Thursday, September 9, 2021

Picking Attorneys and Filing Lawsuits

The following letter has been sent to the Richland 2 school board. Will the board address these questions at the September 14th board meeting?

Board Members and trustees-elect Holmes and McKie,

I encourage a close reading of this article in the Voice newspaper

As you read it, ask yourselves

1. Did you sign, or authorize the signing of, an engagement letter with 
a. Attorney Carl Solomon?
b. Attorney Skyler Hutto?
c. Attorney W. Allen Nickles III?

2. Did you actually authorize litigation in the Executive Session but fail to disclose it to the public when you voted?

3. Had the superintendent already laid the groundwork for a lawsuit before you approved Manning's Motion on August 16? 

4. Does it not seem unusual to you that the superintendent could thoroughly research the "best option and legal strategy" in only three days and that a court case could be properly researched and filed on the Friday after a Monday board meeting - without further board action and approval?

I presume you know what an engagement letter for legal services includes. Are the pro bono services totally free of any and all charges (ex., expenses, filing fees, etc.), or is there "fine print" in the letter that discloses expenses that will be charged? A standard Engagement Letter is often two pages in length.

Each of you should be demanding from Supt. Davis exactly what his contact was with Kathryn Mahoney, the attorney for the school district, and what her advice was about proceeding with litigation, and what he learned through any consult with the Richland County Council that you authorized.

Release to the public exactly how you authorized the superintendent to file a lawsuit in the S.C. Supreme Court without explicit approval by the school board.


Gus Philpott

Supreme Court - MIA?

Is anyone else wondering what happened to the five justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court?

Where is the decision from the August 31st court session involving Richland 2? It didn't take them long to toss the City of Columbia action.

Isn't the issue about the same? About the use of state funds to announce and enforce a mask mandate?

I understand they will consider a case on its individual merits. The Chief Justice announced that the decision would be made on the law. The rise in COVID cases has nothing to do with it.

If Richland 2 wants a mask mandale, it can impose one. It can announce and enforce it. It just can't use State funds to do so.

Easy. Right?