The State by reporter Lucas Daprile, Elkins-Johnson shoved Davis, referencing a report by a deputy of the Richland County Sheriff's Department. That article also mentions the incorrect date of the school board meeting as Jan. 23, a Wednesday. Richland 2 holds its school board meetings on Tuesdays.
Daprile's article includes "Stacy McKie told police Elkins-Johnson punched 'an unnamed victim in the chest area,' but the report provides no details regarding that allegation."
What kind of dumb witness statement is that??? If police (deputies) are going to receive a witness statement and give it any credence at all, there must be a victim and the victim must be identified or described. Otherwise, such a statement is worthless.
Stacy McKie is the husband of Amelia McKie, who the Board would say was Board Chair at the time. Amelia McKie was the subject of resignation demands at the January 22 school board meeting. Over a period of four years she violated numerous Ethics laws and owes over $51,000 in fines and penalties to the Ethics Commission and, even to this date, has not paid them.
When you look at the video of the incident from the recording by the lobby video camera (without sound), it is clear that some man accosted and provoked Dr. Elkins-Johnson. He approached her and shoved what looks like a cell phone right in her face.
Over the months since January, I have followed this case closely. It took the courts a long time to find a judge who did not recuse himself, and a court employee told me they had to find a judge outside Richland County to hear the case. Before yesterday I was told that yesterday's court date was canceled, so I didn't go to court for the scheduled hearing.
Yesterday's court date wasn't canceled. I thought there would have been a hearing, at which a judge received and approved a deal made by the prosecution and Elkins-Johnson's attorney (and accepted by her). However, this morning I learned from Central Court that a defendant can "self-refer" to the diversion program and, if permitted by the Solicitor's office, can enroll in a diversion program.
All things considered, going that route was probably the right thing. It stops the meter running in her attorney's office and it temporarily eliminates a jail sentence and monetary fine. Rolling the dice with a jury (or even a judge in a bench trial) is risky. No matter how strong your defense and how weak the prosecution, a defendant doesn't really know what the outcome will be. And when the prosecution's witnesses include a State Senator, a sister of that senator, and the husband of an elected official, I would say the cards are stacked against a defendant.
What would I have done? I would have spent the money and rolled the dice. I would have hired a killer-shark of any attorney and demanded that she clean all the meat off the bones of the prosecution's witnesses. If the Sheriff's Department report was not exactly right, I would have expected my attorney to rip it to shreds.
The mention of two reports at the sheriff's department reminded me of the March 20th report against me by Teresa Holmes. The deputy's report contained so many false statements that it was unbelievable. A one-hour conversation resulted in a finding of "a crime did not occur". I've wondered whether the deputy required Holmes to write a personal statement, on which he based his report. Or did he just listen to her and then write it up? The only crime that occurred was all the lies in the report against me.
Saturday, September 14, 2019
Can I pitch my FB pages? Or blogs?
At the September 10, 2019 school board meeting Teresa Holmes made a big deal out of pitching her personal and school Facebook pages, inviting all to submit pictures and stories.
Was this really appropriate for a board member? (Actually, that's not quite a fair question, because she is not really a board member, since she has never taken the oath of office legally).
But if she were a legal board member, would it be appropriate. I say, No.
One day she will no longer be a member of the Richland 2 School Board. Her term-of-office ends in November 2022. What will happen to any content then?
And why should any graduate or family member of student post anything that is Richland 2-related on Holmes' personal Facebook page?
Is she politicking on her "school" Facebook page? Is that allowed?
I urge the board to address her Facebook-page promotion and tell her to "stick to business".
Was this really appropriate for a board member? (Actually, that's not quite a fair question, because she is not really a board member, since she has never taken the oath of office legally).
But if she were a legal board member, would it be appropriate. I say, No.
One day she will no longer be a member of the Richland 2 School Board. Her term-of-office ends in November 2022. What will happen to any content then?
And why should any graduate or family member of student post anything that is Richland 2-related on Holmes' personal Facebook page?
Is she politicking on her "school" Facebook page? Is that allowed?
I urge the board to address her Facebook-page promotion and tell her to "stick to business".
Why now a bond CO-counsel? Unnecessary added expense?
At the end of the September 10, 2019 Richland 2 School Board meeting, the Superintendent made a reference to the new $85,000,000 bond issue and to the bond counsel.
Bond counsel is the lawyer who works on the bond issue. Back in the spring, Frannie Heizer (Supt. Davis seemed to pronounce her last name as "Heizner") of Burr Forman held the reins for the $25,000,000 sale of Bond Anticipation Notes. That's the one that had a couple of special additions to it (Certificate of Incumbency and Signature and No-Litigation Certification) that resulted in the resignation of Lindsay Agostini as Board Secretary.
