SRO Program - adding ten in Richland 2

RICHLAND TWO AND RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT JOINT NEWS CONFERENCE

COLUMBIA, S.C. — 

WHAT: Officials with Richland School District Two and the Richland County Sheriff’s Department will hold a news conference to provide an update on the progress to add 10 School Resource Officers at Richland Two schools after receiving a grant from the
S.C. Department of Public Safety.

WHEN:  Wednesday, March 2, 2022, at 9 a.m. 

WHERE:  Richland Two Institute of Innovation (R2i2) Conference Center

How much manpower will be wasted on Wednesday morning, when a celebration is planned for something that is just a matter of pushing paper and money around?

Why not make a video and publish it on Livestream? 

An announcement like that would be perfectly adequate to inform the public that money has been found for ten more SROs. Why should there be pomp and circumstance surrounding this announcement?

Unless a few people are just wanting to plant more feathers in their caps and say, "Look at me. Look at me."

Richland 2 currently spends $4.5 Million on SROs. I was shocked a couple of years ago when the $150,000/year cost was mentioned at a board meeting. If I recall correctly, the cost of a deputy was about $80,000 and the sheriff charged $70,000/year for the deputy's equipment (uniform, firearm, leather, all the 40 lbs. of equipment, AND a patrol car).

A SRO's patrol car is a commuter vehicle. Why not tell him to drive his own car to work and back?

If there is a need to transport a miscreant to jail, call a road deputy for that. 

What McKie learned at the SCSBA party

What was it that Amelia McKie said at the February 22, 2022 board meeting?

Keep in mind that McKie has been on the school board since 2014. She has served as an officer of the board several times, and sometimes illegitimately. Like now.

She went to the South Carolina School Boards Association's annual convention on Hilton Head Island. It was held February 17-20. 

What did she learn? That there are three levels of authority that Richland 2 is governed by. 

1. S.C. law; 

2. Board Policy; 

3. Robert's Rules of Order.

Well!!! Wonder of all wonders! The mysteries of the Universe are revealed. How much of her $7,000 annual board expense money did it cost us for her to learn that?

Seriously? She spoke on February 22nd like that was something new. There is absolutely nothing new about that. 

That's how it always has been. That's how it is. That's how it will be.

The problem at Richland 2 is that the school board doesn't recognize it.

If it did, it would not tolerate two women on the board who have never taken the oath-of-office legally.

If it did, it would not tolerate a woman on the board who owes $57,100 to the S.C. Ethics Commission and who hasn't made any significant payments since a judgment was filed on July 10, 2019, in the Richland County Common Pleas Court.

If it did, it would not have tolerated a woman to continue serving as Board Chair between November 2018 and June 30, 2019, when she was no longer a legitimate member of the board (because she had not taken the oath-of-office legally).

And the board would not have elected her to serve as Secretary during the 2021-2022 school year, because only a legitimate board member can serve as an officer.

As Secretary, she should object when Minutes are inaccurate. Does she? Ever? Does she read the Minutes before a meeting? Does she read them critically? Shouldn't she be looking for errors and omissions? Shouldn't she be the first to make a motion to amend the Minutes and correct errors and omissions?

R2 changes FOIA procedure

In response to a FOIA Request filed this morning for all the records and statements pertaining to the January 25, 2022 incident (you know the one) just prior to the beginning of the board meeting at 5:30PM, I was informed by the FOIA Officer of a new procedure.

Now the District requets (requires?) the Request to be made on its webform, which can be found at www.richland2.org/FOIA  Before I use that form, I'll review South Carolina law. Many states allow a request to be submitted in narrative format, not using any form requested or demanded by the public body to which the Request is made.

Take a look at the description of the FOIA process posted on the District's website at that link. I'll tell you; the Federal Government has nothing on Richland 2. What did the preparation of that procedure cost? That's a week's worth of work by a high-priced lawyer. Was it done to simply to effort by the public? Or was there some other reason for it?

Particularly onerous is this section on the form:

Tell us who you are

(Select one or more)

Richland School District 2 Student

Richland School District 2 Employee

Richland School District 2 Parent/Guardian

Community Member

Vendor

Media

Richland 2 requires completion of that section (note the *), but I'm pretty sure the law does not require the Requestor to reveal his status in such a category. Any person can submit a FOIA Request. You don't have to live in the District or fit in any of those categories. 

Just imagine how that information could be used. The word "Weaponized" comes to mind. If a parent submits a FOIA Request, imagine how that might trickle down. If a student files a FOIA Request, would s/he have to worry about retribution or retaliation? Or a vendor? Kiss Good-bye to future work.

This new procedure pushes the request through the Let's Talk scheme of Richland 2 and provides a copy of the request by return email.

Must Board re-vote on Employee Bonus?

$1,500 Gross Income is NOT the same as $1,000 net-afer-taxes.

Will the Richland 2 school board have to vote again on the bonus for full-time and part-time staff?

The error made is not minor.

In the Board packet was a Budget Recommendation for a full-time bonus of $1,580 and a part-time bonus of $789 to permanent employees.

However, the agenda (prepared by the superintendent and the chair), the superintendent's explanation of the bonuses, and trustee-elect McKie's Motion were all wrong. They did not follow the written document that had been presented to the board and which was shown to the public during the discussion.

The superintendent talked about a $1,000 bonus "net after taxes" to full-time permanent employees. That is NOT the same as a $1,580 bonus. He referred to a $500 bonus "net after taxes" to part-time permanent employees.

Anyone with an accounting or tax background quickly understands the difference. 

Voting on (promising) a specific dollar-amount "net after taxes" means the District will have to gross-up each employee's income to yield the amount promised. That's a huge amount of accounting work.

IRS is not going to say, "Oh, that's just a technicality." The District's C.F.O. will understand the problem. I can fully appreciate why he wouldn't have interruprted his boss on Tuesday night to correct him. But that would have been the right time.

How will the District fix this? Will the board have to re-consider the bonus at the next regular meeting and then approve a correctly-worded Motion?

WOW! Don't miss this part (BEDI) of 2/22/2022 Meeting!

An item on the agenda for the February 22, 2022 board meeting involved a proposed revision to Board Policy BEDI News Media Services at Board Meetings.

The crux of the proposed revision was to add a sentence acknowledging "personal legal responsibility" for any statement a board member might make to the media. This is an attempt to silence board members and to chill the atmosphere surrounding their positions.

The agenda item begins at (2:54:24) on the livestream.com/richland2 recording for Feb. 22, 2022 (disregard the erroneous date at the top left of the screen in the recording. The District seems unable to get that error corrected).

Listen to the reasonableness of some of the discussion.

Then listen to Manning's opinions. And those of McKie. And of Caution-Parker. And of Holmes. Manning presumes to disagree with Agostini. That is not the job of the acting chair or of any board member - to disagree with what another trustee has just said. 

