Sunday, October 31, 2021

Loudoun County Sheriff says "No"

Read this article about the Loudoun County (Va.) Sheriff's Office, which looked carefully at the demands of the school district and then decided not to supply the manpower that was demanded.

The Loudoun County sheriff's office was asked for K-9 units, undercover deputies, a "five-person Quick Reaction Force", and a special ops unit. 

All this makes me wonder how much manpower Richland 2 asked the Richland County Sheriff's Department for, and for what reasons. There were four-five deputies inside, and there were reports of patrol cars moving outside R2i2. 

Richland 2 parents and community members certainly have not gathered in numbers anywhere closer to the numbers in Loudoun County, and public remarks have been relatively civil.

The same cannot be said for the arguing and bickering led by the board chair, Teresa Holmes, at several board meetings before the October 26th meeting. Somebody must have sat her down and made it plain to her that she should not continue to act as a dictator, bully or tyrant. 

Parents, community members and even some board members want to know how much "security" did cost the District on last Tuesday evening. 

If that cost isn't made public at the November 16th board meeting, then I'll file a FOIA request and post the response after I receive it. 

The public knows who the "Core Four" are - Holmes, McKie, Manning and Caution-Parker. 

Who (on the board) was it who tried to deflect the "Core Four" term to the four principles of something or other?

On behalf of the parents and community members at the October 26 board meeting, I say Thanks to Sheriff Lott for assigning deputies with good people skills. They understand what's going off at Richland 2 and that the upset, dissention, "noise" was all generated from the front of the room (i.e., by the board chair) on October 12 and at earlier meetings. 

When I was asked to step out of the meeting briefly on October 12th, after Holmes sicced "security" on me, Will Anderson told me he was trying to get things calmed down. I told Will that he had asked the wrong person to step out of the room with him. He needed to have asked Teresa Holmes to step out of the room and calm down. 

That, of course, was not going to happen, because Holmes acts like she is the superintendent's commander-in-chief. Anderson's boss is the superintendent. If Anderson had asked Holmes to step out of the room and calm down, Anderson would have been in the unemployment line the next day.

Saturday, October 30, 2021

Who is (not) Dr. ___?

There was a discussion at the end of the October 26 board meeting about whether Helen Grant should be addressed at Dr. Grant. Trustee Monica Scott raised the question that I began thinking about months ago when I realized that Helen Grant was an attorney with a J.D. (Juris Doctorate) degree and not an educational doctorate, such as Ed.D. or a doctorate such as Ph.D. Even if she had those, she - in her current employment position - should not be addressed as Dr. Grant.

I've known many attorneys over the years. I worked closely with attorneys when I was a C.L.U. in the life insurance business. As a member of the Rocky Mountain Estate Planning Council in Denver, I worked with bank trust officers, CPAs, other life insurance agents and attorneys who specialized in estate planning and business planning. Never once did I ever hear an attorney referred to as Dr. ____.

When I worked in a large Fortune 100 corporation and worked with attorneys there, no one ever referred to himself as Dr. _____.

When I worked for three years in a suburban Chicago law firm, I never heard an attorney referred to as Dr. ____.

And then I came across Richland 2 School District and begin hearing "Dr. Grant", now the Chief Diversity and Multicultural Inclusion Officer. Then I learned that she is an attorney, not an educator.

The correct form of address for Helen Grant is "Mrs. Grant", not "Dr. Grant" and not "Attorney Grant".

Trustee Scott was allowed by the Chair to ask the superintendent how Mrs. Grant should be addressed. First of all, RONR requires questions to be addressed to the Chair. But everybody in the room should have known what the superintendent's response was going to be. Of course, he was going to answer, "Dr. Grant."

Well, he's wrong. Am I the only one in town to say so? 

"A Product of Spring Valley H.S."

At the October 26, 2021 Richland 2 school board meeting, Teresa Holmes said (3:31:44), "I am a product of Spring Valley High School"

She seems to be proud of being a graduate of Spring Valley High School.

Is the Spring Valley High School proud of her?

Read this comment Holmes submitted to The Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County, after the paper published a long story about the disastrous school meeting on September 14, which disintegrated under Holmes' leadership. That was the meeting when three responsible trustees walked out, because they refused to vote on the superintendent's proposed contract amendment without having had sufficient time to consider it. 

DrTeresa Holmes says
This article is yet again another example Yellow Journalism. I urge the community to watch the board meeting for the real events of the meeting. The rag of a paper might as well be the Gus Philpot show along with who him and his band of racist choose to endorse or follow. The community is well aware of how this paper hacks up a story to suit their hate. The real story is how parents and the community were cheated out of information they needed by reckless behavior and dereliction of duty. I know this paper and the crew working for this rag will continue slant and half report stories to deface those of us like myself who have called them out as the racist they are and I have a filed legal complaint against their silent stooge Gus z Philpot .Truth in journalism does not exist for minority leaders in the let’s get them grudge fill piece of trash. Again to see what really happened log into R2 Livestream."

So Holmes is a "product of Spring Valley High School".

Now, read her comment to the newspaper slowly and carefully. For all the grammatical mistakes to be clear, read it slowly aloud. Is it a well-written comment by a person with a doctorate, even if it is from a 100% online school (business) in California? 

Or is it an embarrassment to the education received at Spring Valley High School? Presumably, high school, middle school and elementary school are where a student learns good grammar and the ability to write well. Those skills should be in place before getting a high school diploma!

Thursday, October 28, 2021

R 2 - No complaint procedure re Board member?

Would it surprise you to learn that there is no formal complaint procedure if you have a gripe against a board member of the Richland 2 School Board?

Probably not.

On October 13 I emailed the superintendent to ask what the formal procedure is for filing a complaint against a board member. I wished to file a complaint and have it heard in-person by the board. This was my request:

"Good afternoon, Supt. Davis,

"I am writing to request the District's formal procedure for filing a complaint against a school board member. I desire that the full board hear my complaint in person and determine what action(s) including, but not limited to, sanctions, reprimand, discipline, removal, request for resignation, should be taken against the member.

"Will you please provide me with the form or forms, along with instructions, to initiate this complaint?"

When I had received no acknowledgement or reply by October 26, I emailed the board chair and sent cc's to all the other board members, the superintendent and the General Counsel.

On October 27th the General Counsel replied on behalf of the superintendent and answered my October 13th email.

Now, there were several possibilities:

1. When the superintendent received my email on October 13, he put it in the "Ignore This" file.

2. On October 13 the superintendent forwarded that email to the General Counsel and asked her to reply for him, and she didn't do so.