In a rather matter-of-fact manner without any special emphasis, the Superintendent recognized two lawyers who were present at the meeting: Frannie Heizer and a second lawyer from a different firm, Tameika Isaac Devine of Jabber & Isaac, P.A.
Remember when Trustee Caution-Parker griped about the cost of having bond counsel attend a board meeting, when another trustee wanted Attorney Heizer to come and explain specific points of the earlier bond issue?
When did the Richland 2 School Board decide to add a second law firm to the bond counsel team?
Did the Board ever make that decision? Or was the decision made by staff without ever informing the board?
Were interviews held to consider whether to expand the bond counsel team and, if so, how to go through the selection process and choose the very best and highest-qualified lawyer for the project?
Devine's profile on the Jabber & Isaac website reads, "Devine practices in the areas of residential and commercial real estate transactions, probate law, personal injury, business transactions and governmental relations."
Where is the extensive experience in municipal bond underwriting that qualifies her to represent a large school district that just passed a $468,000,000 bond issue last fall? Did the District advertise or issue an RFP for the added counsel? Was Devine recommended by anyone on the board?
Was her selection a surprise to most of the board members? To some of them? To any of them?
It is surprising to me that the bond issuance decision doesn't seem to require Board notice or approval. I expected that a Resolution should be presented to the board and approved, before the deal could go forward. A Resolution would assure that the board is knowledgeable and in control of the District.
Maybe I'm a little jaded right now, since I've been reading about Supeintendent Robert Runcie of the Broward County School District (home of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Fla.) and its own bond problems.
Bond counsel is the lawyer who works on the bond issue. Back in the spring, Frannie Heizer (Supt. Davis seemed to pronounce her last name as "Heizner") of Burr Forman held the reins for the $25,000,000 sale of Bond Anticipation Notes. That's the one that had a couple of special additions to it (Certificate of Incumbency and Signature and No-Litigation Certification) that resulted in the resignation of Lindsay Agostini as Board Secretary.
In a rather matter-of-fact manner without any special emphasis, the Superintendent recognized two lawyers who were present at the meeting: Frannie Heizer and a second lawyer from a different firm, Tameika Isaac Devine of Jabber & Isaac, P.A.
Remember when Trustee Caution-Parker griped about the cost of having bond counsel attend a board meeting, when another trustee wanted Attorney Heizer to come and explain specific points of the earlier bond issue?
When did the Richland 2 School Board decide to add a second law firm to the bond counsel team?
Did the Board ever make that decision? Or was the decision made by staff without ever informing the board?
Were interviews held to consider whether to expand the bond counsel team and, if so, how to go through the selection process and choose the very best and highest-qualified lawyer for the project?
Devine's profile on the Jabber & Isaac website reads, "Devine practices in the areas of residential and commercial real estate transactions, probate law, personal injury, business transactions and governmental relations."
Where is the extensive experience in municipal bond underwriting that qualifies her to represent a large school district that just passed a $468,000,000 bond issue last fall? Did the District advertise or issue an RFP for the added counsel? Was Devine recommended by anyone on the board?
Was her selection a surprise to most of the board members? To some of them? To any of them?
It is surprising to me that the bond issuance decision doesn't seem to require Board notice or approval. I expected that a Resolution should be presented to the board and approved, before the deal could go forward. A Resolution would assure that the board is knowledgeable and in control of the District.
Maybe I'm a little jaded right now, since I've been reading about Supeintendent Robert Runcie of the Broward County School District (home of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Fla.) and its own bond problems.
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Public Participation Policy Change Needed
Should the Richland 2 School Board change its policy about Public Participation at the twice-monthly school board meetings?
Currently, if you want to speak, it is necessary to sign up and sign in. You must write your name on a roster sheet and you must fill out a Request-to-Speak Form. This form can be viewed and printed by simply clicking here. Or visit the District's website:
Go to www.richland2.org
Click on EXPLORE
Click on School Board
Click on PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Click on Participation Request to Speak Form
You must fill out this Form before the public session of the meeting begins. This means you must arrive by 6:20PM, quickly fill out the form before entering the board room and then get it into the right hands to be delivered to the Board Chair. (Or print at home and fill out before you arrive.)
If you arrive at 6:30PM, you will be too late, because that's the starting time of the public session.
There are two public participation sessions. Perhaps the second is considered for overflow; i.e., if too many people sign up to be accommodated during the first segment.
It would be reasonable for the board to accept a Request to Speak Form after 6:30PM and then either call on the member of the public wishing to speak during the first session or the second. Often, the first Public Participation segment doesn't begin for 30 minutes into the meeting, especially if the Recognition and School Focus segments run long.
