Weapons Policy: McKie (No); Caution-Parker (Abstain)

When it was time to vote on a Motion at last night's school board meeting, there were two votes that were not surprising.

The Administration had submitted a revision of Board Policy GBEB Staff Conduct. The revision was first discussed at the September 24th board meeting, where it was eventually postponed (rather than "tabled"). A number of board members voiced desired changes.

The Administration returned last night with the same revised policy. The bullet point pertains to employee conduct that would be viewed as an Misconduct.

The existing policy: ● possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law)

The proposed revised policy: ● possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law and the superintendent)

Upon motion by Dr. Elkins-Johnson and seconded by Teresa Holmes, the board approved removing the entire parenthetical portion, leaving the proposed revision as "...possessing weapons on district property."

The vote was 5-1-1, with McKie voting "No" and Caution-Parker Abstaining.

Why would McKie vote "No"? Was it because Supt. Davis' authority was being diminished?

Why would Caution-Parker abstain? There is a clue on the website of the Richland 2 Black Parents Assn.(BPA) The BPA has this to say on its website about Caution-Parker:

"Her claim to fame is her 30 plus years and multiple roles in Richland School District Two. Her tenure on the board has been one of going along to get along. Her platform has basically been whatever the district decides or feels like doing should be supported regardless of the economic burden that it creates for the community. With Ms. Caution-Parker it's all about district first, and everyone else next including parents and students. She demonstrates a commitment to maintaining status quo and approves all initiatives of district with zero questions."

Actually, McKie's "No" vote shouldn't be counted (even though it would not have affected the outcome), and the motion needed a different trustee to second it, since both McKie and Holmes are not legal members of the board.

Just yesterday a Columbia attorney asked me why McKie and Holmes are permitted to sit at the board, and he asked me if I was seeking to have all decisions swayed by their votes since November 13th invalidated. He hit the nail right on the head! He had no hesitation to opine that, if McKie and Holmes took the oath of office before they were eligible to do so (which they did!), then they are not legally on the board.