If he has a pertinent comment to make, he can do that. He should not exercise privilege or presumption to "disagree"; he should merely state his position on the motion.

Trustee Agostini asked about Teresa Holmes' comment at a recent board meeting when she admonished the public to "Stay woke". And Teresa chimed in (where was Tommy?) with (3:01:14) "I'm going to again reiterate (stumbled over the word) that I do want our community to stay woke." 

That was an unnecessary comment! It had nothing to do with the discussion. If Richland 2 school board had a Parliamentarian, that official would have objected to Holmes' unnecessary, personal, off-topic comment!!!

Manning did state that he agreed with Agostini's motion to remove "personal legal responsibility".

Then a vote was taken on Agostini's secondary motion. The recording secretary did not display the (secondary motion) and a hand-vote was taken. WHY???

There was a procedural failure during the vote. Manning called a hand-vote for those in favor, then opposed (Caution-Parker and McKie raised their hands; Holmes was silent); abstentions? At that point Manning asked, "Dr. Holmes?" Holmes said "Opposed". But the time to vote No had passed! Why wasn't Holmes paying attention? (Was Tommy distracting her?) Manning should not have asked Holmes if she intended to vote. Manning accepted Holmes "Opposed" vote; he should not have done so! Holmes should have been recorded as Not Voting.

The vote on Agostini's secondary motion, to remove "personal legal responsibility" was 

For: Agostini, Manning, McFadden, Scott (4)

Against: Caution-Parker, McKie, Holmes (3)

Maybe they can make BEDI retroactive to January 25. Then let's give very close attention to the remarks of Holmes and Manning to WIS-TV from the courtyard in front of R2i2 on January 28th.

Time-saver for Richland 2 Board

I have an idea for how the Richland 2 school board can save time at meetings.

Considerable time is wasted after a vote is called. I doubt anyone can explain how electronic voting can take so long to tabulate and display.

I suggest ordering a rubber stamp for the board chair, for use whenever a motion is made by Trustee Agostini, Scott or McFadden.

YES      NO

 

☒             AGOSTINI

       ☒      CAUTION-PARKER

       ☒      HOLMES

       ☒      MANNING

☒             MCFADDEN

       ☒      MCKIE

☒             SCOTT

Then she could call for the vote. Count to three. Ask, "Have all voted?" Count to three. 

Say, "The vote is three Yeas and four Nays. Motion fails. Next item?"

This rubber stamp will only be needed until November 2022.

"Tommy ... Tommy ... " WHAT?????

During the 2/22/2022 board meeting, the superintendent began to read what promised to be a lengthy item of Superintendent Highlights. 

Shortly after 2:11:18 on the livestream.com/richland2 recording, Holmes' voice can be heard interrupting the superintendent's comments. She says, "Tommy ... Tommy..."

Acting Chair Manning says, "Dr. Holmes, can you go on Mute unless you are intending to say something?"

Holmes replies, "Oh, I'm so sorry. I thought I was."

Manning: "That's okay. Thank you very much." Then Manning apologizes to the superintendent.

Which brings up the question - where was Teresa Holmes? Why wasn't she at the board meeting? 

Holmes get paid about $400 to attend each board meeting. Was she paid $400 for Tuesday night and whatever she was doing with Tommy? Why was Tommy even there? Wouldn't Holmes be sitting wherever she was and giving full attention to every word of the board meeting, especially what the superintendent was saying?

Earlier in the evening, one of the speakers in Public Participation asked for the resignation of the superintendent and the board chair.

What was the REAL reason that Holmes was not present at the 2/22/2022 board meeting? And who is Tommy?

Why Did Supt. Err in Explaining Bonuses?

Money, money, money to employees.

On February 22, 2022 why didn't the superintendent describe accurately (2:07:03) the recommendation to the school board by Administration for doling out surplus money to teachers and staff?

When I heard him describe "net after taxes", that got my attention. Employees are in different tax brackets, and a public entity should not award bonuses based on "net" to the employee. The proper bonus plan would be a fixed amount to full-time employees and a fixed amount to part-time employees.

The superintendent said "one time bonus of $1,000 net after taxes (that's what "net" means) to all full-time permanent employees and a one-time bonus of $500 net after taxes to all part-time employees."

That scheme would mean different gross bonuses to employees and would produce a lot of screaming over unfair pay.

The employees would have to receive different Gross amounts, based on their withholding declarations, if they are going to receive equal Net amounts.

Then I looked at the information in the document that was projected in the room. 

The document for the bonuses read, "We recommend investing in our employees by giving a one-time bonus of $1,580 to all full-time permanent employees and $789 to all part-time permanent employees (roughly $1,000 and $500 after taxes, respectively)."

The superintendent probably should have called on Dr. Harry Miley to explain it. Dr. Miley would not have made that mistake.

 The pay-out is by equality, not equity!!! But the superintendent wants the same outcome for all; right? That can't be done with money. At least, not legally.

Trustee-elect McKie repeated the error when she made the Motion. You can hear Holmes butt in on the phone with "Second", before McKie finished reading her motion. Trustee Scott seconded, and then Holmes butted in again to say "Second". 

So what will the District have to do? Will the District office have to manipulate the gross amount for each of several thousand full-time and part-time employees to produce a Net bonus amount of $1,000 and $500, respectively?

The motion by the board did not agree with the proposed spending plan. Who will fix that?

Grievance Vote 2/22/2022

(Click to enlarge)

At the 2/22/2022 board meeting a grievance submitted by Gus Philpott was on the agenda for both the executive session and the open session.

At Item 8.2 Trustee Agostini made a motion to postpone the grievance and grant a hearing to me.

Trustee Scott seconded the motion and also spoke in support of allowing the Grievant (me) to speak, saying it is fair. It is also the first time in her ten years on the board that a community member had filed a grievance.

What was the vote?

The Core Four, as expected, voted as a bloc. All four (the majority on the board) voted No.

Gee, why didn't the superintendent hop on the Equity train and speak about the importance of equity, diversity, and inclusion and tell the board that it would have only been fair to hear from me.

Manning revealed, improperly, that there had been 143 pages of documentation from people on both sides of the "equation". No, James; there was no "equation". There was an ISSUE.

Plus he had just heard one of the speakers in Public Participation say that no one had been closer to the two people involved (at first), Pamela Davis and Gus Philpott, and that NO ONE HAD CONTACTED HIM.

So much for fairness.

After Trustee Agostini's motion was defeated, trustee-elect McKie made a motion "to uphold the Administration's recommendation to deny the grievance." (2:05:10) Seconded loudly by Caution-Parker (of course). During discussion, Trustee Agostini referred to stories that were inconsistent that were told (in the documentation).