3. Upon receipt of my October 26 the superintendent told the General Counsel to reply to me.

4. On October 26 the General Counsel asked the superintendent whether she should reply for him.

There may be other possibilities.

The General Counsel's reply was 

"Dr. Davis is in receipt of your email dated October 13, 2021, and has referred it to me for a response. You request [sic] Richland School District Two's formal procedure for filing a complaint against a school board member. Please be advised that the district does not have a procedure responsive to your request."

I've dealt with attorneys for years, and I don't mind terse replies.

However, I would have appreciated being informed of procedures, if any, that were not "formal". There is, of course, always the recourse of submitting a FOIA request for any complaint procedure or filing legal action. Presumably, the District would like to avoid the expense and embarrassment of finding themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

The reply from the General Counsel was not a dead end, no matter how much she might hope so.

School board president: "F--- you"

This FoxNews article reports that Los Alamos, California school board president Marlys Davidson was caught on an open microphone uttering a profanity toward a female parent who had spoken out at a school board meeting. This happened on Tuesday, October 26.

According to the article, parents were applauding the remarks of the speaker, when Davidson ssid, "F--- you." Her words were picked up by the microphone. Davidson realized her error and apologized.

That's not what happened here in Richland County, S.C. on Tuesday, October 12, outside R2i2. As trustee-elect Holmes and trustee Caution-Parker were leaving the building and crossing the courtyard toward the parking lot, that same expression was heard. One of the observers questioned Caution-Parker about it as she walked away.

Caution-Parker was being escorted by a deputy of the Richland County Sheriff's Department. I emailed Sheriff Lott to ask him to obtain a report from that deputy as to exactly what he heard. I don't know if that was done, and I did not request a copy of the deputy's report.

At that same meeting here, Caution-Parker can be heard disrespecting Trustee Scott, who had a motion on the floor and whose motion was being ignored by the board chair during Board & Superintendent Comments. As Trustee Scott reminded the chair (Holmes) of her motion, which had been seconded, Caution-Parker rudely said toward Trustee Scott, "Tough!"

Cauiton-Parker often touts her "40 years of experience in Richland 2." My question is, Did she really have 40 years of experience, or did she have one year of experience, 40 times? Her true business experience, which is a quality sorely needed on the school board, doesn't get demonstrated. She said that night that they (the board) were there "for the children". That is, of course, wrong. 

The school board directs the business of the school district; i.e., the operations. Not the hands-on education of the students. That concept should be first-in-mind; it's not.

Wednesday, October 27, 2021

Parental Rights - Secure in R2 Schools?

You'll want to reach this article closely about a Florida case involving a school that provided "guidance" to a minor student , without informing the parents, about accommodating "... her decision to be acknowledged as non-binary and use an alternate name at school."

The school had a "Leon County School District’s Transgender/Gender-Nonconforming Student Support Plan" for the 13-year-old girl.

I'm beginning to hear about "personal pronoun" nonsense in Richland 2 schools for students as young as first grade. 

If you get a sniff of anything like this involving your child, please let me know. I'll write about it in a way that will not identify your child or you.

To what extent, if any, is this happening in Richland 2 schools?

Oct. 26 Board Meeting - Secondary Motion

When is Teresa Holmes going to start paying acttention when Trustee Agostini speaks. It seems to me that she turns off her hearing aid (or Hearing), as soon as Trustee Agostini begins speaking. And, if it involves a secondary motion, the hearing aid switch gets stuck on OFF.

When the draft agenda was being discussed, Trustee Agostini made a (secondary) motion to amend the primary motion (which was to approve the draft agenda). Her secondary motion was to add a discussion of the difference between Critical Race Theory vs. Culturally Relevant Teaching, based on the back-to-school, in-service to staff this fall. Mrs. Agostini's motion begins at (2::56:50) on the Oct. 26th meeting on  

Mrs. Agostini clearly said, "I move ..." Then Holmes asked, "Is that a motion, Ms. Agostini?" OF COURSE, IT IS A MOTION. Will somebody please put a copy of Robert's Rules of Order under Holmes' nose and tell her to inhale deeply?

Trustee Scott seconded the motion. Mrs. Agostini explained why she wanted the item on the agenda, and voting was called. Electronic voting was very slow. The superintendent said something to Holmes that was inaudible to the public. Then Holmes interrupted during the voting pause (2:59:00) and claimed a point of privilege to make a completely unnecessary and possibly incorrect statement. She said, ".. to remind everybody for the public (whatever that means) that Richland 2 school district does not teach critical race theory ..." 

She obviously missed the entire point about Critical Race Theory. The District claims not to teach it, but all the elements seem to be present: equity, inclusion, diversity, 100 Premier Men of Color (the preference of black men to white men in hiring). 

Kind of like "it smells like a pig, looks like a pig, walks like a pig, has pig's ears..., but we don't have any pigs here." Wake up!

Then Trustee Agostini addresses the form of the agenda shown and stated she wanted in on the agenda, not on the draft agenda.

McKie jumped in when she should have spoken correctly or kept her mouth shut. Then Manning further clarified that voting was on the Secondary Motion by Agostini. That had to be voted on before the vote could be taken on the Agenda as amended. Holmes referred to it as a "mouthful".

It is the Chair's responsibility to keep all that straight. Holmes seems completely unable to handle that.

The vote was 6-1 (McKie voting No) to add CRT vs. CRT to the November 16th agenda.

At that point Holmes should have asked the trustees if there were further motions. Instead, she attempted to jump straight to a vote on the primary motion to approve the draft agenda.

(3:02:35) Then Trustee McFadden stated she wished to make a motion to add a discussion of Board Policy BEDB - Board Agenda on the draft agenda for Dec. 14. You MUST listen to this exchange. Ask yourself why the board chair cannot listen and understand the first time what is clear to everyone else in the room. Mrs. McFadden made a motion. Holmes asks, "Are you making a motion?" Seconded by Mrs. Agostini. 

Manning tried to shoot down McFadden's request. It was premature and biased to make such a statement. He wants to keep the status quo, because the chair and the superintendent set the agenda. He certainly could have voted in favor of putting it on the agenda and then, if he wanted to argue against any changes, he could have done so when it was being discussed. It is hard to get something added to the agenda.

Mrs. McFadden wanted the agenda item established now for the draft agenda to be prepared on November 16. She has already learned how difficult it is to get past Holmes and the superintendent. 

