S.188 Another Good Bill = Ethics Fines

At the Januiary 25, 2022 board meeting I was planning to introduce a Resolution to the school board.

Too bad I got kicked out. But there will be another day. S.188 is languishing in the S.C.Senate, where it has been stuck in the Judiciary Committee for a year. It would prohibit a person from filing for office, if s/he owed money to the S.C. Ethics Commission (or the House or the Senate Ethics Commissions).

Bye, bye, Amelia McKie, if this Bill passes both chambers and is quickly approved by the Governor.

RESOLUTION

The Board of Trustees of the Richland School District Two, being informed of a Bill in the South Carolina Senate, S 188, hereby  submits this Resolution to the Senate and its members.

 

WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the People of the State of South Carolina to have only responsible elected officials in public office;

WHEREAS, the list of debtors of the South Carolina Ethics Commission contacts the names of many public officials and candidates for office;

WHEREAS, many on the list are not paying their fines, penalties and fees to the South Carolina Ethics Commission;

WHEREAS, the South Carolina Department of Revenue is not an effective collection agent on behalf of the South Carolina Ethics Commission;

WHEREAS, the debtor’s list dated December 10, 2021, contains the names of approximately 300 debtors owing $2,638,357.04, not counting ethics debts of South Carolina Representatives and Senators.

WHEREAS, this bill, when passed, may entice debtors on the list to enter into payment arrangements to settle their debts before they next file a Statement of Candidacy for any public office.

 

NOW BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Richland School District Two finds that S. 188 is in the best interests of the People of the State of South Carolina and the residents of Richland School District Two and urges the South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to pass S.188 as quickly as possible.

Signed this _________ day of _____________, 2022, in Richland County, South Carolina,  by

 

__________________________________   _________________________________________ 

Trustee                                                                        Trustee

 __________________________________   _________________________________________ 

Trustee                                                                        Trustee

 __________________________________   _________________________________________ 

Trustee                                                                        Trustee

 __________________________________

Chair

No Trespass Notice from Richland 2

Richland 2 school board trustee James Manning made several comments to WIS-TV on-air on Friday on Friday afternoon, January 28.

Among them (1:57) he said "Philpott has talked about staking out board member's homes and taking pictures." His statement is a lie.

What I did discuss with others was trying to learn whether James Manning was living outside the boundaries of Richland 2 School District. Manning and his wife began living separately some time back (two years?), and there was a rumor he was living at their lake house on Lake Murray. If so, then he was not residng in Richland 2, and Board Policy would require him to resign from the board.

There was some conversation about learning whether he drove to his home at 6627 Longbrook Road (29206) after board meetings or whether he left from there in the mornings for work. The address is listed in the public records of the South Carolina Ethics Commission. On January 5, 2022 he filed a  Campaign Disclosure Report (CDR), indicating that he lived at the 6627 Longbrook Road address.

If he didn't live at that address when he filed his Report, then he committed an ethics violation and would be subject to a fine, if a complaint were filed. Would the Ethics Commission fine him $100 for each CDR and Statement of Economic Interests Report filed from that address after he moved out?

Manning telephoned me on January 6, 2022 and told me that he lives in the District at an address across from Dent Middle School. The street number that he gave me for his address does not exist, and I suspect he may have provided his apartment number, rather than the street number for his address. I didn't bother to call him back.

However, the issue may not be dead. When he moved out at the time his wife and he separated, did he at any time reside outside the District? Did he go to the lake house in Lexington County? What would he say under oath? What would she say? When did he lease the apartment near Dent MS? Then he should have resigned from the School Board. "Reside" means live at, sleep, hang your clothes, etc. Would his resignation have to be retroactive? Would he have to repay $800/month for all those months?

Property ownership alone is not sufficient for the residency requirement for the board. One must reside in the District. Perhaps a little deeper investigation is now warranted.

Manning is right that I said I shall go on Richland 2 property at any time. The District has, as of 4:15PM today, 1/29/2022, failed to provide me with a written Trespass Notice. It could have been delivered to me on Wednesday, January 26. Had it been mailed to me that day, it would have been delivered on January 27 or even on January 28. Today in January 29. No Notice.

Was security director Marq Claxton just blowing hot air on Tuesday night? Is his department so disorgaized that they cannot even mail out a form letter?  Did Claxton and his boss think it through and decide they should not issue a Trespass Notice to me? In any event, the Trespass Notice will be found invalid, because Claxton had no grounds to issue it. 

Any cop knows you gather information before you run off half-cocked and start writing tickets (or issuing Trespass Notices), especially when you didn't witness an incident. Claxton was a NYPD cop for years. Maybe things are done differently in New York City.

I emailed Claxton on 1/27/2022 at 8:19PM and copied the superintendent and the full board (including Manning) with this message:

"Mr. Claxton,

"Since I have not received a written Trespass Notice, I shall assume that your verbal Trespass Notice on January 25, 2022 has expired, and I shall feel free to visit any Richland 2 property at any time. I am planning to attend the February 4th board workshop, which was posted on the District's homepage recently (but is not posted there now) and the February 8 Regular Board meeting. ..."

Claxton did not reply.

Should Manning really be more careful to tell the whole truth and not spin his version?

Holmes - no special-called board meeting

Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden want to hold a special-called board meeting to discuss placing Baron Davis and Pamela Davis on leave while the mess from last Tuesday night is sorted out.