But here is what would be even more reasonable. Scrap the Request to Speak Form and just let people speak. The Board Chair could recite the "rules of the road" and then recognize anyone who raises his hand to speak. The current way is about C-o-n-t-r-o-l.
I've not seen them refuse three minutes to anyone who had signed up, but past-Board Chair Amelia McKie did change the order of speakers fairly frequently. And I have seen them refuse speaking time to someone who didn't arrive before the 6:30PM gong. This doesn't make any sense at all, except for C-o-n-t-r-o-l. Is this degree of C-o-n-t-r-o-l really necessary?
And I'm probably the only person who has ever been cut off before the end of three minutes. One night I attempted to change topics after my first minute, and then-Board Chair McKie silenced me. I attempted to argue for the balance of my three minutes and then gave in. I later heard that it was good that I had sat down when I did, because the District's security officer was coming up behind me. Apparently, he intended to escort me away from the microphone. Since no order had been given by the Chair to remove me, it had to have been pre-arranged. Who set that up?
At the time I considered her cutting me off as a violation of the First Amendment. I had three minutes, but I got only one.
But there are other fish to fry here that are more important, and I decided not to fight that battle (at that time).
When Craig Plank was Board Chair, speakers were invited to give their name and address and enjoy their three minutes. Last year, when McKie was Board Chair? Don't give your address. Why not? The only reason I can think of is it makes it harder for an interested person to make contact with the speaker, perhaps to share an opinion or support for the speaker's position.
The Board doesn't respond to a speaker during the meeting. The Guidelines indicate questions could be referred to staff for research and recommendations, followed by a response (to the speaker), but I have never heard the board direct a staff member to research, investigate and respond to a speaker.
Currently, if you want to speak, it is necessary to sign up and sign in. You must write your name on a roster sheet and you must fill out a Request-to-Speak Form. This form can be viewed and printed by simply clicking here. Or visit the District's website:
Go to www.richland2.org
Click on EXPLORE
Click on School Board
Click on PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Click on Participation Request to Speak Form
You must fill out this Form before the public session of the meeting begins. This means you must arrive by 6:20PM, quickly fill out the form before entering the board room and then get it into the right hands to be delivered to the Board Chair. (Or print at home and fill out before you arrive.)
If you arrive at 6:30PM, you will be too late, because that's the starting time of the public session.
There are two public participation sessions. Perhaps the second is considered for overflow; i.e., if too many people sign up to be accommodated during the first segment.
It would be reasonable for the board to accept a Request to Speak Form after 6:30PM and then either call on the member of the public wishing to speak during the first session or the second. Often, the first Public Participation segment doesn't begin for 30 minutes into the meeting, especially if the Recognition and School Focus segments run long.
But here is what would be even more reasonable. Scrap the Request to Speak Form and just let people speak. The Board Chair could recite the "rules of the road" and then recognize anyone who raises his hand to speak. The current way is about C-o-n-t-r-o-l.
I've not seen them refuse three minutes to anyone who had signed up, but past-Board Chair Amelia McKie did change the order of speakers fairly frequently. And I have seen them refuse speaking time to someone who didn't arrive before the 6:30PM gong. This doesn't make any sense at all, except for C-o-n-t-r-o-l. Is this degree of C-o-n-t-r-o-l really necessary?
And I'm probably the only person who has ever been cut off before the end of three minutes. One night I attempted to change topics after my first minute, and then-Board Chair McKie silenced me. I attempted to argue for the balance of my three minutes and then gave in. I later heard that it was good that I had sat down when I did, because the District's security officer was coming up behind me. Apparently, he intended to escort me away from the microphone. Since no order had been given by the Chair to remove me, it had to have been pre-arranged. Who set that up?
At the time I considered her cutting me off as a violation of the First Amendment. I had three minutes, but I got only one.
But there are other fish to fry here that are more important, and I decided not to fight that battle (at that time).
When Craig Plank was Board Chair, speakers were invited to give their name and address and enjoy their three minutes. Last year, when McKie was Board Chair? Don't give your address. Why not? The only reason I can think of is it makes it harder for an interested person to make contact with the speaker, perhaps to share an opinion or support for the speaker's position.
The Board doesn't respond to a speaker during the meeting. The Guidelines indicate questions could be referred to staff for research and recommendations, followed by a response (to the speaker), but I have never heard the board direct a staff member to research, investigate and respond to a speaker.
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Threat reported at Westwood High School
The Independent Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County newspaper reports today that there was a threat at Westwood High School in the Richland 2 School District.
Read the article here:
https://www.blythewoodonline.com/2019/09/r2-acknowledges-whs-threat/?fbclid=IwAR0rQGVZHwUP9DxArXZi-DtS_Ff1fsnnFe_Em6L7eZAOgcgEUlfTtl6noTo
The article and the letter from Richland 2's Libby Roof do not name the student.