Teresa blew some smoke at Mrs. McFadden with her suggestion for Mrs. McFadden to put it in writing "and we can address it that way", which is another way of saying it will go straight into the round file.

And then the superintendent stepped in with his usual long-winded oration. And after all that, Mrs. McFadden's motion was never voted on and, if it had been approved, it never got onto the draft agenda for the Dec. 14th meeting. Watch carefully at the November 16th meeting to see if the superintendent includes her request.

Coming up soon: Board & Superintendent Comments (3:10:50)

Oct. 26 Board Meeting - 1

There appeared to be more security and law-enforcement officers present at last night's board meeting than the 20 members of the public who were admitted to the board room.

Attendance had been severely limited to 20 by the superintendent's edict last Friday, October 22. COVID was mentioned in the media release, but no one outside Administration believed that for two seconds. 

The District seemed to be feeding off the National School Boards Association's (NSBA) assessment of protesting parents as domestic terrorists. The NSBA apologized for its letter to the White House. The knee-jerk reaction at the DOJ and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland's super-fast kick-off of inquiries by his Federal law-enforcement agencies ignited a public furor.

You'll want to hear the comments made by ten of the 20 people in the room. Go to and select the October 26th meeting. Fast-forward (drag) to (1:32:00) for the introduction of last night's Public Participation segment.

Teresa Holmes introduced the public participation segment with a reading and then a condescending comment about her intention to squash anyone who violated her rules. Notice her smug expression during her informal comments and her use of "we", meaning you. She added, "... when we get a little past things, we can open things back and have more people participate."

In other words, "when you people learn how to behave and control yourselves and stop picking on us, we'll let more of you people in." That's what her words meant to me. Notice she does not mention COVID.

And then public participation began (1:34:05).

Monday, October 25, 2021

Draconian "security procedures"

Be sure to read the new draconian so-called "security procedures" on the District's website accompanying the announcement of the October 26th board meeting.

These were never publicly discussed at a board meeting or approved by the board. They were instituted by the superintendent on claim of authority as the Superintendent, although his name does not appear as the person responsible for them.

They obviously were not approved by the District's General Counsel. Surely she would have recognized and advised against infringing on the Constitutional rights of the public.

They lead off with "Members of the community may notice several new safety procedures at the meeting."

"... may notice ..."  Gee, ya' think?

I urge those three trustees who actually think the "community" is important to consider this step when the meeting first opens at 5:30PM. Before entering public session, make a motion to suspend immediately the "new safety procedures" until there is board review and approval.

I am not opposed to the entire new procedures; for example, this part is okay with me: "In order to allow for ... a safe distance between the public and the board ..."

The public needs adequate distancing from the board chair. She refuses to wear a mask and often removes her face shield during the meeting, and not just for speaking. Her breath may contaminate the air near the legal trustees near whom she sits and the public who sit in front of her. She may accidentally spit while speaking. When she exhales, which she occasionally seems to do, her breath may carry germs and viruses into the room.

The public needs and deserves this protection from her. Also, she might lose her death grip on the gavel and send it flying into the audience, where it could cause severe injury to an eye or teeth. Perhaps I really shouldn't sit in the front row.

As it stands now, only 20 members of the public will be admitted tomorrow night. Will the superintendent or "The Four" invite their "friends" (any "paid actors" among them?) to attend (for the first time) and claim the 20 available seats?

The superintendent and anyone who conspired with him to cough up these dumb procedures should be publicly identified and accept responsibility for drafting and implementing them. Tell us how much you really care for the public.

How many of the board members knew what was coming before last Friday at 4:35PM, when the press release went out? Did Teresa Holmes know about the announcement? Manning? McKie? Caution-Parker?

Why did the District pick 4:35PM on a Friday to send it out?

Sunday, October 24, 2021

NSBA apologizes ...

Well, imagine that!

The National School Boards Association (NSBA) has apologized for its letter to the Biden Administration! You know the one - the one that made it to Merrick Garland at the DOJ in only five days and resulting in Garland's unleashing many law enforcement agency to look into all those parents who are domestic terrorists.

In its October 22nd Memo to members of NSBA, it said, in part, "... there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter."

NSBA's Memorandum was put out by its Board of Directors. No one's name was on it, not even the Chairman of the Board or the President of NSBA. Did the Board know about the letter before it was sent, or was the letter put together by someone on his last day and fired off? When such a colosssl error is made, someone's head ought to roll.

This prompts me to think that a real apology should be issued by the Richland 2 Board of Trustees for the huge error made by the superintendent in formulating and releasing the new "safety procedures" for board meeting, which are not safety procedures at all! But an apology won't be enough. And the current board, ruled by The Squad, doesn't have it in them to apologize for anything.

Should the superintendent be fired "for cause"? Without severance pay? Did he just step in a huge, hot,  steaming pile of (what is it that Steve (of Steve-FM) calls it)?

Will a peaceful "January 6th" event happen this Tuesday night?

Out of order? Out the door!

 Achtung. You vill pay close attention to this order!

"Members of the community may notice several new safety procedures at the meeting.
In order to allow for social distancing due to COVID-19, a safe distance between the public and the board, and to ensure adequate access for emergency personnel, capacity for the members of the public who wish to attend the meeting in-person is limited to 20. In case that capacity is reached and to provide members of the public the ability to watch the board meeting from the safety of their home, the meeting will also be streamed live at
Citizens coming to attend the meeting will be allowed in on a first come, first serve basis beginning at 5 p.m. and be seated in the boardroom. As the lobby closes to the public at 5 p.m., citizens attending the board meeting will not be allowed to linger in the lobby.
The public will not be allowed to protest or loiter in front of the main entrance. This is for safety reasons to allow emergency access into the building and for others who have other business to enter the building.
In an effort to effectively maintain a safe environment, any person attending the meeting who is out of order, loud, disruptive, making inappropriate comments, and/or a safety concern will be asked to be seated or leave by a security officer. If the person does not comply, a Richland County Sheriff Deputy will escort them off the property. 
No signage or other objects will be allowed into the facility that could either be a distraction or used as a weapon."

We must all thank the superintendent for the section I have highlighted above.

Which Richland Two security officer will be brave enough to confront the Board Chair when she is out of order? Or loud? Or disruptive? Or makes inappropriate comments? 

When she bangs that gavel time after time on the desk, is she damaging school property? Will she be dragged out in handcuffs? Will we the audience have to sit there and wait while the investigators get the lights just right to photograph the dents in the desk top? I'm sure that any of us will be happy to assist RCSD and hold the lights at just the right angle.