Then McKie hopped in, completely unnecessarily, to state that executive session items cannot be discussed on the floor. Funny how she didn't challenge Manning when he referred to the 143 pages of documentation.

Regarding McKie's Motion, just who in the "Administration" recommended to deny the grievance? The superintendent, who IS the Administration? He should not have had any voice in the matter, because his wife and he were right in the thick of the disruption on January 25.

The District should have appointed an independent hearing officer. But even that would not have changed the vote of the bloc. The Core Four would have stuck together, no matter how the motion was worded.

What are the white tablecloths for?

During the presentation to Trustee Monica Scott of her ten-year school board pin, I first noticed the white tables set up in front of the board seating area.

What in the world are those tables for???

At the next meeting will we see eight (8) armed sheriff's deputies stationed in front of the board tables?

I have an idea. How about 50 armed deputies facing the board and staff to protect the Parents from the school board?

Were those tables placed to create a barrier, just in case an angry mob of domestic terrorists (parents) decided to rush the front of the room and reclaim the Power of the People? Could an insurrection happen right here in Richland Two?

Are those tables there to keep the school board members or school officials from rushing the audience, when parents dare to speak out against mask mandates? Or attempt to defend a minor student from profanity uttered by an adult toward him?

Are those tables there to protect the audience? Or the school board? Is that supposed to be a subtle fist raised in the face of the public that the school board is not to be questioned?

Why are there white tablecloths on those long tables? Who came up with that dumb idea?

Will community member Craig Khanwell (Conwell?) be outraged at the symbol of White Supremacy Racist Theory, demonstrated by white tablecloths, and return to threaten, this time, board members instead of the audience? Will Khanwell demand that black tablecloths be used?

Manning Erred as Chair

Trustee Manning erred as Acting Board Chair at the 2/22/2022 meeting when he explained the meaning of Trustee Agostini's Motion to remove Item 8.2 (the grievance) from the Agenda near the beginning of the meeting.

Listen carefully to the recording of the 2/22/2022 board meeting on livestream.com/richland2   At 1:25:20 Trustee Agostini moved to remove Item 8.2 from the Agenda. Seconded by Trustee Scott.

During discussion Trustee Agostini said she wanted to postpone the item until the Grievant could attend, at the next meeting. Trustee Manning erroneously stated that removing the item would mean they could not vote on having the Grievant at the next meeting. That was wrong. But the result was that Trustee Agostini withdrew her Motion.

The Motion was to remove Item 8.2. Period. That's what the vote would have been on. 

By postponing Item 8.2, Policy KE would require the grievance to be heard at the next regular board meeting or a special-called meeting. The issue of having the Grievant attend the meeting was not part of the Motion. It was part of the discussion.

Trustee Manning clouded the issue by mis-stating the Motion.

As acting Chair, it was incumbent on him to conduct the meeting in accordance with, as trustee-elect McKie unnecessarily stated that she learned at the SCSBA party last week-end, state law, board policy, and RONR.

I realize the result would have been the same, since The Core Four vote as a bloc. Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden would have voted in favor of removing Item 8.2. Trustees Manning and Caution-Parker and trustees-elect Holmes and McKie would have voted against. The vote would have been 3-4, Failed. 

Why did Holmes Miss 2.22.22 Meeting?

When the school board convened at 5:30PM yesterday, February 22, 2022, it was immediately obvious on the livestream broadcast that Teresa Holmes was not present.

The meeting was called to order by James Manning, and no mention was made of Holmes' absence. 

When trustee-elect McKie made the motion to enter executive session, she said, " ... grievance, and grievance..."  Were there to be two grievances heard? Only one was on the agenda.

When it was time to vote on going into executive session, Holmes' voice came out of nowhere to speak her Yes vote.

Then the board left for executive session.

When it returned and Manning re-convened the open session, he said, "For the record, Dr. Holmes apologizes for not being here in person, but she is here via phone."

What are Best Practices for public board meetings?

First of all, roll call should be taken - at 5:30PM and again when the board re-convenes. Then the public knows who is there, and so do the board members.

When a member is absent but intends to attend telephonically, a motion should be made and the board should vote on it. The reason for the absence should be explained to all.

This board never does that!

So, where was Holmes? Why wasn't her absence explained to the public and to the other members of the board?

There is speculation in the community that her absence was intentional, so that Manning could chair the meeting. Is that what happened?

Was there a big party in Hilton Head Island last week-end? The S.C. School Boards Association held its annual convention Feb. 17-20. How many board members spent taxpayer dollars to attend? Did Teresa extend her stay? 

Holmes gets paid about $400 to attend board meetings. Why wasn't she there in-person?

Open Letter to Female Deputy on 1/25/2022

This is an open letter to the female deputy with whom I spoke at R2i2 on Janauary 25, 2022, after Pamela Davis erupted following my introduction. 

I neglected to get your name and Badge Number at the time, when we spoke in the hallway.

When I picked up the reports availble to me from RCSD, I was given only the R/O's report, most of which was redacted. Your name does not appear in his report.

You and I had the longest contact. It was you who responded to where I was seated, when I asked the Richland 2 security officer to summon a deputy as an independent law-enforcement observer. I appreciated your professionalism and courtesy.

I requested Sheriff Lott to obtain a statement from you, and he replied only that there wasn't one. I already knew that. 

Your testimony will be needed in the future, and I would appreciate your writing a statement for your own records, so that the events will be clear in the future.

If you would care to call me, feel free to block your number. I suggest not calling from a RCSD phone. 

In Illinois I had the confidence of numerous deputies and police officers, who leaked information to me about the dirt in their departments. They expected that I would not reveal their names. The sheriff there tried to squeeze me with a subpoena in a deputy's Federal wrongful termination lawsuit. The sheriff wanted 27 months' worth of letters, emails, faxes, notes, etc. from any current or former employee of the sheriff's department. I knew I was not going to reveal even one name!

I filed a motion pro se to quash the subpoena, and the Federal Magistrate granted it! He ate up the sheriff's attorney and told her she was just on a "fishing expedition" (his words).

I'll let you know through RCSD when your testimony is needed.

District to spend $10MM tonight. Should it?

Item 9.1 on tonight's agenda for the Richland 2 school board meeting is Budget Surplus.

Without reading the agenda item carefully, I think the District is planning to spend $10,000,000 on one-time bonuses for teachers and staff, trying to buy loyalty for another year.

Should the Trustees vote YES tonight?

Probably not. They may need that $10,000,000 for another purpose - to pay off a potential defamation claim that probably won't be covered by insurance.

The Trustees might be wise to defer tonight's decision.

Ten Million could be chump-change in a $300,000,000 annual budget, but then ...

McKie's Debt - $57,100 - Why isn't she paying???

Recently a friend and I were discussing the chaos on the Richland 2 school board.

