Agostini & Scott wanted more time on Policy KE

As the discussion to revise Board Policy KE continued at the March 22, 2022 board meeting, Trustee Scott said she would like the board to have more time to discuss and revise Policy KE.

Pick up her statement on livestream.com/richland2 at (2:04:00). 

What she should have done is make a motion. Saying "What I would like ..." doesn't make anything happen. Most probably, she would have been outvoted by Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker and Manning. But the only way to make something happen is to make a motion.

After Trustee Scott finished speaking, the superintendent butted in without asking to be recognized. (2:05:20) He re-stated that a community member or parent still has the right to complain to a board member. And the board member must refer the complaint "to the Office of the Superintendent".

Ahh, there's the third-person reference. Why doesn't he just say "to me" or "to my office"?

He said, "... the current policy allows the person to skip the chain-of-command and bring the grievance directly to the board."      WRONG!

He erred in his explanation of how a complaint to the board is handled by him. He inferred that he must make a decision based only on the information forwarded to him by a board member. That is just plain stupid. Of course, he would investigate it before making a decision. Who is he kidding? But no one challenged him!!!!

Here is where it got personal, although Baron didn't mention me by name.

(2:09:00) He said, in his experience, this Policy was brought up only one time. "And it was when we brought it to the attention of one constituent, who is now attempting to use it multiple times to inundate the work.. " 

And then he subjugates the District to the SCSBA...

Here's the deal ...  When the District mailed me the Trespass Notice, it contained NO appeal process. I inquired and was told there was NO appeal process. At that time I was NOT informed of Policy KE. But I did not let a little thing like no-appeal-process stop me. I filed an appeal, anyway!

I started up the food chain. Will Anderson, COO is Marq Claxton's immediate superior. Above him was Harry Miley, CFO. Then Marshalynn Franklin, Deputy Superintendent. Then Baron Davis, Superintendent. NOTE: I followed the chain-of-command. Exactly!!!

When Will Anderson received my appeal of the Trespass Notice and handled it, he denied my appeal and did so as the Designee of the Superintendent. So there was no need to climb the chain-of-command. I had the Superintendent's decision, and it was unsatisfactory. So then I filed my complaint with the board.

They chose to hear it in private and refused to allow me to attend. How's THAT for Due Process, Doctor. Cheryl. Caution. Parker??? And then they voted in public, also without allowing me to attend and speak. Was that fair to me, Doctor. Cheryl. Caution. Parker? 

(2:09:25) Then Baron said, "We presented this Policy to the Board two weeks ago. There was no input from the community regarding this policy until today. We received two emails today (!) before this board meeting about this policy. But for two weeks after presenting first reading there was no comment from members of the board, nor were there comments from members of the public about concerns this policy at that time."

So my question to Supt. Davis is, WHAT HAPPENED TO MY EMAIL ON FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 2022 AT 9:56AM? Did not any member of the board forward that email to you? Didn't the Chair forward her copy to you? Didn't the Vice-Chair forward his copy to you? Didn't the Secretary forward her copy to you? Didn't Cheryl (Due Process, former Deputy Supt.) Caution-Parker forward her copy to you?

Here is what I wrote to the Board on March 18, 2022 about proposed revisions to Board Policy KE.

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

At the March 22, 2022 board meeting Administration brings to you a revision to Board Policy KE Public Concerns and Complaints.

I urge you to reject the revisions to Board Policy KE. The existing Policy KE is sufficient to give the "Public" a right that is proper.

This revision would likely not even be on the Agenda but for the disruption that occurred on January 25th and the fact that Gary Ginn and I are not quietly sulking in a corner. You know who caused that disruption. That is the elephant in the room.

The revision, following the Model South Carolina School Boards Association (SCSBA) policy serves the administration, not the public. Beginning in the first sentence the word "patron" shows up. Who is that in the school district? That reflects bureaucratic design and influence and it disrespects and diminishes the "Public".

Why should Public Concerns and Complaints be resolved in "as informal a manner as possible"? Complaints should be properly accepted, registered and resolved by a formal policy. A Complaint is just that, and it should be taken seriously.

How can the Human Resources Director be tasked under Board Policy AC with resolving Public Concerns and Complaints which, by definition, are not personnel issues.

The SCSBA represents the bureaucratic arm of school boards (the board and the Administration), not the Public.

Board Policy KE should represent the Public.

The paragraph addressing defamation of a staff member is completely unnecessary. That employee is adequately protected under common law. That paragraph is just a bullying technique or hammer to warn off the public. There again is the influence of the SCSBA. The SCSBA does not run the Richland 2 school board. You do.

The superintendent is accountable to the school board. Removing the board's obligation to ultimately resolve a complaint is unfair to the public. If you approve the revision to Policy KE, you abdicate your responsibility as elected officials. 

When Item 8.3 comes up on Tuesday, please vote NO.

Gus Philpott