An undated letter from Westwood's Principal indicates only "yesterday", so who knows when the threat was. WIS-TV reports that a 15-year-old student was charged today (Sept. 10). An article on www.wistv.com indicates the Principal's letter was sent today, so maybe "yesterday" means the incident happened on September 9.
The kid allegedly had two knives in his possession (length not mentioned) and reportedly had threatened to shoot up the school. Maybe his defense of a "joke" will work.
Some of us remember the good, ol' days when we carried pocket knives to school. Country kids even kept rifles in their trucks for hunting at noon and after school. My, how times have changed.
Read the article here:
https://www.blythewoodonline.com/2019/09/r2-acknowledges-whs-threat/?fbclid=IwAR0rQGVZHwUP9DxArXZi-DtS_Ff1fsnnFe_Em6L7eZAOgcgEUlfTtl6noTo
The article and the letter from Richland 2's Libby Roof do not name the student.
An undated letter from Westwood's Principal indicates only "yesterday", so who knows when the threat was. WIS-TV reports that a 15-year-old student was charged today (Sept. 10). An article on www.wistv.com indicates the Principal's letter was sent today, so maybe "yesterday" means the incident happened on September 9.
The kid allegedly had two knives in his possession (length not mentioned) and reportedly had threatened to shoot up the school. Maybe his defense of a "joke" will work.
Some of us remember the good, ol' days when we carried pocket knives to school. Country kids even kept rifles in their trucks for hunting at noon and after school. My, how times have changed.
Released today - Why Meadow Died
I started reading Why Meadow Died at 5:00AM, after Amazon delivered it to my Kindle earlier today. Meadow Pollack was a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. She died on February 14, 2018.
So far, I've just about finished the Preface, written by Meadow's father, Andrew Pollack, and co-author Max Eden, who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Everyone should read this book. Every parent should read it. Every member of the Richland School District Two community should read it - the School Board, the Superintendent, the staff, the teachers, the employees, the parents and, yes, the students.
Buy your copy and start reading it. Contact your favorite bookseller or Amazon. Don't "skim" it. Read it. Read every word on every page.
As I read the Preface, I felt it had Richland 2 written all over it. Parents have delegated (abdicated?) responsibility for their children to the District. Well, Parents, you are responsible for your children, not the school district.
I attended the first school board meeting after the Parkland shooting.
You can view my remarks to the school board by going to YouTube.com, then to Richland 2, then to the Feb. 27, 2018, meeting, and then scroll forward to 30:05 on the timer. Note that then-Board Chair Craig Plank indicates that the board will not responding directly to me (the speaker), "but someone from the District office will be reaching out to you at the conclusion of your remarks or at a later date."
In my remarks I requested the District to survey teachers, staff and parents on the topic of arming teachers. I also asked Richland 2 to establish a committee of parents and community members on school safety.
What happened? Was I contacted?
I had to follow up with the Board Chair, and then the response - finally - from the superintendent was that there would not be a survey. And I never heard a word about my suggestion for a parents and community member committee on school safety.
Read this book. Then talk about it.
So far, I've just about finished the Preface, written by Meadow's father, Andrew Pollack, and co-author Max Eden, who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Everyone should read this book. Every parent should read it. Every member of the Richland School District Two community should read it - the School Board, the Superintendent, the staff, the teachers, the employees, the parents and, yes, the students.
 |
| Hardcover or e-book from Amazon |
As I read the Preface, I felt it had Richland 2 written all over it. Parents have delegated (abdicated?) responsibility for their children to the District. Well, Parents, you are responsible for your children, not the school district.
I attended the first school board meeting after the Parkland shooting.
You can view my remarks to the school board by going to YouTube.com, then to Richland 2, then to the Feb. 27, 2018, meeting, and then scroll forward to 30:05 on the timer. Note that then-Board Chair Craig Plank indicates that the board will not responding directly to me (the speaker), "but someone from the District office will be reaching out to you at the conclusion of your remarks or at a later date."
In my remarks I requested the District to survey teachers, staff and parents on the topic of arming teachers. I also asked Richland 2 to establish a committee of parents and community members on school safety.
What happened? Was I contacted?
I had to follow up with the Board Chair, and then the response - finally - from the superintendent was that there would not be a survey. And I never heard a word about my suggestion for a parents and community member committee on school safety.
Read this book. Then talk about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Reporter Michael Smith of The Independent Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County contacted me for a comment after the Richland 2 Scho...
-
Trustee Monica Scott Tonight's meeting was one not to be missed! Thank goodness for Livestream. I had registered to speak; then yesterda... -
At tonight's school board meeting Release Time (R/T) will once again be on the menu (err, Agenda) for discussion. Under Old Business - N...