Wednesday, October 12, 2022

Item 10.2 - Board Comp and Expenses

 At 2:01:39 on the recording of last night's meeting, 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.


Paragraph 4 reads, in part, "The district will reimburse board members for all reasonable and necessary expenses..."


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!

Chaos during Item 10.1 - Policy BK

Watch the chaos during Item 10.1 Policy BK.

It starts at 1:46:40 on

After about ten minutes of the board's babbling, Trustee Scott made a motion, which she then replaced with her own motion to table Item 10.1. 

The obstruction and palavering by Amelia McKie was astonishing. She stepped up on her soapbox in an attempt to ram through a policy change that will affect the next board, which she will not be on,  asserting that she will, in effect, do her job until the end of her term. Barf....

Whenever McKie opens her mouth and says she is going to "clarify" something, you can bet she is not.

Manning called for a vote on the secondary motion (to table Item 10.1) and the hand-vote was 3-4, which was no surprise at all. The Core Four stuck together like Elmer's Glue, once again!!! Manning should have announced the vote as 3 Yes, 4 No - Motion failed. Again, parliamentary procedure failed.

Notice how many times McKie interjected comments that rightfully belonged to Chair Manning. She just butts in and starts talking. It was sickening! He should have directed McKie NOT to speak unless and until she was recognized by the Chair.

The discussion on Item 10.1 concluded at 2:01:39

10/12/22 Board Meeting - 2nd Executive Session

The school board conducted a second Executive Session last night for the stated purpose of (Item 15.2) Investigation Update and (Item 15.3) Legal Update.

On which investigation did they get an update? Is there more than one ongoing investigation? Or is the only one the investigation by the South Carolina State Inspector General?

Presumably, the Legal Update was on the Inspector General's investigation. But there is no way of knowing.

The recording resumes at 5:03:29 on  Caution-Parker has cleared her desk. McKie is packing up.

The second Executive Session adjourned at 10:27PM, and the board members couldn't wait to clear out. 

Trustee Agostini moved to skip Board & Superintendent Comments. Supt. Davis can be seen packing up. Caution-Parker made her contribution for the evening by seconding the motion, thereby earning her $384 per diem.

Manning called for a Motion to Adjourn. McKie was busy packing up and had to be reminded by Chair Manning to raise her hand high to adjourn.

Manning didn't really need McKie's vote. He could have just ignored her disrespect and inattention and then announced the vote as 6-0-0, meaning 6 Yes, 0 No, 0 Abstaining. 

If a member of a public body doesn't vote Yes or No and is not Absent, then the vote is recorded as Abstaining. The member of the public body does not have to announce that he or she is abstaining from the vote.

10/12/22 Public Participation

At last night's school board meeting, there was just one speaker during Public Participation.

My remarks are at 1:30:50 on

I spoke about how I thought the four board members (including the two who aren't even legal board members) had probably done the best they could have done.

After watching the fiasco when they tried to fix the error in the September 13th Minutes, I wondered, "Are they really doing the best they can?"

Two other speakers had apparently signed up electronically to speak but did not show up.

Where was everyone else? Eleven board candidates missed the opportunity for exposure to the Richland 2 voters. While they could not have campaigned, they could have spoken about the desperate condition of Richland 2 as the State Inspector General's investigation continues.

Last night was an opportunity for the board to act as if they were professionals and fix that error in the Minutes honestly and correctly. They missed the mark.

Board botches attempt to fix 9/13/22 Minutes

At the October 11, 2022 board meeting the board attempted to fix the Minutes of the September 13th meeting. That was the meeting where a Motion to reward the superintendent with an evaluation and contract extension ended with a sentence to "conclude" his employment contract.

The Motion on September 13th was adopted 4-3, but the Minutes did not report it correctly in the Agenda for the September 25th board meeting. The Minutes for the September 13th Minutes omitted the part about firing Supt. Davis.

Amelia McKie introduced a Motion last night (October 11). Not a woman of a few words, the board chair didn't even understand what she said or meant.

You can witness the fiasco at 1:42:20 on last night's recording, which you'll find at

Item 9.1 was on the agenda as "Clarification Regarding September 13, 2022 Board Meeting Minutes." The title of the item was their first mistake. You can't fix an error by "clarifying" it.

When Chair Manning asked for a Motion and recognized McKie, instead of making the requested Motion, she launched into "a question". How many times has the need for a Parliamentarian come up???...

She said a question had been raised about a scrivener's error" ...  It was not a scrivener's error! McKie lied in her statement to the board last night. The error was the Board's vote on a written motion that differed from the oral motion.

The Board voted on the Motion that was displayed to them on the screen. The maker (Holmes) of the Motion didn't read it carefully. No one on the board read it carefully. The superintendent did not read it carefully.

The Board voted to conclude the superintendent's employment contract. The vote was on the written motion, not the oral motion. The written motion is the official motion that was adopted by the Board on September 13, 2022.

The harder McKie tried to "clarify", the worse it got. Her motion last night should have been first to acknowledge the error in the Board's vote and to correct the wording in the September 13th Minutes. Then the board should have addressed how to correct it. 

The board needed legal advice and apparently did not get it.

The Minutes of the September 13th meeting are still wrong. Those Minutes should be corrected to include the "scrivener's error", because the Board voted on the motion that included that error.

The next step is to correct the error.

Last night the board (majority) voted 4-2-1 to obscure the lawful and correct record of action on September 13, 2022. 

Count one more complaint to the S.C. State Inspector General.