And we will all be witnesses for the security officer, when he is unceremoniously fired the next day for carting off the Board Chair. But wait. She's not really the board chair, since she has never taken the oath of office legally since December 4, 2018, when she first became eligible to take it. Maybe now she'll finally be charged with and prosecuted for usurping public office.

Did you like the "soft sell" in the first sentence about how "Members of the community may notice [emphasis added] several new safety procedures..."? And that garbage about watching the board meeting from the "safety" of your home?

If I weren't such a nice, polite, genteel man, I'd write my honest opinion of that piece of garbage they called an announcement.

Saturday, October 23, 2021

New Rules - - Arrive Early

New rules - only 20 members of the public will be admitted to Tuesday's board meeting on October 26.

To be sure I'd get in the door in time, I arrived Saturday night about 9:15PM. I'm a little concerned about bathroom and showering facilities, but everything always works out okay. With 20 members of the public allowing in that Large meeting room, any extra odors in the room from 3½-day camp-out won't be noticeable.

I debated whether to pitch my sleeping bag by the door, but I remembered the threats in the District's announcement about loitering and lingering and blocking the main entrance. Gee, I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of exercising my First Amendment rights. 

OK, have to get some sleep now. I hope they don't have any roving patrols. Good night, all.

Shameful cowardice of Richland 2 Board!!!

The Richland 2 board should be ashamed of itself for not informing the public on October 12th that harsh new "security procedures" were on the way.

What if 10,000 people showed up at R2i2 on Tuesday afternoon and just walked in. Peacefully, of course. The entire sheriff's department couldn't keep them out. Should this happen?

How the new "safety procedures" were announced was shameful!!! An announcement late on Friday afternoon. Such cowards!!!

It looks to me now like the new rules were presented to the board in executive session on October 12th. The agenda had this item for the executive session: "Security at Public Meetings".

The October 12th Agenda is MIA right now. I'm sure it will be found and restored, but you won't find it on the website right now. You have to watch the video to see the agenda.

Did the superintendent tell the trustees about his plans to alter significantly the public's presence, attendance and participation at future board meetings?

Why did the trustees not inform the public on October 12 that the wind was going to blow in a different direction on October 26? I can tell you one good reason. They flinched. They ducked. They chickened out. They knew a tornado would strike, and they didn't want it at that meeting on October 12.

The superintendent must have informed the board of his draconian plans to begin on October 26. Why did the board allow this? Apparently, he didn't ask for permission, because the board cannot make a decision in executive session. Did he just say, "I am going to do this, whether you like it or not"? Of course, four of the trustees (The Squad) would have liked the new rules, but even they didn't get a chance to vote on them. At least, I don't think so. You don't get to vote in executive session. And you can't "agree to agree".

I went to the livestream video to see the agenda that is projected onto the screen in the meeting room. There is "dead air" until 15:03. The agenda for the Executive Session included "Security at Public Meetings". 

When the meeting got to the point of voting on any executive session item beyond the first two (2:04:25), there was no mention of the "Security at Public Meetings" item on the executive session agenda. 

The agenda item for voting on executive session items did not include "Security at Public Meetings". But it does have this very important line: Item 7.3 "As Needed for items Discussed in Executive Session." 

This was the perfect place to bring it up for a vote!!!

One of The Three could have made a motion to disapprove the superintendent's scheme for "improved" safety procedures. A Second could have been made by another of The Three. That would have opened the item for discussion. Can you just hear the "Out of Order" screams from the Chair? And that poor desk would have taken a beating from the gavel. But to no avail. 

A vote after discussion could possibly have passed, if the Motion had been carefully worded. One of the board members seems to have trouble voting correctly, and she might have voted FOR (the motion to disapprove the security scheme). Then it would have passed!

Friday, October 22, 2021

Tap Dance from Richland 2 about 10/26/2021

Take a look at the new "safety procedures" for Tuesday's board meeting.

These were sent out to Media with the announcement of the October 26, 2021 board meeting. I almost didn't open the email, because it usually is just boilerplate.

I have already let the board, the superintendent and several staff members know my opinion of this.

I informed them that board members don't need protection from the public. It's the PUBLIC that needs protection from this board!!!

If you are also incensed, send your emails to the board and to every parent you know. 

Well, of course you can watch from home. Doesn't that seem like a great opportunity? The board will miss out on your groans and grimaces.

NO! What counts is showing up in person! Who is responsible for such a dumb decision as this? Since the board did not hold a special meeting and make any agreement about this change, I think it's safe to say that the superintendent is 100% responsible for this.

Maybe he is just trying to get fired. Then he can collect $366,000 in severance pay and start a new job on November 1. Think so?

This following is from the District's email. The highlights are mine.

"Members of the community may notice several new safety procedures at the meeting.

In order to allow for social distancing due to COVID-19, a safe distance between the public and the board, and to ensure adequate access for emergency personnel, capacity for the members of the public who wish to attend the meeting in-person is limited to 20. In case that capacity is reached and to provide members of the public the ability to watch the board meeting from the safety of their home, the meeting will also be streamed live at

Citizens coming to attend the meeting will be allowed in on a first come, first serve basis beginning at 5 p.m. and be seated in the boardroom. As the lobby closes to the public at 5 p.m., citizens attending the board meeting will not be allowed to linger in the lobby.

The public will not be allowed to protest or loiter in front of the main entrance. This is for safety reasons to allow emergency access into the building and for others who have other business to enter the building.

In an effort to effectively maintain a safe environment, any person attending the meeting who is out of order, loud, disruptive, making inappropriate comments, and/or a safety concern will be asked to be seated or leave by a security officer. If the person does not comply, a Richland County Sheriff Deputy will escort them off the property. 

No signage or other objects will be allowed into the facility that could either be a distraction or used as a weapon."

The State calls them "screaming matches"

Read this great article in today's The State newspaper about the "screaming matches" at the Richland 2 board meetings. This is one of the best articles about what's going on.

The reporter got quotes from several board members.

Daprile wrote: "The lack of civility is getting so bad it obstructs official business."

I do challenge Daprile's reference to the "group of three board members playing dirty to tip the scales in their favor." He is referring to the walk-out by Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden. They were not "playing dirty". Their walk-out was the only way open to stop "The Four" from over-powering them to a vote on the superintendent's contract that night.