I was explaining how I got involved. In February 2018 I addressed the board after the shootings in Parkland, Fla. In January 2019 I addressed the board about Amelia McKie's debt to the S.C. Ethics Commission. At that time she owed $51,750.

In February 2019 I addressed the board about Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes being illegitimate members of the board, because they had taken the oath-of-office three weeks before they were eligible to do so.

McKie and Holmes still have never taken the oath-of-office legally. McKie still owes $57,100 to the S.C. Ethics Commission (as of 2/22/22).

My friend said, "If they'd just do things right, you'd go away."

That's true.

One down; one to go

Teresa Holmes finally has a Richland 2 email address. It's teresaholmes@richland2.org

I spotted it on my first email from her $45,000/year "Special Assistant to the School Board," Christine Lewis. She emailed me at 3:01PM  to confirm receipt of my complaint and to let me know that my complaint (grievance) will be placed on the agenda for February 22, 2022. 

Of course, I had already seen the agenda. It was published on the District's website, and I spotted it first thing this morning.

Remember when that new staff position was touted as Special Assistant to the Board Chair? It turns out that Christine is the Special Assistant to the School Board! 

But Teresa's importance (in her own mind) continues, because she is the only board member to show both her official email address and her personal email address. The personal one - the one she used for her political campaign - has got to go.

If you think it is inappropriate for a school board member to list her personal, political-campaign email address on school district website, send your comments to

Supt. Davis at badavis@rickland2.org

and

Karla Hawkins (attorney) at khawkins@richland2.org

Tell them what action  you want the District to take (remove Holmes' personal email address).

Tell them to let you know what they will do about your request.

Follow up 30 days later to see if Holmes' personal email address has been removed.

T-shirts galore

I don't remember the name of this speaker on February 8, 2022, but she was one of several who were sporting new t-shirts and sweatshirts. This one was black. "We Support Dr. Davis."

A different attendee wore a pink t-shirt with the same wording. Somebody was really busy. Whose brainchild was that? The Davis Fan Club?

Were the superintendent and his wife feeling a little bruised by all the bad publicity following Mrs. Davis' outburst on January 25?

Will the t-shirts be back on February 22?

Near the end of the meeting the superintendent said (4:14:23), while reading his prepared statement from his tablet, "For those who woule be concerned about the future of this district and my future, let the record show that I'm just getting started."

Why would anyone be concerned about his future?

Anyone holding his breath?

The superintendent was followed by Teresa Holmes' closing comments. At that point the trustees had been at work for four hours fourteen minutes. Wouldn't it have been nice, if she had just said, "Thank you for being here tonight. May I have a motion to adjourn?"

Instead, she rattled and rambled for over five minutes.

Stop! Look! Listen! Derrick Wilburn speaks

 

This is one of the best addresses to a school board I've ever heard. Listen to Derrick Wilburn, as he addressed the Colorado Spring (Colo.) school board on August 12, 2021.

Do you agree?

What if Richland 2 school board meetings were run the way that one is. Listen to the comments by the board chair, as he lets the audience know how they can indicate agreement with the speaker.

Compare his expression and tone-of-voice with what we have here in Richland 2. He is informing the audience, not ordering the audience to obey. 

Listen carefully to the remarks of Derrick Wilburn.

Is the Richland 2 Board and the Administration keeping racism on life support? Do programs like 100 Premier Men of Color and providing information about scholarships available only to black students promote the Differences between races?

The Board hides behind "We don't teach Critical Race Theory". Richland 2 doesn't "teach" it; that part is true. But don't they implement it? Don't they implement it through culturally-relevant teaching (pedagogy), the program they buy from Gloria Boutte? Doesn't Richland 2 promote Critical Race Theory through the emphasis on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion?

Listen to Derrick Wilburn a second time. Do you think Richland 2 can do better?

District's Toothless Warning

Late in each week prior to a board meeting, the District puts out a long notice about do's and don't's of attending a board meeting. In other words, Be good, boys and girls.

Read this paragraph:

"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."

Then recall the February 8th board meeting.

That was the meeting when Craig Khanwell was allowed to go on a three-minute rant, threatening members of the audience and those at home. Missed it? Go to livestream.com/richland2  Feb. 8, 2022 meeting. Start at 1:46:30

.

Ask Teresa Holmes and Baron Davis:

Was a safe environment maintained?

Was Khanwell "out of order, loud, disruptive, making in appropriate comments"? Was he a safety concern?

There was no doubt about that. All of the above.

How did Holmes and Davis respond? Not a peep out of them. Not a peep out of any board member. Not a peep out of Marq Claxton. Not a peep out of even one Richland 2 security officer.

Holmes mentioned recently there was an elephant in the room. There sure was. A black elephant.

If I had expressed myself, or if any white person had expressed himself, as Khanwell did, we would have beene face-down on the floor. Arrested for threatening behavior in a school. Jailed.

I am not going to be bashful about talking about race here. 

Holmes and Davis permitted Khanwell to spew his vitriolic hatred because all three are black. 

Convince me I'm wrong.

You Are Invited: 2/22/22 6:30PM

The next school board meeting will, hopefully, be calmer than the February 8th meeting. If that loud guy shows up again, security or RCSD should shut him down if he threatens the audience as he did on Feb. 8th.

What's up for Tuesday night?

The Board is scheduled to consider my grievance about the Jan. 25th Trespass Notice in executive session. I have presented a Witness List with ten names on it. Then the board will vote on my grievance in public session, right after Public Participation.

I'm all for having the entire grievance discussed in public session. Why would the board not want to do that? (Shall I list the reasons?) Then the public would have the whole story.

We'll see how it goes. I expect the board members to do their duty and be fair. What do you think? Will they be fair? 

The stumbling block right now is access to R2i2. If I cross the property line without written Access Authorization from Mark Claxton, I'll be arrested for Trespassing. Should I be intimidated by that? 

Monday is a school holiday. That leaves only Tuesday for the District to produce written Access Authorization and get it to me in time for me to be in the board room by 5:30PM, when the executive session starts. 

Surely, the board would not attempt to "consider" my grievance without hearing from me, would it? Or without hearing from the witnesses on my list?

If you want to speak during Public Participation, be sure to get there before 6:15PM. Sign-up starts at 5:31PM.

Revision of Board Policy BEDI - Media

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 a revision to Board Policy BEDI will be introduced for first reading. No action will be taken that night.

Who dreamed up this one? Did a board member propose that BEDI be re-visited? Or did Administration (meaning the superintendent) come up with this?

This is a blatant attempt to muzzle Trustees. As you read the following, pay close attention to the wording in the proposed revision: "...assumes personal legal responsibility..." Those four words will have a chilling effect on the free speech rights of board members.

