Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Not a little wrong - a LOT wrong

Just returned from the circus (err, the school board meeting). I'll write more in detail tomorrow, but about all I can say is, "Holmes wasn't just a little wrong tonight (as board chair), she was a LOT wrong.

She was following the book on meeting order called "Holmes' Rules of Order", when she should have been following Robert's Rules of Order.

She interrupted me several times during my three minutes for Public Participation. Worse, she interrupted Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden.

As I sat in the meeting, I looked up Point of Order, in Robert's Rules of Order. Yes, I do have my own copy. Surprised? I didn't think so.

If you want to see chaos, watch tonight's meeting. Go to livestream.com/richland2 and select October 12, 2021. Fast-forward to 1:15:45 to pass the long stretch while the board was in Executive Session.

Amelia McKie gave the shortest Inspiration Moment ever. She ended with "Be kind. Be kind. Be kind." (Did Teresa Holmes miss that?)  It didn't take long for the fireworks and chaos to ensue.

McKie Disturbed by Email

This screen-print is fairly hard to read, but I found it today on Teresa Holmes' Facebook page. Amelia Butler McKie posted about the infamous September 14, 2021 Richland 2 School Board meeting - the "walk-out" meeting.

In her post she misleads the public. She wrote: "Although our board is comprised of 7 members and the majority stayed to conduct the business of the District, our current policy states that 5 board members are required to conduct an official business meeting." The words are true; her meaning is misleading.

It does not matter one whit that the "majority" (of 7) stayed. A legal quorum is required. The District's quorum is five, as decided by a previous board. The chair and every one of the four there should have immediately recognized that there was no longer a quorum. But they sat there, mum on the topic; that is, until the superintendent finally brought up the elephant in the room - that a quorum was no longer present and all they could do was adjourn. 

The most egregious statement is her "because I've received a very disturbing email encouraging the board members who walked out to do it again". 

McKie (alone) did not receive that email. ALL the board members received that email. I know, because I sent it. 

On September 19 I sent the following email to ALL board members. A copy of that email also went to the superintendent, the District's legal counsel, the outside attorney for the school district, the publisher of The Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County, reporters at The State and at the Post and Courier, and the General Manager at WIS-TV. I wonder if they were all "very disturbed", too.

I urge you to cancel the Sept. 22 Special-Called board meeting and place the superintendent's contract  discussion and decision on the agenda of the Regular Meeting for September 28.

Since it is the public that pays the superintendent's compensation, please allow the public's input through Public Participation, not just individual emails and telephone calls that don't get compiled and publicized.

You can avoid the illusion of subterfuge, collusion and conspiracy by conducting the business of the School Board with complete transparency and by answering fully to the public on September 28.

If the Sept. 22 meeting is not canceled, I urge Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden not to attend the meeting, resulting in no quorum.

In fact, if the Sept. 22 meeting is held, the legal members of the board (Agostini, Scott, McFadden, Manning, Caution-Parker) will constitute a quorum. Holmes and McKie are not legitimate members of the board and should not be present or voting.

A legal vote by the five legal members of the board might look like this:

Motion to approve the superintendent's revised contract:
Yea: Caution-Parker, Manning
Nay: Agostini, Scott, McFadden
Result: 2-3. Motion fails

I request a trustee at the Sept. 28 meeting to make a motion to allow the board to respond to public comments and questions at that meeting.

What was "very disturbing" about it? Are those words that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland will use to accuse me of being a domestic terrorist? Is that email part of the Item 2.4 on today's school board meeting agenda. Will I be carried out of tonight's meeting?

Why didn't McKie, as Board Secretary, stand with Agostini, Scott and McFadden? She heard them say they had not received materials in time for adequate consideration before a vote. Did she care? Why didn't she speak up against Holmes, Manning and Davis? 

Why didn't she insist that those more important-items involving "the children" take precedence over the superintendent's pay increase? At least, McKie didn't refer to "our babies" in her message.