As you may already know, Trustee Agostini made a secondary motion to the motion for approving the agenda for that night. Agostini's secondary motion was to move the agenda item related to the superintendent's contract to the next Regular Meeting. Holmes got lost and didn't understand that the secondary motion was exactly germane to the primary motion. Holmes ruled it wasn't, after getting poor advice from the District's employee General Counsel. 

Holmes' question to the employee attorney was whether the secondary motion was germane. The attorney's voice could not be heard, but then Holmes said, apparently repeating what she had heard, "So it could go either way?" A correct answer would have been that it was germane or it was not. After more discussion, Holmes decided it was going to go her way, and she ruled that Agostini's secondary motion was not germane.

Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden had not received full information about the superintendent's proposed revised contract (amendment), and they wanted adequate time to consider the proposed amendment. "The Four" wanted to approve it that night. Agostine, Scott and McFadden walked out. There was no longer a quorum, and business (but not the meeting) stopped.

Be sure to send a Thank You email to Lucas Daprile at

Serious Errors, 10/12/2021 Minutes

Two serious errors occur in the October 12 Minutes that have been prepared for Board approval on October 26. These Minutes can be viewed in the Agenda on the District's website in the Agenda for the next meeting. These errors should be bought up on October 26 before the Oct. 12th Minutes are approved.

General Comment: The way the Minutes have been prepared for a long time is wrong. The recording secretary alters the agenda as the meeting progresses by inserting notes during the meeting. This does not constitute an adequate or complete record of the meeting.

The chaos, disruption and rancor are not recorded. You'd think it never happened, if you only read the Minutes. The violation of Robert's Rules of Order is not recorded. If you look at the official record, it is sanitized. It's the "vanilla" version.


Action: 9.1 Approval: Bond Refunding Resolution

To approve the bond refunding resolution.
Motion by Lashonda McFadden, second by Amelia McKie.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yes: Cheryl Caution-Parker, Monica E Scott, James Manning, Amelia McKie, Teresa Holmes, Lashonda McFadden
Abstain: Lindsay Agostini

During the agenda item of the Bond Refunding Resolution, no mention is made of Dr. Harry Miley's remarks. No mention is made of Trustee Agostini's reservation about the signature of the Board Secretary, who continues to have significant outstanding ethics fines. No mention is made of the ongoing question about the legitimacy of Amelia McKie's position as Board Secretary (she is not a legitimate board member, cannot serve as Board Secretary, and cannot sign Bond documents. Nor can Teresa Holmes, who also is not a legitimate member of the board.)


12. Approval of Agenda Items for Next Meeting

Action: 12.1 Approval: Draft Agenda Items for October 26, 2021

To approve the draft agenda for October 26, 2021.
Motion by Amelia McKie, second by Cheryl Caution-Parker.
To add Policy BD Organization of the Board to the October 26, 2021 Agenda.
Amended motion by Lindsay Agostini, second by Monica E. Scott
Final Resolution: Motion Fails
Yes: Lindsay Agostini, Monica E Scott, Lashonda McFadden
No: Cheryl Caution-Parker, James Manning, Amelia McKie, Teresa Holmes

Restated motion - To approve the draft agenda for October 26, 2021 Agenda.

Motion by Amelia McKie, second by Cheryl Caution-Parker.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yes: Cheryl Caution-Parker, Monica E Scott, James Manning, Amelia McKie, Teresa Holmes
No: Lindsay Agostini, Lashonda McFadden

No mention is made of the original vote on the motion to add discussion of Board Policy BD, which PASSED. The vote was 4-3. The votes were tallied and posted on the projection screen, which constitutes the "announcement" of the result.

Then Holmes realized that she had made a mistake. She had voted FOR the motion. And then she asked the recording secretary (not the Board Secretary) to change her vote. Holmes was completely wrong to do so. Once the vote is announced, which it was, that IS the vote. If a voter wants her vote changed, it requires the unanimous vote of the board. Robert's Rules of Order §4:42. 

A discussion of Policy BD should be on the agenda for October 26. It is not

Integrity of the position of Board Chair would have resulted in inclusion of Policy BD for discussion on this agenda. Even though it was officially (improperly) voted down on October 12, the board chair and superintendent could have added it. They didn't.

Wednesday, October 20, 2021

Holmes grad school corrected

Previously I wrote that Teresa Holmes' board chair bio on the District's website described her Ed.S and Ed.D. degrees as being from North Central University.

North Central University is an accredited bricks-and-mortar institution in Minneapolis, Minnesota, founded in 1930. It is a private Christian university that is associated with the Assemblies of God. It grants degrees in religious majors. It does not award degrees of Ed.S. and Ed.D.

My request resulted in a change, but not correction, of Holmes' degrees to being from NorthCentral University. So I wrote back. Close, but still not correct.

The District's website has now been corrected to show her degrees as being from Northcentral University. It is a private online school in San Diego, Calif. Its programs are offered online only.  

Wkipedia reports on Northcentral University with:

"In 2011 the US Department of Education determined Northcentral was one of 75 US institutions failing its 2009-2010 financial responsibility test (a measure of the institution's financial solvency), and would be required to post a letter of credit in order for students to receive federal financial aid.[11] Northcentral also failed its 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 financial responsibility tests, scoring zero for 2010-2011 on a scale of -1 to 3, lower than the 0.2 it earned the prior term; 0.2 for 2011-2012; and 0.2 again for 2012-2013.[12] In 2015 the US Department of Education placed Northcentral on "HCM-Cash Monitoring 1" status because of its financial issues.[13]

"In 2019, the National University System (California) acquired Northcentral University, in effect, converting Northcentral University into a non-profit institution. [6] " [Footnotes in the original; not copied here]

Academics and financial condition would not be necessarily related.

Superintendent's Contract - no date

Carelessness occurred with the superintendent's contract amendment, when it was signed recently. Holmes signed for the Board, and McKie witnessed the document. What was the carelessness?

All three forgot to insert the day in September 2021 when it was signed. It reads, "IN WITNESS WHEREOF, on September ___, 2021 the Board caused this Fifth Amendment to be approved on its behalf by its duly authorized Chair, and the Superintendent has approved this amendment."

Does that mean it is not in effect?

The other "minor" problem is that the signers for the District are not legitimate board members. Holmes is not the legitimate Board Chair, because she is not a legitimate member of the board. McKie is not the legitimate Board Secretary, because she is not a legitimate member of the board. Neither Holmes nor McKie has ever taken the oath of office legally.