That's actually a very good idea. Hours will be needed just to figure out who said what, and when it was said.

You certainly can't tell the true story from the District's Update or earlier information, or from the reports in the media.

What did Teresa Holmes say today on WIS-TV?? No special-called meeting, because Sheriff Lott said no charges would be filed.

OK, so no criminal charges will be filed by law-enforcement. What about Poard Policies that were violated by the superintendent and his wife and the disorderly conduct in the board room that the Sheriff and the Solicitor decided not to prosecute?

Board Policy BE reads, "Special Meetings The chairman of the board or a majority of members of the board may call a special meeting of the full board."

So here's the way it works. Teresa Holmes could call a special meeting. She won't because she's such a good buddy of the superintendent. 

A majority of members of the board could call a special meeting of the full board.

Here's how that could work. Agostini, Scott and McFadden want a special meeting.

At least one of Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker and Manning would have to join them.

The truth that every one of the four should join the other three in calling for a special meeting.

The truth is that not even one of the other four will join them. What are they afraid of?

And even if one or more did and a special meeting did get called, when it came time for voting on putting the superintendent or his wife on leave, the vote would be 3-4. That's Agostini, Scott and McFadden in favor; Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker, Manning against. Motion fails.

Did Pamela Davis commit disorderly conduct in the meeting? Should she be suspended? By shouting long and loudly enough to attract security officers? Any other teacher in the system would have been fired the next day.

Should the superintendent be fired? That would cost the District $366,000. Maybe they should just tell him to give up his side-hustles and his own consulting business and devoted his entire time to Richland 2. Oh, and ditch the Premier 100 Men-of-Color Program.

Then his feelings would be hurt and he'd quit. Hopefully, his severance doesn't pay out if he quits. But who knows what the Core Four gave him in his contract.

If he got fired today, he'd start a new job on Monday, at higher pay. No doubt that he has job offers right now. Any severance should immediately terminate upon re-employment at same or higher pay!

McKie could be removed from Board soon

There is a .Bill in the South Carolina House of Representatives that could mean the removal of Amerlia McKie from the Richland 2 School Board very quickly 

S 203 was approved in the House 71-36 on Thursday, Jan. 27. It will probably get the third reading early in the coming week (Tuesday?) and go to the Governor for signature. The new law becomes effective upon approval by Gov. McMaster.

Here's the Bill, after I removed the wording that is to be taken out.

Section    59-19-60.        Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, school trustees who willfully commit or engage in an act of malfeasance, misfeasance, absenteeism, conflicts of interest, misconduct, persistent neglect of duty in office or is deemed incompetent or incapacitated must be subject to removal by the Governor upon any of the foregoing causes being made to appear to the satisfaction of the Governor. Before removing any such officer, the Governor shall inform him in writing of the specific charges brought against him and give him an opportunity on reasonable notice to be heard. Vacancies occurring in the membership of any board of trustees for any cause shall be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as provided for full-term appointments."

Here's what it means.

If Gov. McMaster decides that Amelia McKie's $57,100 debt to the S.C. Ethics Commission falls into one of the above qualifying categories for removal, then she's history.

If Gov. McMaster decides that Amelia McKie has been usurping public office since November 13, 2018, because she did not follow State law (Section 8-13-1110(A)) by filing her Statement of Economic Interests before taking the oath-of-office, and that that failure to file before taking the oath falls into one of the qualifying categories, then McKie will be history.

And so could Holmes be removed.

Teresa Holmes on Facebook

Very early this morning Teresa Holmes posted this comment on her personal Facebook page, "DrTeresa Holmes".

"It's time for the bullies who only represent themselves, a small fraction of this district and throw tantrums like undisciplined children to be brought to light.

"Those of us who are for ALL children need to stand up and say enough is enough. Please, come to the meetings to show support to those who are actually doing the work.

"For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear please take the time to fully watch the interviews below and share on your social media to spread the truth."

In her post she included links to the WIS-TV interviews with Manning and her.

When a teacher says to a student, "You can't talk to me", right after that teacher has a meltdown (is that a tantrum?) at a school board meeting and heard the student refer to her behavior as "childish" (as reported in the media), is that the act of a bully? Is it a bully who refers to a student as "a piece of sh*t" or calls him a "f*cking child"? Who is Teresa talking about?

There is no love lost between Teresa and me. You should see some of the emails she has sent me.

She is an illegitimate member of the school board. She has never taken the oath-of-office legally. Filing the Statement of Economic Interests before taking the oath-of-office Her error is not a "technicality"; it's the LAW.

ARTICLE 11

Disclosure of Economic Interests

SECTION 8-13-1110. Persons required to file statement of economic interests.

(A) No public official, regardless of compensation, and no public member or public employee as designated in subsection (B) may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests ...

Teresa accused me falsely of harassing her in March 2019 and filed a report against me at the Richland County Sheriff's Department. RCSD determined that no crime had been committed. She should have been prosecuted for False Reporting to Police and billed for their time, but she wasn't.

She blocked me from her Facebook page, but guess what? 

Teresa breached Board Policy on January 28 when, on live WIS-TV, she referred to Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden as those causing chaos at board meetings. Board Policy BC - Board Member Conduct.

Accept Teresa's suggestion. Come to board meetings. Watch past board meetings on livestream.com/richland2

Then decide for yourself. Who is causing the chaos? Who are the bullies?