Last Thursday I was strongly encouraged (I would call it a "warning") not to approach members of the Richland 2 School Board after meetings have adjourned. Don't approach them; don't speak to them; don't attempt to engage in any manner. The meeting is over. You have nothing to discuss with them. Even if you speak in a conversational tone and in no way are threatening, one or more of them might feel harassed.
The risk? Such an approach could be considered harassment. When the meeting is over, it is o-v-e-r.
If that's true, then the Board members should immediately exit stage right and leave by the rear door, avoiding all parents or other community members who might like to speak with them.
Where did that caution come from?
I received a telephone call informing me that a harassment report had been filed with the sheriff's department that had my name in it. The deputy said he wanted to hear my side of the story. I instantly knew my decision, and I said, "First I'd like to read the report." I immediately drove to the Sheriff's Department on Two Notch Road and was promptly met by the deputy. We went to the office of the Deputy Chief in charge of the Criminal Investigations Division. Perhaps most people would feel intimidated. I did not.
I was shown the Incident Report and given time to read it. The name of the person filing the report was one of the Richland 2 School Board members, Teresa Holmes. I read the report carefully and pointed out several false statements and exaggerations. I suggested that they first investigate her report and get the facts.
Here is what the narrative of the report said: "C/V (School Board Member) came into RCSD to report that a man that has approached her at several Richland County School Board meetings is harassing her. C/V states she feels threatened by the subjects [sic] behavior. Besides the meetings where she has been approached by the subject, the C/V states he has sent her numerous emails attacking her. The emails proveded [sic] by the C/V have the subject's PH# listed as 847.971.7083. A case number was issued to the C/V."
FALSE STATEMENT IN REPORT: "approached her at several Richland County School Board meetings"
FACT: I approached Teresa Holmes one time only. It was after the end of the March 12th Board meeting. AND Sheriff's Department Lt. Rhoades was standing right next to us during our entire, short conversation. One time is not "several".
FALSE STATEMENT IN REPORT: "is harassing her."
FACT: Standing in a public meeting room, having a calm conversation, is not harassment. Had any harassment occurred, don't you think Lt. Rhoades would have taken immediate action?
FALSE STATEMENT IN REPORT: "Besides the meetings..." (plural)
FACT: One meeting.
FALSE STATEMENT IN REPORT: "has sent her numerous emails attacking her"
FACT: No email has been sent only to Teresa Holmes. Any email I sent about Board business is sent to all Board members. I have never attacked her.
The report shown to me on Thursday listed Harassment as the Incident Type on Line 1. Imagine my surprise when I picked up a copy of the report on March 25 and found the Incident Type had been changed to Intimidation. This apparently happened when the Records Division coded the report for electronic filing purposes.
As the Sergeant, Deputy Chief and I talked further on Thursday, the two deputies acknowledged that I had not committed any crime. They showed me the statute on harassment (S.C. Code of Laws 16-3-1700) and explained that I had not violated it.
They told me they don't want anything to happen. I explained that I had not been at any meeting where something had been close to happening. I certainly am not going to cause something to happen. Further, I told them that if I observed anyone threatening or harassing a Board member, I'd instantly be right in the middle of it to defend that Board member.
They assured me that they understand it is my right to speak to the Board in public at meetings and to address them on official matters. In every communication I have been polite, respectful, truthful and direct. All my written communications have been addressed to the full Board. Never - not even once - did I send an individual email to the complaining Board member.
I explained that I believe there are two people on the Board illegally. The sergeant asked if I wanted them kicked off the Board. I told him that is not my intention; they were elected, and all I want is for them to be sworn in - legally. Per the School District, as of March 18 they have not been sworn in since filing their Statements of Economic Interests on December 4.
The taxpayers, voters, parents, students, residents of the Richland 2 School District deserve a legal Board.
If you agree, step up.Show up at the Board meeting tonight, Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at 6:30PM at R2i2. If you want to speak, sign up on the speaker's form AND fill out the silly, but required, second form. Be sure you personally present that completed second form to a deputy or Richland 2 security officer (get his name) who will give it to the Board. If you fail to fill out that second form and turn it in, you are out of luck.