One of these days Holmes and McKie will be removed from the board, and all the days between November 13, 2018 and the date of removal will be considered a period when they were not board members. Every vote, action and document will have to be reviewed. All the votes of Holmes and McKie will have to be removed. Board decisions will change. 

Bond documents with their signatures will have to be re-done.

The superintendent's contract and emendments will have to be re-done. The superintendent is a smart guy about his own contract and money. He ought to be insisting on signatures of legitimate board officers, for his own protection and that of his estate, should he die before the expiry of the contract. He has $367,329 ($244,886 x 1.5) at risk. Would he want his family to have to fight for it?

Teresa's signature is interesting. She signed the contract with a nearly-illegible signature, "Dr. Teresa Holmes". Hmmm, does her birth certificate say "Dr." on it? 

The document reads that it is signed by the "duly authorized" chair. Did anyone hear a motion by the board that authorized Holmes to sign the amendment to the contract?

Why Teachers Hunker Down

Remember when so many teachers showed up at school board meetings when Red4Ed was clamoring for (what was it?)? Oh, yes; money. And when most of the board supported the walk-out planned for May 1 that year and even said they'd be at the demonstration? And all Richland 2 schools were forced to close on one-day notice?

The trustees forgot that they are Management, not Labor!

Read this article about Louisian Spanish teacher Jonathan Koeppel. He was fired for refusing to wear a mask, even though he had a medical exemption. What he was really fired for, according to him, was his conservative views. He opposes Critical Race Theory and Gender Dysphoria. He spoke out at school board meetings.

Danger, danger, danger. And he uses bad words, too; like, "indoctrinating kids".

He is suing in Federal District Cover to get his job back or compensation for its loss.

Thi article appears in The Daily Signal, a publication of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.

Where are the Richland 2 teachers and administrators at school board meetings? Are they choosing job security and a paycheck over their First Amendment rights to speak out? That's not a choice they should have to make!

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Heritage Foundation sounds off on NSBA

I'd never heard of the National Schools Boards Association (NSBA) before about February 2019. That was soon after Teresa Holmes took office in November, and she was treated to an all-expense trip to Washington, DC for an annual meeting of the NSBA (thank you very much, Richland 2) . From her photos on Facebook, it sure looked like she was enjoying herself. Of course, that was before she blocked me on Facebook.

For several years I've been a member of The Heritage Foundation, which is a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C..

Read this Heritage Foundation article about the NSBA. What is the NSBA, and Why Is It Trying To Shut Down Parents?

Watch the video embedded in the article titled The Truth about Critical Race Theory.

The article says that the NSBA has "a liberal political agenda nearly indistinguishable from teachers unions."

Local school boards and local school board members are not members of the NSBA. They are members of the state school boards associations; e.g., the South Carolina School Boards Association (SCSBA). The SCSBA gets money from Richland 2. And SCSBA tells Richland 2 how to do certain things.

Apparently, it approved (or at least condoned) the use of personal email addresses by board members a few years ago. I was told that the reason was to allow the smallest, poorest school boards in the state to have email communications, when they were too small or too broke to afford their own email server.

And two people on the board here think that the SCSBA says it's okay for them to use gmail accounts. Well, if Federal and State FOIA laws count for anything, it's not okay.

Richland 2 is big enough to be telling the SCSBA, not the other way around.

SCSBA Opinion of NSBA Letter

Here's a letter sent by the Executive Director Scott Price of the South Carolina School Boards Association (SCSBA) to school board members and superintendents. These board members are the people who are the dues-paying members (well, not their own money, of course) of SCSBA, and they should be telling Scott Price what to do and say. Are they?

Yesterday he wrote:

National School Boards Association (NSBA) Interim Executive Director Chip Slaven and NSBA President Viola Garcia sent a letter on September 29, 2021, to President Joe Biden asking for “federal assistance to stop threats and acts of violence against public school children, public school board members, and other public school district officials and educators.” SCSBA was not aware of the letter prior to it being sent.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland responded October 4, 2021, that he was directing the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to begin meeting with state and local law enforcement leaders over the next month to address threats against school board members, school and district leaders, teachers, and other school personnel. 

NSBA’s letter and the response from DOJ have been covered by national media and on social media platforms.

Since then, a significant number of state school boards associations – including neighboring Southern Region states – are reporting that the letter and the DOJ response have generated harsh negative reactions directed at them, as well as some local school boards from groups and political leaders in their states. In response, NSBA issued the attached 3-page Q&A to state associations.

As SCSBA executive director, I am very concerned about NSBA’s letter insomuch as it calls for federal intervention and I have directed these concerns to NSBA’s leadership.

SCSBA believes that most school board members in South Carolina would prefer to handle such matters – as you have been doing – through local law enforcement. As you are aware, most school board meetings in our state have a very visible law enforcement presence, whether it’s city police, deputies or school resource officers. And, yes, some of you have had to increase that presence such as having officers outside the district office before, during and after meetings. Similarly, we believe that most school board members would be most content with turning over any such matters warranting investigation to local or state law enforcement.

In South Carolina, school boards welcome and desire public input. There is no law in our state requiring it, yet every board reserves time for public comment, even when those comments from constituents, parents and even students is emotional or angry.

If incidents occur that warrant a federal investigation or otherwise federal presence, then it should be handled appropriately. Otherwise, we believe that our members would prefer to handle such matters locally.

If you receive questions regarding the letter, you are welcome to direct them to SCSBA. As a reminder, local school district boards of trustees are not members of the National School Boards Association. The South Carolina School Boards Association and other state school boards associations are the members of NSBA; however, NSBA has a separate governance structure from SCSBA and state associations. Through SCSBA’s membership, member school boards have access to national resources and training services. These include timely federal legal and legislative advocacy, reports and updates and more.

Please know that we are closely monitoring the impact of NSBA’s actions in South Carolina. If you would like to discuss this further, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me.

We know that you are leading in challenging times and SCSBA is here to support you. 

Scott didn't mention anything about pulling out of NSBA, which some other state school boards associations have done.

Maybe Scott Price ought to run over here to a Richland 2 School Board meeting some Tuesday night and experience the "welcome" that the public gets. Maybe he'll stick around to the end of the meeting and walk out to the parking lot with Cheryl Caution-Parker.

Holmes & McKie - on the board illegally. Here's why...

Since February 2019 I have complained to the Richland 2 School Board that there are two women on the board illegally.

Do you agree?

Disclosure of Economic Interests
SECTION 8-13-1110. Persons required to file statement of economic interests.
(A) No public official, regardless of compensation, and no public member or public employee as designated in subsection (B) may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests in accordance with the provisions of this chapter with the appropriate supervisory office. 