On the other hand, maybe this revision should have been passed before Holmes and Manning stepped into the spotlight in the courtyard at R2i2 on January 28th and spoke in front of the WIS-TV camera. When the Chair and the Vice Chair stand on school property in front of R2i2, is there any doubt that both of them are speaking on behalf of the board?

Here it is. If you were a Trustee, what would you say to this?

"Policy BEDI News Media Services At Board Meetings Issued 9/17 

"The board believes that one of its paramount responsibilities is to keep the public informed of its actions. Therefore, the press and public are welcome to attend board meetings. 

"The superintendent or his/her designee will send a copy of the agenda in advance of all official board meetings to members of the working press who request it. In the event that representatives of news media are unable to attend a meeting, they will be provided a summary of important board actions upon request. 

"When individual board members receive requests from news media representatives for information about board meetings meeting content, members will refer the information-seekers to the board chairman. The board chairman is the official public spokesman for the board (except as the board specifically delegates this responsibility to others). Individual board members may speak to the media so long as they are not speaking on behalf of the board. When speaking as an individual, the board member will express such to the media and assumes personal legal responsibility for his/her media statement."

         indicates changes

Underscore indicates added content

 

It is already adequately covered in Board Policies that trustees, by themselves, do not speak for the board.

If Administration proposed these revisions, why does the superintendent want the hammer - the threat - of "personal legal responsibility" added to the Policy? 

Trustees should vote on this revision at the next following meeting. And the vote should be 0-7!!!

$2,700 Ethic Fine - paid

Hilton Head Island's current deputy town manager found himself in the crosshairs of the S.C. Ethics Commission and settled with them, including paying a $2,700 fine.

According to an article in the Island Packet (2/18/2022), in 2018 he set up a $24,000 consulting contract with himself (two violations) and received an $820 gift that he failed to disclose on his 2017 Statement of Economic Interests Report (SEI). 

Why am I writing about something like this? Because he PAID the fines and administrative costs.

Source: https://www.islandpacket.com/news/politics-government/article258519878.html

His example should be followed by some local folks. 

Write to your S.C. Representatives and Senators and ask them stop cooling their heels on S.188, a bill that has been languishing in the S.C. Senate for over a year. You can write to the full Senate Judiciary Committee with one click.

This bill, when it passes and becomes law, would prohibit a person from filing a statement of intention to run for office, is s/he owed outstanding debt to the state Ethics Commission. It would apply to public officials, including school board trustees, and to S.C. Representatives and Senators.

What would it mean locally? Amelia McKie would be unable to run for re-election in November 2022. Of course, she might win the Lottery and pay off her debt to the Ethics Commission. Is she buying Lottery tickets instead of making payments on her fines?

The bill is sitting in the S.C. Senate Judiciary Committee and not getting any attention at all. One of the members of that committee is Mia McLeod, State Senator for our area here in Richland 2 and a good friend of McKie.

Contact McLeod. Urge her to push for passage to move S.188 to the full Senate for a vote. Ask her where she stands. Will she put her friendship with McKie above her duty to her state office? Email: mia@scsenate.gov and 803.212.6016   Do it now.

I hope she replies to your email or return your phone call. She doesn't to mine.

Will the Board Apologize?

Will the Richland 2 School Board apologize to the public for allowing Craig Khanwell to rant and rave, yell, shout and threaten the audience in the room and online during Public Participation on February 8, 2022?

In case you missed it, his rant is on livestream.com/richland2   Feb. 8, 2022    Starting at 1:46:30

People are still telling me that they felt threatened by Khanwell.

Don't just tell me. Tell the Board. Email them. Their email addresses can be found at   https://www.richland2.org/School-Board/Members

Or, for your conveience, just copy-and-paste:

ameliamckie@richland2.org, cherylcautionparker@richland2.org, docholmesschoolboard2@gmail.com, jamesmanning@richland2.org, lashondamcfadden@richland2.org, lindsayagostini@richland2.org, puttingstudentsfirst2012@gmail.com, 

Plus write your Letters to the Editor at The Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County, The State, Post and Courier, and any other local newspapers. Write to your favorite reporters at the TV channels.

And if it ever happens again, don't just sit there quietly. Even if you are in shock, stand up. Say, "Stop this." If they don't, walk out.

Teresa Holmes violated Board Policy is a huge way by not interrupting Khanwell and shutting him down.

Philpott Grievance on 2/22/2022 Agenda

My appeal of the Trespass Notice was denied by the Superintendent of Richland 2 School District, through his designee. I had requested that the Notice be rescinded as of the issue date (January 25) and that all documentation be removed from District records.

The next step is to exercise my rights under Board Policy KE. KE is listed under Board Policy K - School-Community-Home Relations.

Policy KE Public Concerns and Complaints reads,

"Complaints to one or more board members against any action of any employee of the district or against any administrative rule or board policy will be referred to the superintendent.

"If the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily by the superintendent, the complainant may register the complaint in writing with the board chair, setting forth the facts on which the complaint is based.

"The Board, at its next regular meeting or at a special meeting, will then consider the grievance of the complainant and dispose of the matter according to its best judgment."

After I received the denial by the superintendent's designee, I emailed my complaint to the Board Chair to register it.

"Grievance" appears on the Agenda for the February 22, 2022 board meeting. It is listed as Item 2.4 in the executive session and as Item 8.2 in the regular, open session.

Today I shall submit my Witness List, which will include Pamela Davis, Baron Davis, Marq Claxton, Security Officers Stinney and Brown, and at least four others. All will need to be available to testify during the executive session and during the open session. I will ask that their statements be given under Oath.

The next step is to secure Access Authorization from Marq Claxton, Director of Security and Safety, so that I can be present at R2i2 for the hearing on my Grievance.

I requested the grievance be heard only by the five legitimate members of the board. These are Trustees Agostini, Caution-Parker, Manning, McFadden, and Scott. Holmes and McKie are not legitimate members of the Board, because they have never taken the oath-of-office legally. (If they take the oath before the February 22nd meeting starts at 5:30PM, they will become legitimate board members.) 

Any board member who has made disparaging comments toward me should recuse himself (herself) from the consideration of my grievance and from the vote during Item 8.2

The vote on my grievance will be taken at Item 8.2 on the Agenda. No decision can be made in the executive decision. No agreement can be made in the executive session on how they will vote. Will the Board be fair in "its best judgment"?  

Supt. Davis should be excluded from the grievance hearing, because he played a material role in the events of the evening.

Watch Khanwell again. Consider Board Policy BEDH

One more time, before a race war breaks out in Richland 2 school district, watch the February 8, 2022 school board meeting on livestream.com/richland2  Start at 1:46:30

You'll be subjected to three minutes of vicious, vile ranting by Craig Khanwell.

