Friday, October 28, 2022

Ridge View Blazers - 3 ineligible players?

Read today's article in The State newspaper about the Ridge View H.S. football team and then ask yourself, "Am I more confused after reading it?

Here's the article by reporter Lou Beziak. Click here.

Did the Blazers play three ineligible players or not?

¶3 says "an investigation" revealed the team did play three ineligible players. The reporter didn't state whose investigation.

4¶ says Richland 2 submitted its own findings that three ineligible players played. Did Richland 2 self-report?

The issue is the lack of an official change-of-address. I had heard several months ago that there were players from another school in the District who were playing on the RVHS team. It wasn't important enough to me to follow up. I don't care about any sports - high school, college, or professional.

¶7 SCHSL Commissioner Singleton says RVHS claims there were bonafide address changes. But wait! Richland 2 says there weren't.

What's the famous movie line? "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Strom Law Firm represents Ridge View High School. Wait! Not the District? How does a high school end up with a lawyer? Did the school board approve that?

Why is there an appeal if the District agrees that three players were not eligible?

Monday is a second appeal. When was the first appeal? How long has the ineligibility question been on the table?

Holmes misses last meeting of term

Why was Teresa Holmes missing from her seat at the board on Tuesday, October 25? What was the "family issue" that occasioned her absence?

Even though she has never taken the oath-of-office legitimately for her 2018-2022 term-of-office, she has been allowed to serve on the board. She remained a trustee-elect for the full term. 

I was never able to get a satisfactory answer from the Richland County Elections Commission about whether an office remains vacant until the elected person takes the oath-of-office legally

Earlier this year (January 1, 2022) Richland 2 shifted from the illegal "stipend" arrangement of compensation to the statutory per diem, and the board set the amount of the per diem for trustees at $384.00.

So, wherever she was and for whatever reason, Holmes earned 384.00 for Tuesday's meeting. At least, during this meeting that she attended by telephone, we didn't accidentally overhear side comments made to anyone in her company.

Perhaps board policy should be changed to require absent board members to attend via Zoom or Skype (or Livestream), so that the public can be sure they are giving their undivided attention to the business of the board.

Was the "family issue" excuse satisfactory to all? Are the other trustees entitled to know what the "family issue" was? Is the public entitled to know?

Why not?

That school board member was "on the move". Where was she?