Friday, September 17, 2021

Must-read Article in

Reporter Lucas Daprile dug deeply into the Richland 2 school board's meeting where Trustee Manning moved to get legal advice on Proviso 1.108. Read the article here.

Only it turns out that the board GOT the legal information during that executive session.

The purpose of the Motion by Manning was to give the superintendent the green light to file the lawsuit.

Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden got snookered. Read the article.

Libby Roof provided a statement (the article doesn't say to whom). The article states, "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.”

However, the following statement by Mrs. Roof does not look truthful to me.

“'The approved motion provided the authority for district leaders legal relief from (the one-year mask law) in order to protect our students and employees,' Roof said."

Manning's Motion did not say that. 

I highlighted the word "received" for a reason. That's to call your attention to the revelation that the board actually got the information during the executive session, which Manning later made a Motion to obtain.

How that for deceit?

Up until reading that statement today, it had appeared to me (and, I think, to others) that Manning's motion, as approved 6-1, directed the superintendent to get information. But now it turns out that the board already had the information.

This is the right time for Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker and Manning to resign from the board.

Is an Earpiece in use?

Look again at the video-recording of the September  14, 2021 Regular Board Meeting of the Richland 2 School Board. Go to

Fast-forward to 1:16:50 where, after the Pledge of Allegiance, the board chair asked for a motion to approve the agenda for that night's meeting.

McKie makes the motion; Manning seconds. The chair calls for discussion.

Mrs. Agostini is recognized. After a brief audio interruption the end of her motion can be heard, and that was to postpone the agenda item about superintendent's contract. A woman's voice can be heard seconding the motion.

You can hear Mrs. Agostini stating that a main motion can be amended, while the camera is on Holmes, who isn't saying anything. Watch Holmes closely. She says, "OK. ... OK   ... OK" and states, "It does have to be germane to the motion."

Mrs. Agostini thinks that Holmes is speaking to her, but is she? Is Holmes really agreeing to something being said to her and then repeating what was said?

Is there a possibility that Holmes is wearing an earpiece and is listening to someone giving her information and guidance?

If Holmes were put under oath and asked about an earpiece, how would she answer - under penalty of perjury?

For Holmes to say, as if she had thought of it herself, "It has to be germane", would be very unusual. Holmes does not have a good grasp on parliamentary procedures.

Just as board members are not to use cell phones, texts, emails, etc. between themselves or to or from the outside, a board member can't have someone whispering in her ear.

Everybody - all the board members and the public - is entitled to hear every word said during a public meeting. This is why I have complained about side-conversations among board members and/or with the superintendent. When one is speaking and two others are having a side conversation, we can't hear that conversation.

Watch the video. What do YOU think?

Sue Richland 2 Board over the lawsuit?

Should the Richland 2 School Board be sued over the lawsuit filed in the S.C. Supreme Court?

The Board never authoirzed the lawsuit in open session by a board vote - in public.

At the August 16th Special-Called Board meeting, Trustee Manning made this motion: “I make a motion that the board authorizes the District to engage legal counsel to provide best option and legal strategy to address Appropriations Budget Proviso 1.108, including consulting with Richland County Council with regards [sic] to protecting the health, safety and well-being of our students and employees." 

Read that carefully. Nowhere does it authorize "the District" (meaning, the superintendent") to commence legal action. It authorizes the superintendent to learn the "best option and legal strategy" which, of course, might be not to do anything.

Did the Board, in Executive Session on August 16th, actually give the superintendent the green light to go ahead?

That is, did the Board make a decision to allow the superintendent to proceed? State law does not permit decisions in executive session. Decisions can only be made in public, by vote.

If not (and they should not have done so), did the superintendent act on his own?

If he did, that ought to have a bearing on his evaluation and his revised contract.

So, sue the Board or not?

The State's editorial board is wrong! No "shenanigans"

 At 8:58AM today (9/17/21) The State's editorial board published a follow-up article and used the word "shenanigans" in the headline of its online paper. The State's board is wrong. 

There were NO shenanigans, contrary to the board chair's use of talso he word. Or, if there were, they were pulled by the board's chair and vice-chair. 

Manning supposedly explained "The board’s designee, the superintendent and their respective legal counsel have input and come up with a contract that is then taken to the board." 

What he should have said is "proposed revised contract".

The FACT is that the board never designated a board member to represent the board in negotiations. Did anyone ever hear the board vote on that in public? I didn't. So, an unauthorized representative of the board met with the supt. and counsels of each and played "Let's Make a Deal". Those are the "shenanigans".

Since the chair can call a Special Meeting and the superintendent and the board chair set the agenda for the Special-Calling Board Meeting on September 22, the superintendent is trying to get his way with the end-run at last week's abortion of a meeting. He forgets that he works at Richland 2. He doesn't run Richland 2. He follows directives.

Yet you'd think that he owns Richland 2. And maybe he does, since "the four" (a/k/a (to me) "The Squad" (and that does include McKie, although she'd like to deny it)) fall all over themselves to give him anything he wants. Now he wants more money. 

And exactly why should he get it? Oh, you say, he might leave and go somewhere else. Well, fine; let him. Richland 2 should not be held hostage!

As of 9:48AM today the District has not updated its website to disclose the Special-Called Meeting on September 22. Yesterday that meeting was posted on 2, where video space is reserved. No agenda has yet been published. But, if you remember from Tuesday night, the superintendent asked for a Special-Called Meeting with the only item as his contract. 

Some gall, eh? He didn't even wait for one of his worshippers to suggest it.

There is no need for a Special-Called Meeting on September 22. Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden should stay away.

The superintendent's desire for more money (and perks?) can wait until the next Regular Meeting on September 28. Approval is guaranteed, if there is a quorum. There is no doubt whatsoever that Holmes, Manning, McKie and Caution-Parker will just sign a blank check. No need to even discuss the revised contract.