11/6/2018 Holmes and McKie were elected to the school board.
11/13/2018 Holmes and McKie were sworn in and attended that night's board meeting.
11/14/2018? Richland 2 submitted notarized oath of office documents to the S.C. Secretary of State.
12/4/2018 Holmes and McKie filed their Statements of Economic Interest (SEI) with the Ethics Commission.
Upon information and belief, Holmes and McKie have not taken the oath of office since 12/4/2018.

Did they take the oath of office before they filed their SEIs?

There; that wasn't so hard, was it?

Commissions, Oaths, and Bonds
SECTION 8-3-10. Oath and commission prerequisite to assumption of duties.
It shall be unlawful for any person to assume the duties of any public office until he has taken the oath provided by the Constitution and been regularly commissioned by the Governor.

Holmes and McKie are illegally in office, because they have never taken the oath of office legally.

They were "qualified" to take it, because they were elected.

But they were not "eligible" to take the oath on Nov. 13, 2018, because they had not filed their SEIs.

They became "eligible" to take the oath on Dec. 4, 2018, after they filed their SEIs.

But they have never taken the oath on or since Dec. 4, 2018.

Thus, they are usurping public office and should be removed. Immediately.

Convince me I'm wrong...

Monday, October 18, 2021

Too much month left at the end of the money?

What would Cheryl Caution-Parker say to this explanation of family money management? Her answer would probably be: "Tough."

She frequently speaks of her 40 years in Richland 2. Did she ever teach any courses that students would use for life?

I don't know the source of this. I snagged it from Facebook.

Have you been wondering why is seems to be harder and harder to make ends meet?

Does your family budget look like this?

These are lessons that Richland 2 students need to learn.

Let More Than Ten Sign Up to Speak

If you wish to address the school board at a Regular Meeting (not a Special-Called Meeting or Workshop), you must arrive early and sign up on two sheets of paper. The usual deadline is 15 minutes before the start of the reconvened public session (after the executive session).

Recently, the sign-up sheet vanished 45 minutes before the starting time. That got corrected.

On October 12 ten speakers had signed up and the sheet was removed before the 15-minute deadline. A couple from Blythewood arrived before the deadline, and the man wanted to sign up. I helped him find the staffer with the sheet, but he was refused because there were already ten names on the list.

Because the announced plan on the agenda is for five people to speak during the first Public Participation segment and five to speak during the second segment, I suggested that the man be allowed to sign up as Number 11. 

My reasoning? If one of the registerd speakers left the meeting early, then No. 11 would move up and could speak.

Nope. There are Rules. Only ten can sign up. 

I couldn't help wondering - if someone else had suggested that, would the suggestion have been accepted?

As it happened, the board allowed all ten to speak during the first Public Participation segment on October 12. I thanked them for that courtesy as I began my own remarks.

What do you think? Good idea? Email the board and tell them what you think.

Sunday, October 17, 2021

For the Board: Do This Now

Understanding that it's hard to get members of a public body (ex., a school board) together for a meeting or a workshop, I recommend the following online course to the seven members of the Richland 2 school board. 

If they got together in-person with a live training, there would have to be Notice of a meeting, and it would have to be open to the public. Some members would be "politically correct" and choose "nice" words, rather than being totally honest, if a workshop were held in public. Then some feelings will get hurt. And then, Look Out!

So, instead of a workshop on a Saturday and its attendant expenses, I urge the seven members to register for this online course by Ann G. Macfarlane titled Take Control of Your Meetings Using Robert's Rules. It'll cost the District $179 x 7, or $1,253. All should enroll, and they should agree on a certain minimum pace of completion. There are 16 short lessons; less than two hours in total time.

Click on the course title for more information.

From the website comes this information, if you are not going to look for more detail.

"This self-paced online course will equip you to run controlled, fair and democratic meetings using four fundamental guidelines. After taking this course, you will be able to:

  1. Describe how to conduct meetings as a “benevolent dictator.”
  2. State the correct action when fundamental guidelines are broken.
  3. Process the motions Point of Order and Appeal.
  4. Label and respond to five inappropriate remarks.
  5. Assert the authority of the group when the chair is out of line.
It's time for order in the meetings. After each board member completes the online training, having paid attention, taken good notes, and recorded questions, then the board ought to get Robert's Rules of Order expert, Attorney Helen McFadden, back for an in-person workshop.

U.S. Civil Rights Commission Members pen letter

Four members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, including Columbia's Stephen Gilchrist, have penned a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland about his Memo regarding protesting parents and domestic terrorists.

The four wrote as members of the Commission and not on behalf of the Commission. That's an important distinction, when one is a member of a recognized commission, entity, or even something like a public body (such as a school board).

See yesterday's FoxNews article with this headline:

US Commission on Civil Rights members blast AG Garland for memo on parents protesting school boards

Click on the headline to read the article. The letter to AG Garland is embedded in a link in the first paragraph of that article.

You can go directly to the letter by clicking here.

This is a powerful letter on behalf of parents who are trying to make a point with school board members. Speech, even forceful speech, is not terrorism. Parents should not have to worry about a knock on the door at midnight after they have attended a school board meeting.

Share this blogpost and/or the FoxNews article and/or the letter itself with people and groups.

Email this blogpost to friends, colleagues, neighbors by clicking on the email icon at the bottom of this post. I do not see the email address you enter, and I know of no record kept of your sharing it or who receives it.

Why Are Deputies at School Board Meetings

Why does Richland 2 contract with the Richland County Sheriff's Department to have so many deputies present at every school board meeting?

Can anyone remember a time when they were needed in a hurry? Even one? I can't, and I've been attending meetings since February 2018.

On October 12th two deputies were at the entrance and prevented one parent from entering the building because he was not wearing a mask.

Let me say, right up front, that I am on a friendly basis with the deputies who get stuck with Richland 2 school board meeting duty. They are good guys. And they handled the situation well on October 12 by not arresting the man who wanted to enter. Apparently, the District wanted him to be issued a Trespassing citation.

No crime was being committed. They knew that, and that's why no arrest was made.

The deputies are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Somebody told them to be at that door. Who? Did a Richland 2 administrator give them the order? Or did their superior officers at RCSD tell them to do whatever they were told to do (by school officials)?

The deputies are likely present under a Special Duty Agreement between Richland 2 and the sheriff's department. One important provision in the standard Special Duty Agreement is this: 

"Deputies will not enforce any rules and regulations set up by the employer [sic] that is [sic] not otherwise violations of the law." (RCSD could use a little help with content and grammar.)

