You know, the one that was not authorized by the board? Except the public learned from an article in The State that maybe the board did authorize it, just not publicly.
What was the date when two hand-picked attorneys showed up and pitched the five justices on their point of view? Anyone remember? Seems like a long time ago.
The S.C. Supreme Court hearing was on August 31.That's four weeks ago from tomorrow.
Where is the decision? What's the delay? Has the S.C. Supreme Court decided, but it's holding off on publishing its decision? Why?
On August 16 Special-Called Meeting the school board met in executive (secret) session. No decisions are supposed to be made in executive session. That's state law. No "agree-to-agree" deals are supposed to be made. In open session Manning made a motion to engage legal counsel for advice. On August 19 the District filed a lawsuit. Many of us wondered when and how that was approved.
Why did Teresa Holmes lead the board in that subterfuge? Did she even understand what she was doing?
On Friday, September 17 reporter Lucas Daprile (The State) wrote that Libby Roof had explained it all. Here's what Lucas wrote:
“ 'This vote by the board was taken following an executive session during which the board received legal advice regarding the best option and legal strategy to address (the one-year mask law). The discussion included a clear description of what actions would be taken by district administrators if the board voted to give district administrators the authority to engage legal counsel,' Roof said in a statement."
Note that Manning's motion to was engage legal counsel; i.e., to get legal advice. But it turns out that the board had gotten legal advice during the executive session. That is even on the agenda for that August 16 Executive Session.
Read carefully what Mrs. Roof said. She said that in the executive session the board received legal advice! The board discussed what was going to happen, if Manning's motion was approved. That's called DECISION and is prohibited by State law!
Anyone reading or hearing the motion would have believed that, after the superintendent got the legal advice sought, then he would return to the board and report what he had learned. But the board knew better and withheld that information from the public and from Mrs. Agostini, who had not attended the discussion.
Did that happen? NO. Instead, three days later the District filed a lawsuit! Who directed that? It had to be the superintendent.
Lucas Daprile wrote further: “ 'It was crystal clear what steps would be taken,' board secretary Amelia McKie told The State Thursday regarding the lawsuit vote."
McKie admits to the illegal agreement-to-agree.
Actually, McKie is not even a board member and cannot serve as board secretary. She has never taken the oath of office legally.
That agree-to-agree decision was a violation of the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act. Should the Richland 2 board be hauled into court to explain why they violated that law?
No comments:
Post a Comment