Lies & Omissions on March 22

What were some of the lies and omissions at the March 22 Richland 2 school board meeting?

The discussion of Board Policy KE - Public Concerns and Complaints was, to say the least, contentious.

The biggest deception came from Supt. Davis' explanation of the existing Policy. Davis will never be accused of being at a loss for words. Or of being a Man of Few Words. If something can be said in ten words, you can count on him to use 100 or more.

Davis said repeatedly that the Board could be swamped with complaints from the public. He even read the Policy out loud. Yet no one said, "You have told us about the policy, and what you just read is not what you said." Why not?

Certainly the Core Four (Holmes, McKie, Manning, Caution-Parker) would never say that. And Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden are too polite to say that. But it needed to be said.

The old Police KE did not say the public could go straight to the Board. It said a person with a complaint could file the complaint with a board member. That board member then was required to forward the complaint to the superintendent. And the superintendent would be expected to investigate it.

What Supt. Davis never said was that people with complaints probably had already started with the "chain-of-command", as he preferred to call the pecking order. A parent probably started with the teacher and maybe went up to the Assistant Principal and even the Principal, before feeling blown off and then going to a board member for help.

What Supt. Davis did not say is that he would have reached down for all the information before making a decision. At least, he should have. What he did say is that he shouldn't have to make a decision without all the information. And he was correct.

But he would NOT have made a decision without "all the information". Nothing prevented him from getting information from staff or teachers.

Under the old Policy KE, the person who was then dissatisfied with the superintendent's decision had the right to appeal to the Board. And the Board had to hear the complaint. 

When the Board voted 4-3 on Tuesday night, it stripped that required hearing of an appeal from the revised Policy. It stripped the public's RIGHT from the policy.

Why would Holmes, McKie, Manning and Caution-Parker want to strip that right from a parent (or even from a community member)?

Ask them. And let us know what they say.