The mask mandate is a Richland 2 rule or regulation created by the superintendent. It is not a law. There is no mask mandate state law.

There is, however, an ordinance (law) created by the Richland County Council. But the Fire Marshals are to enforce it, and the fine for violating it is $25.00.

After the meeting deputies seemed to be in a hurry to clear the audience out of the board room. Anyone else notice that?

I am writing to Sheriff Lott to ask him to get a legal opinion as to whether RCSD deputies can be used at the front door to keep people out or if they can be used inside the board room to usher the audience out or even prevent a member of the audience from approaching a board member after the meeting.

In the past I've been told that I cannot approach a board member after the meeting ends, because the meeting is over. That's wrong. It's a public meeting room. If public officials are there, most of them invite the public to say hello and ask questions or make comments.

I may file a FOIA request for the agreement between Richland 2 and RCSD to learn the cost of the three deputies. (The cost to a nearby HOA for Special Duty deputies is $45.00/hour each.) If there are three deputies present from 5:30PM-9:00PM, the cost is $472 (3.5 hours x 3 x $45). Multiply that times the number of meetings, and pretty soon it becomes real money. $472 x 2 (meetings/month) x 12 mos. x 3.5 years = $39,000+   Money right down the drain. 

The armed law-enforcement officers of RCSD are not private security guards for Richland 2. Their only function at meetings should be Law Enforcement; i.e., to keep the peace, prevent crimes, take action if crimes are occurring or are about to occur. They should not be there to block doorways or screen people entering or rush the public out of a meeting room.

Will S.C. SBA follow Penna.?

Parents: Are you domestic terrorists? Should your local school board fear your comments at public meetings and any Constitutionally-protected peaceful protests?

The Pennsylania School Boards Association (PSBA) has bailed out of the National School Boards Association (NSBA) over the latter's letter about parents becoming domestic terrorists.

Read this article, which explains the PSBA withdrawal.

Should the South Carolina School Boards Association follow Pennsylvania out the door? Absolutely!

How could that happen?

Parents need to persuade their school district to take that stand. Then the local school district needs to direct its representative(s) to the state school boards association to take that stand. If enough parents put fast pressure on their local school districts, that could happen.

I had several sets of remarks ready for last week's Richland 2 school board meeting. As it happened, I couldn't even get through the one set that I had selected.

Send your emails to ALL the Richland 2 school board members (send one group email). Here are the addresses, Just copy and paste. 

Richland 2 school board members (including two who aren't really legal members):,,,,,,, 

Send a cc: to Scott Price, Executive Director of the SCSBA, at

Ask them to make a formal request to the South Carolina School Boards Association to withdraw from the National School Boards Association. Ask them to request this item be placed on the agenda of the next school board meeting. Ask for a response.

Did Holmes Damage School Property?

If I had one of those clicker counter-things, I'd try to count the number of times Holmes banged that gavel on her desk at the October 12 school board meeting. Maybe I'll get one.

Any guesses, readers? Put your guess in the Comment section below.

During one of her outbursts, she banged the gavel so loudly and so many times that I exclaimed that it hurt my ears.

But here's the point. By rapping that gavel so hard, did she damage the desk? Wish I had thought to look at its surface after the meeting. 

If there is damage to the desk, should Holmes be charged with destruction of school property?

There certainly were plenty of witnesses!

Why was Holmes maskless?

Why was Teresa Holmes maskless for so much of the October 12th school board meeting?

The superintendent has imposed a mask mandate in the schools. The trustees were wearing their masks. Trustee-elect McKie was wearing her mask. The superintendent and staff wore theirs. The audience, if it wanted to enter R2i2, had to mask up.

But Holmes? 

Holmes won't wear a mask, anyway. How many times during the meeting did she remove her face shield (seen in the photo on the desk to her right)?

Suggestion: On October 25th (the day before the next board meeting) send an email to all the board members, including trustees-elect Holmes and McKie, and ask them to monitor Holmes. If she takes off the shield other than to blow her nose, request them to ask Holmes immediately to put it back on.

After all, they are there "for the children". Just ask Caution-Parker or even Holmes herself. 

What if Holmes infects someone who infects someone who infects some student who then infects some adult who dies? Will that make Holmes a murderer (or is it murderess)?

By the way, Holmes should probably overcome her vanity and get some glasses. Notice how she has trouble reading words on a sheet of paper at arm's length?

Saturday, October 16, 2021

Should Teresa Holmes Resign? Read this...

Media are reporting the resignation of Beth Barts from the Loudon County (Va.) Public School Board.

Read this article from ABC-7 (Washington, D.C.)

A parent advocacy group had this to say about Barts:

"[Barts] has shown a complete inability to comply with the law, her own code of conduct, and the basic decency that accompanies being an elected official in the United States of America," Fight for Schools Executive Director Ian Prior said in an August statement."

And read this post on Facebook to the page of North Carolina School Choice:

"'At the direction of the Orange County Public Schools (Hillsborough, N.C.) board of education chair, parents and members of the public were ejected from the Oct. 11 board meeting by Orange County sheriffs’ deputies.

"The reason? Apparently speaking about concerns and topics that were not on the meeting agenda.
"Attendees were also subjected to metal detectors and told they could not congregate on the premises of A.L. Stanback Middle School where the meeting was being held.
"Several times during the meeting, (Board Chair Hillary) Mackenzie was heard to say, 'you cannot talk on that topic,' before motioning for deputies to remove the person. Loud booing throughout the auditorium followed."

Are school board members being led by state school boards associations to believe they can act like that? Then state school boards whine to the National School Boards Assn., which whines to the White House, which whines to Merrick Garland, who then issued a really dumb Memo about protesting parents being domestic terrorists.

As I told the Richland 2 school board members and the public last Tuesday, "I am not a domestic terrorist. I am not any kind of terrorist."

Richland 2 didn't have these kinds of problems just a short few years ago. The first school board meeting I attended was two weeks after the February 14, 2018 shooting in Parkland, Fla. 

It was a pleasure to go to those meetings. The meetings today? Not so much. But still, very important.

It was great to see the conference room full last Tuesday. Standing Room Only. Another man and I offered our seats to two standing standing along the back wall, but they declined our offers.

The next school board meeting here is Tuesday, October 26.

So, should Teresa Holmes follow Beth Barts out the door? She'd be happier. We'd be happier. Win/win!