 

Set his remarks against Richland 2 Board Policy BEDH. Ask yourself - what action should Teresa Holmes, who acts as board chair (illegitimately), have taken. And since she failed to act, should James Manning have interceded? Or Supt. Baron Davis? But wait; it seems that he is a fraternity brother of Khanwell. And if they didn't, what action should Marq Claxton have taken? And if he took none, what about the RCSD deputies in the room?

Why didn't even one Trustee stand up and shout: "POINT-OF-ORDER"?

Board Policy BEDH - Public Participation at Meetings

- civil and professional manner

- No gossip, defamatory words, or abusive [emphasis added} or vulgar language.

- Board has the right to terminate any presentation not adhering to guidelines.

- Orderly conduct

- Speakers may offer objective comments on school operations and programs.

- no expression of personal complaints about anyone connected with the school system.

- any topic over which the board has jurisdiction

The chair (Holmes) allowed Khanwell to turn to and address the audience. Khanwell was allowed to yell at the audience. Khanwell was allowed to point his finger at and threaten the audience. Holmes allowed him to verbally assault the audience. How was that okay?

Compare that outburst by Khanwell with "Hello, I'm Gus Philpott", spoken politely on January 25 to a woman I did not know. I got kicked out and put on Trespass Notice through June 30, 2022, and the chair thanked Khanwell. 

Hold Richland 2 Accountable

Should the Richland 2 School District be allowed to get away with its lies about what happened on Jan. 25 at the board meeting? Should Pamela Davis be allowed to get away with the lies she told in her interview on WIS-TV? And what about Teresa Holmes' statements on WIS-TV? What is the best way to get them to tell the truth?

What is it that caused Craig Kahnwell to come out of the woodwork in the attack mode at the February 8th board meeting? Was he triggered by the lies of the District media relations office and Pamela Davis, or are there some undisclosed friendships? Why was he allowed to address and threaten the audience (and me) with impunity?

H.3256 Recall Bill

Should South Carolinians have the right to recall persons elected to office?

H.3256 is stuck in the S.C. House Judiciary Committee, where it has been languishing since January 12, 2021.

Go to www.scstatehouse.gov and read H.3256

Then email all members of the Judiciary Committee and ask them to wake up and vote favorably on this Bill to move it to the full S.C. House of Representatives.

To email all Judiciary Committee members with one click, do this.

www.scstatehouse.gov

Click on House

Click on Email

Click on House Committees/Delegations

Click on Judiciary

Write your message

Click Send

All members of the Judiciary Committee will receive your email.

Forward this blogpost to your friends, family, co-workers and ask them to write, too. Use the "Mail" button at the bottom of this post. No record is seen or kept of your use of the Mail button.

We elect people to office. We should have the right to remove them. We should have to endure their poor performance in office until the next election.

S. 203 - Stomped by the S.C. Senate

S. 203 was approved in the S.C. Senate and sent to the S.C. House. Instead of passing it and sending it on to the Governor, the House tampered with it and sent it back to the Senate.

Yesterday (2/15/2022) the Senate stomped on it, 0-38. What the heck did the House do to that bill?

Here's how it looks in the Senate Journal (at the end of 2/15/2022).

S. 203 (Word version) -- Senators Hembree, Gustafson and Bennett: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-19-60 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF SCHOOL DISTRICT TRUSTEES AND FILLING VACANCIES, TO PROVIDE THAT DISTRICT TRUSTEES GUILTY OF MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE, INCOMPETENCY, ABSENTEEISM, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, MISCONDUCT, PERSISTENT NEGLECT OF DUTY IN OFFICE, OR INCAPACITY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL FROM OFFICE BY THE GOVERNOR, TO DELETE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND THE RIGHT TO APPEAL, AND TO MAKE CONFORMING CHANGES.

Was it the "delete Notice requirements and the right to appeal" that killed it? Or something else?

Now what happens? Can it go back to the House? Could the House approve it without amendment and now send it to the Governor?

Is something better than nothing?

S.F. Voters Kick Out 3 board members

San Francisco voters kicked three school board membes to the curb, including the Chair, the Vice Chair and one other.

Read all about it here.

Could a recall happen here? Does South Carolina law allow recalls?

If it did, would Richland 2 voters kick Holmes, McKie and others to the curb?

Holmes, for her choatic, disrespectful, dictatorial "leadership" as chair...

McKie for her $57,100 in unpaid fines owed to the South Carolina Ethics Commission...

Caution-Parker, for her expletive-laced comment to a parent after the October 12th board meeting and other disrespectful comments to board members.

November 9th won't come soon enough for Richland County.

Videos deleted.

This morning I started watching what were claimed as "full" recordings of Teresa Holmes' curbside interview with WIS-TV on January 28. Craig Khanwell, of February 8th board meeting fame, posted five videos on Facebook, whining that WIS-TV didn't broadcast the full interviews.

It would be nice if he hadn't deleted them from his Facebook page. I wanted to hear again Holmes' claims about the "disrupters" and all the emails that I have sent to the Board. Yes, I do send many emails to the Board.

A friend earlier this week told me, "If they'd just do things right, you'd never write to them." Yep. That about sizes it up.

When The Core Four are rude, disruptive, disrespectful, ignore Board Policies and Robert's Rules of Order, etc., I write to them. All of them. 

And Holmes complains that the three minority members just do what I say. No, they do NOT do what I say. Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden are independent board members, interested in the good of the District. 

Notice the constant defeat of motions the three make. Votes are 3-4, Fail. 

The Core Four (Holmes, McKie, Manning, Caution-Parker) stick together like bubble-gum on the bottom of a boot. 

If I offered the District the numbers for a winning $1,000,000 Lotto ticket, Manning would put his hand up as a Yes and then quickly pull it down. The Core Four would vote 3-4. (That's three "For" and four "Against".)

Teresa says, "Stay Woke"

 What's WOKE?

With

Out

Knowledge or

Experience

15-year-old with gun at RNE

Just last Tuesday, February 8, 2022, Trustee James Manning told parents that their children are safe in Richland 2 schools.

Yesterday WACH-TV reported the arrest of a 15-year-old male student at Richland North East High School for possession of an unloaded handgun. Well, maybe, since the kid was 15, he was merely "detained"; you know, taken into custody. Can minors be "arrested"? A minor with a gun at school should definitely be arrested. He just jumped to the head of the school-to-prison pipeline!

WACH-TV reported the student was charged with "... possession of a firearm on school property, possession of a pistol under 18, possession of a stolen firearm and unlawful carry of a handgun".

Let me guess that the kid was not signed up for Rocket Science classes. Did he miss the Memo about no-guns-at-school?

Parents, should you feel relaxed and relieved by Manning's words? After all, police did not find bullets. Are you wondering if one of the kid's buddies was packing the ammo?

