S.C.S.C. to decide

Did you watch the S.C. Supreme Court hearing that was held yesterday (August 31)?

If you missed it, watch it here. (If you don't like clicking on links, copy and paste this: https://media.sccourts.org/videos/2021-000892.mp4)

Richland 2 is trying to figure out how to dance around a mask mandate and not have it cost them State funds.

See this article in The State newspaper by reporter Lucas Daprile.

This is a case that never should have wasted the time of the five Justices of the State Supreme Court.

1. The Richland 2 school board never authorized the lawsuit.

2. The board told the superintendent to gather information. Manning's motion, approved 6-0, did not authorize him to start legal action.

3. Where did they get that Orangeburg mother to be part of the Richland 2 lawsuit?

4. Why did the superintendent get to pick Carl Solomon and Skyler Hutto to carry the flag for Richland 2?

5. Why wasn't the attorney for the school district, Kathryn Mahoney, involved?

6. Did the school board approve the choice of lawyers? (Hint: the answer is No.)

7. Why did Teresa Holmes issue a public statement to the media last Friday? 

8. Isn't the board supposed to authorize any statements before they are made to the public?

If the State Supreme Court rules against Richland 2, what's the next step? Or will there be a next step?

It is the school board that is supposed to be directing this District. It is the school board that authorizes legal action. The school board abdicates its fiduciary responsibility when it allows the superintendent to make decisions that it ought to be making.

The public should fill the meeting room at future board meetings. And don't just sit there? Stand up and speak out. Where are the parents of 28,000 students? When only four-to-six parents show up at a board meeting, isn't this an embarrassing failure of the parents who don't show up?

Remember how Teresa Holmes stiff-armed Lindsay Agostini on August 16, when she tried to find out more about Manning's Motion. Holmes was untruthful with Agostini and with the public when she said "they" (the board) could not discuss what was said in executive session. 

There is a parliamentary procedure (found in Robert's Rules of Order) that allows certain discussion. The board absolutely should have revealed any decision that would have allowed the superintendent to proceed with legal action, not just gather information for the board's later consideration. The decision to sue was absolutely a motion that should have been voted on in public session!

Or did the superintendent knowingly proceed with legal action without authorization from the board?