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?