What was it that Manning said last Tuesday? Here is a portion of his statement during Board & Supt. Comments:

" I do want to make the public aware, I feel like there is an effort right now to state that this is not a safe district because of gun violence, fights, threats; you've heard those words a lot. It's just the tip of the iceberg ... And the Sheriff has said that there, knock on wood, has not been a school shooting in a school where there has been a resource officer. We, Richland County, the Sheriff's Department, I reached out on a couple of issues that have come to us from Sheriff Lott, and I said, "Hey, I'm hearing there are issues at schools" and he clearly communicated that there is not a problem at schools. There were a few small fights. They were addressed. About kids fighting at schools since forever. I mean, but this is a safe district. I wanna make sure the parents aren't coming to these meetings, somehow believing that their child is at risk for attending a Richland School District Two school. That is not the case. ... There are things going on, things going on with teachers every day. ..."

Trustee McFadden tried to find out about guns in schools. How did Supt. Davis react? That has been a topic at school board meetings. She says she is under a legal restriction now not to talk to him. Seriously? A superintendent gets away with trying to silence a school board member? Just about anywhere else, that superintendent would be told to pack his bags.

How many guns have been taken away from students at Richland 2 schools?

So, parents, no need to worry about guns at schools or fights or anything else. Manning says so.

Scottsdale - could it happen here?

It is not just the parents in Richland 2 School District who are fed up. And it's not just the small group, accused of being "disrupters", who are speaking out. Check out the story about these parents in Scottsdale, Arizona:

"As parents around the country increasingly become fed up with left-wing hacks running school boards, more are beginning to take action against board members who refuse to listen to reason and respond to concerns." 

(Source: www.naturalnews.com)

What are they doing in Scottsdale?

Serving the board members with $100,000 claims against their bonding.

Parents are fed up with "anti-white critical race theory curriculum, ridiculous and pointless COVID masking and vaccine mandates and the inclusion of sexually inappropriate books and materials in school libraries that includes illegal acts of pedophilia."

Parents were successful in persuading the board to remove its board president in November, after learning that dossiers had been created on 47 people whose backgrounds had been checked - people who had been voicing opposition to the school board.

Could that be going on here? Listen carefully to the comments of (acting) board chair Teresa Holmes, herself not even a legitimate board member, when she often makes disrespectful comments about Richland 2 parents who are showing up at board meetings, speaking out, and sending emails to the board members and superintendent.

Be sure to take 3 minutes to read the article in NaturalNews.com

How to shorten school board meetings

 You've heard, "Work expands to fill the time allotted". Right?

The problem is long school meetings. Why? Poor Planning.

Plesae re-read, "Poor Planning." By the board chair and the superintendent.

The agenda for each meeting is finalized by the board chair and the superintendent. Two people with no concept of time-management. If they did have such a concept, NO meeting would ever run four (4) hours. That's one hour for executive session plus three (3) hours for the business of the board. 

What if good management practices were followed? The board could meet in executive session for 30 minutes, followed by not more than 90 minutes in open session.

How would they do that? Declare a Schedule. Commit to following it.

By not only having an Agenda but having a Schedule! Example:

6:30PM Call to Order (one tap of gavel is sufficient). Chair plans ahead and remembers to turn on her tablet. (It should have been already on from the Executive Session.) Roll Call by Secretary.

6:31PM Inspirational Moment, Pledge of Allegiance (by McKie? never. No "shows")

6:35PM Approve Agenda, including additions, changes, corrections.

6:39PM Consent Agenda (including time to amend Minutes for corrections, errors)

6:43PM Public Participation (10 x 3 min.) (eliminate chair's opening threats; shorten interval between, by having next speaker approach). Say, "The next speaker is _____, followed by ______."

7:15PM Voting on Executive Session items (fix the broken delay in announcing votes)

7:25PM Old Business

7:30PM New Business (Shorten Supt. Highlights; Shorten dog-and-pony shows by staff; eliminate praise and thanks by board members; chair to thank)

7:40PM Agenda Items for next meeting. (Eliminate unnecessary reading of Draft Agenda by Supt. Address only the flexible items) To add items: Motion, Second, Discussion on the Motion only, Vote.

7:52PM Board & Supt. Comments (1 min. each) Eliminate grand-standing. Severely shorten superintendent's comments. It's not his show. He is not the Center of the Universe.

8:00PM Adjourn

Richland 2 Board: GET A PARLIAMENTARIAN!!!

I'm watching the board try to make its way through the Draft Agenda item for its February 22nd meeting. This is part of the February 8, 2022 meeting. You can see it on livestream.com/richland2, starting at 3:12:10.

If you wonder why board meetings run so long, fasten your seatbelt, take 3-4 aspirin and try to endure the drivel and unnecessary remarks being made.

Why doesn't the Board hire a Parliamentarian? A professional would quickly shut down the superintendent, Amelia McKie, James Manning, and Cheryl Caution-Parker. Oh, sorry; I mean DOCTOR. CHERYL. CAUTION. PARKER.

When the trustees speak, they should stick to the point, say succinctly what they have to say, and stop talking! McKie gets diarrhea of the mouth, Manning takes off on tangents, the superintendent takes one breath and can talk for more than a minute (when a Yes or a No or a 10-second comment would suffice), and Caution-Parker admits to being old and not remembering things.

After a motion has been made and seconded, all discussion should be on-point. No political speeches are necesssary. No rambling about how many parents call. Whatever is said should apply to the motion. Anything else should be shut down.

 

Holmes can't tell the difference. This is why a Parliamentarian is needed.

I was told today that the Draft Agenda item took an hour to get through. At 9½ minutes into discussion, the board has handled only one motion. Now they are in the second motion. Whew! How much longer????

They spend considerable time discussing whether they are going to have a discussion. The points being raised belong in discussion of the item if it gets to an agenda item, not just arguing about whether to even put it on the agenda.

This is the problem with the majority of the board. They don't realize they are there to direct a business.

Why happens after 3:29:33? That's for another day!

Open Letter to the School Board

The following email has been sent to the Richland 2 school board, superintendent and media.

Members of the Board and trustees-elect Holmes and McKie,

At the February 8, 2022 board meeting members of the audience and virtual attendees were subjected to a speech by Craig Khanwell that far exceeded his First Amendment rights. He issued threats - direct threats, even saying "That is a warning! and "We're not playin' wich [sic] you."

Board Policy was violated. Khanwell should have been interrupted and cautioned. If he continued in the same vein, he should have been gaveled into silence and escorted off the property with a Trespass Notice. Why did the board chair tolerate that speech? Why did the board chair allow him to address and berate the audience?

Khanwell seemed to be basing his comments on the false and misleading statements issued by the Richland Two media department and by Pamela Davis' false statements on WIS-TV.  Many of his statements were erroneous. 

