At 2:01:39 on the recording of last night's meeting https://livestream.com/richland2/events/10641431/videos/233280827, Item 10.2 Board Member Compensation and Expenses came up.
In that Policy we are reminded that board members are paid $384 (per diem) for meetings and the board chair is paid $480. Are we getting our money's worth? If you measure it by the number of words spoken, maybe we are.
The Core Four and the Superintendent want to control which meetings future board members can attend at District expense. The Core Four want to, in effect, rule from the grave by shoving through this change with their dying breaths.
Paragraph 3 was quite visible but was not on the agenda for discussion. It reads, in part, "Each board member will be designated an equal and specific amount for travel and development opportunities..."
That amount is $7,000 per School Year, which ends June 30.
Holmes had spent $9,529.27 as of May 10, 2022, and she still had 1½ months to go, which may include a meeting in Myrtle Beach.
WHY DID THE DISTRICT OVER-REIMBURSE HER?
Paragraph 4 reads, in part, "The district will reimburse board members for all reasonable and necessary expenses..."
WHY DID THE DISTRICT REIMBURSE TERESA FOR A $587.30 CAR RENTAL IN SAN DIEGO AND PAY $220 FOR FOUR NIGHTS OF OVERNIGHT VALET PARKING?
The conference hotel was four miles from the airport. The conference center was two miles (or was it 0.2 mile) from the hotel. Did she drive to the conference center from the hotel each day? Is $807.30 for traveling eight (8) miles from the airport to the hotel and back "reasonable and necessary"?
At 2:01:50 Trustee Scott made a motion to table Item 10.2. Trustee Agostini seconded. There was no discussion. When such a motion is made, the Movant should provide reasons for the motion. Otherwise, it doesn't have a chance. There was a hand vote, because the recording secretary can't figure out how to enter secondary motions in the Minutes. The vote was 3-4, of course!!!!
At 2:02:27 Caution-Parker was recognized for discussion, and she moved to add language that no advance for expenses will be made to board members. This is clearly aimed at any board member who cannot afford to front her own expenses for a meeting.
Caution-Parker clearly does not understand what an Advance is for and how it is accounted for. There is a line right on the Seminar Reimbursement Form (Rev. 1/4/2016), where the employee accounts for the advance.
Caution-Parker appeared to be sniping at one board member, and she was completely out-of-order; Manning did not interrupt her. Manning works at a business where accounting is extremely important, and he must know that Advances are not "free money". Caution-Parker's remarks showed a complete ignorance of bookkeeping and accounting methods, right on the District's own form!
The vote to amend the policy to prohibit advances to board members, per Caution-Parker's request, at (2:12:34) was 6-1.
Trustee Agostini asked who approves "what is reasonable" as a board travel expense. She was asking about Teresa Holmes' $807.30 car rental and parking expense in San Diego. Supt. Davis waffled by conflating other expenses and throwing in a lot of other words to distract from the exact answer. NO "LIST" is needed. A third-grader would know that Teresa did not "need" a car in San Diego.
Trustee Agostini suggested that "common sense" is how you decide whether an expense is reasonable and necessary. That works for me!
I wanted to scream POINT-OF-ORDER when the supt. got on a roll about his expenses. All that had nothing to do with this policy.
Discussion ended on that Item at 2:32:07. WHEW!