Pamela Davis was not accosted. No women are being threatened at R2i2. No board members leave the building in fear. There is no "white supremacy race theory" there.

Holmes should not have permitted slander in Khanwell's remarks. But she didn't make a peep. Nor did the superintendent. Nor did Manning or Caution-Parker or McKie. 

Will you now permit violent, race-based, accusations and threats at board meetings? You allowed Khanwell to so speak. 

The Richland 2 public is owed a sincere apology.

Gus Philpott

* Holmes and McKie are addressed as trustee-elect, because they have never taken the oath-of-office legally. They are illegitimately in office. Also, McKie owes $57,100 in fines to the S.C. Ethics Commission.

Read what Craig Khanwell said

Here is what Craig Khanwell said at the February 4, 2022 school board meeting:

Good evening, madam chair, board, and the audience. 

Mr. Riesh, you’re gonna need more help than from the board. You’re gonna need help from the citizens in this county. You’re gonna need help from those who don’t like the fact that 80% of these students are black and brown, and don’t like the fact that black history is being taught and American history is being taught to these students. You’re gonna need help from those whose mind is so thick with white supremacy race theory. Not critical race theory, but white supremacy race theory, that they are driving themselves insane – to the point that a man’s wife is not even safe in this building. To the point that a man’s wife is being accosted by a white male whose belief in white supremacy is so thick and so deep that they could not stand the fact that she doesn’t want to have a conversation with them because she fears their presence in her space. But they didn’t respect that because in their minds they still have that attitude of white supremacy they couldn’t stand the fact that she said No. See, these attitudes have become beliefs, hard  _____ beliefs and these beliefs have now become policy, and these policies have become institutions and systems that are put in place to keep you – Negroes – in your place. 

You don’t like what I’m saying, but I’m not here to mince words with NONE of you, and we all are sick and tired of this kind of behavior. (gestures at audience) And we are not going to allow you to threaten our women any longer. That is a warning! We don’t threaten yours. You don’t threaten ours. If she says she don’t [sic] want to talk to you, leave her alone. So all you men in here, act like a man and not like some Trump. And then deal with respect. And none of these board members need to leave here in fear, and this man (pointing to Baron Davis) shouldn’t be threatened. ‘cause he’s been threatened! You think this is 1900? 1850? Nooo, these days are different now. We got a whole ‘nother generation on scene. 

If you don’t want this kind of foolishness to explode in your face, I’m asking members of the audience to get yourself together, because some of us have no fear of what you are trying to do. And we gonna stand against you with everything that we have. 

So I’m sorry to be loud, but I want to make a point here. We’re not playing wich [sic] you. Get your act together. (Pointing at audience) and respect these people. (Pointing at board) Do your job. Do it well. It’s okay to have disagreements, but be civil. 

But (pointing again at the audience) that kind of behavior better not EVER – EVER (shouting into microphone) happen again. NEVER again. 

Source: livestream.com/richland2  (1:46:30)

Can citizen file complaint for violation of Board Policy?

Can a citizen file a complaint against a board member for violating Board Policy?

(Acting) Board Chair Teresa Holmes should have shut down Craig Khanwell on Tuesday night, February 4, 2022, when he ran off on his racist rant during Public Participation. 

Now that the limits are known, the Richland 2 School Board can expect a much higher level of verbal and emotional expression.

It will be okay to repeat the false statements issued by the Richland 2 media department and to issue threats toward racial groups. Khanwell was allowed to threaten white people in the audience. Will Teresa allow white speakers to threaten blacks? Will she allow other blacks to threaten whites?

What I know is that white people in Richland 2 do not threaten black people. 

If a black woman feels threatened, intimidated, in fear by the polite words, "Hello, I'm Gus Philpott", then I would recommend therapy. 

Should a white person speak at the next school board meeting, turn around toward the audience, and yell, "DON'T YOU BLACK PEOPLE EVER - EVER - FEEL INTIMIDATED BY A WHITE PERSON WHO SPEAKS TO YOU POLITELY! WE WILL NOT TOLERATE THAT!"

That will never happen. 

And what else will not happen? I shall not be intimidated into not speaking to a black man or woman I don't know. I've made some great friends by introducing myself to people I did not know. 

When I was observing the protests in front of Sgt. Pentland's home in April, did I get upset with blacks who surrounded me and or by one black man who shouted, "WHITE PRIVILEGE" repeatedly at me? The 150 black protesters shouted, gestured, waved signs, yelled through bullhorns. They expressed irritation toward me, because I was not joining in. They accomplished absolutely nothing there.

The board chair, The Core Four, the superintendent allowed Khanwell to disrupt the school board meeting and they did and said nothing to stop him. Board Policy was violated repeatedly. Did Holmes slam down her gavel and try to restore order? Did she say, even once to Khanwell, "You are out of order"? 

Not once.

Listen to Khanwell's rant again on the recording at 1:46:30 on livestream.com/richland2 (Feb. 4, 2022) THAT is what is destroying efforts by blacks and whites to get along and work together.

What if ??? if Pamela and Baron had gotten Trespass Notices?

What if Pamela Davis and Baron Davis had been put on Trespass Notice on January 25?

Picture this.

If Richland School District Two media relations had reported the incidents accurately, fairly and honestly, the first person put on Trespass would have been Pamela Davis. 

It was her outburst of "I KNOW WHO YOU ARE! DON'T TALK TO ME! GET AWAY FROM ME!" that attracted the Richland 2 security officers. And then her continued shouting of "DON'T TALK TO ME! YOU CANNOT TALK TO ME!" directed at the two men and student seated behind her.

The security officers should have immediately escorted her out of the meeting room and out of the building.

I have read and have been told what happened after I voluntarily left the meeting room with a female deputy sheriff for a conversation in the hallway. While she and I were talking, apparently Pamela Davis swore at the 14-year-old student and one of the men stepped between them, telling her that she could not speak that way to a student. That is apparently what attracted Baron Davis' attention and caused him to rush from the front of the room.

Did the security officers write up their reports to reflect that? Apparently not, since the man who interceded on behalf of the student was put on Trepass Notice and kicked off the property.

If Pamela Davis and Baron Davis had been put on Trespass Notice?

Pamela would not have been able to continue to teach at Blythewood High School.

Baron Davis would not have been able to enter any Richland Two school property. Sure would be hard to do his job as Superintendent if he couldn't go on ANY Richland Two property until July 1.

Teresa Holmes is blocking any public in-depth investigation of what happened that night. That is the epitome of dictatorship and one-sidedness. Rather than being an independent arbiter on behalf of the entire Richland Two voting district, she is sticking up for the superintendent and his wife.

And if security had slapped both Davises with Trespass Notices. There would have been instant turnover in the Security Department at Richland Two. Claxton and the security officers involved would have been searching the internet on January 26 for new jobs.