Email your Board members. Remember now, don't "harass" them. Be clear, polite, respectful, proper, sincere, direct and tell them what you want them to do. Tell them to stop operating illegally and to swear in Mrs. McKie and that other one.
Thursday, March 21, 2019
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Why the legality of the Board matters
At the school board meeting on March 12, 2019, the Board discussed confidential student matters in the closed Executive Session between 5:30-6:30PM.
In the public session the Board voted on student matters. You can view the Board meeting on YouTube; start at 42:12 on the timer.
The first vote pertained to "Student 1", and Mr. Manning made a motion to deny the student's appeal (of suspension or transfer?) and uphold the recommendation of the administration, and Mrs. Agostini seconded.
The vote was 3-4; the motion failed.
Voting Yes (to deny) were Manning, Agostini, Caution-Parker.
Voting No were Elkins-Johnson, McKie, Shadd, Holmes
If only the legal members of the Board had voted, then the result would have been different.
Voting Yes (to deny) would have been Manning, Agostini, Caution-Parker.
Voting No would have been Elkins-Johnson,McKie, Shadd, Holmes
The motion to deny the student's appeal would have passed. Would there have been a second motion to deal with Student 1?
Because the motion was announced as Failed, the next motion made was to transfer Student 1 to Blythewood Academy.
Voting Yes were Elkins-Johnson, McKie, Shadd, Holmes
Voting No were Manning, Agostini, Caution-Parker
McKie announced that the motion passed.
HOWEVER, the true vote by legal Board members was
Voting Yes were Elkins-Johnson,McKie, Shadd, Holmes
Voting No were Manning, Agostini, Caution-Parker
Updated 3/20/19 8:08AM
In the public session the Board voted on student matters. You can view the Board meeting on YouTube; start at 42:12 on the timer.
The first vote pertained to "Student 1", and Mr. Manning made a motion to deny the student's appeal (of suspension or transfer?) and uphold the recommendation of the administration, and Mrs. Agostini seconded.
The vote was 3-4; the motion failed.
Voting Yes (to deny) were Manning, Agostini, Caution-Parker.
Voting No were Elkins-Johnson, McKie, Shadd, Holmes
If only the legal members of the Board had voted, then the result would have been different.
Voting Yes (to deny) would have been Manning, Agostini, Caution-Parker.
Voting No would have been Elkins-Johnson,
Because the motion was announced as Failed, the next motion made was to transfer Student 1 to Blythewood Academy.
Voting Yes were Elkins-Johnson, McKie, Shadd, Holmes
Voting No were Manning, Agostini, Caution-Parker
McKie announced that the motion passed.
HOWEVER, the true vote by legal Board members was
Voting Yes were Elkins-Johnson,
Voting No were Manning, Agostini, Caution-Parker
Thus, the true vote was 2-3, and the motion actually failed. Student 1's transfer to Blythewood Academy was NOT approved.
If anyone knows Student 1, his parents and he should be informed of this, and they will probably want to consult with their attorney. Further, the District has an obligation to inform Student 1 of the true vote. Will it do so?
This is only one example of the problems this Board has created and which it must correct, because of its having only five legal members since November 13, 2018.
A motion was made to transfer Student 2 to Blythewood Academy. The vote was 7-0 (actually, 5-0), but the transfer was still approved.
Motion by Manning re Student 3 to deny the appeal.
The vote was 4-3, and the motion passed.
Voting Yes were Agostini, Manning, Caution-Parker, McKie
Voting No were Elkins-Johnson, Shadd, Holmes
However, when you strike the votes of the illegal members of the Board:
Voting Yes were Agostini, Manning, Caution-Parker, McKie
Voting No were Elkins-Johnson, Shadd, Holmes
The motion still passes, but the vote was 3-2.
What if an unfair liability is assigned to Blythewood Academy Principal Marylin Ross Frederick for accepting the transfer of Student 1? She's only doing her job as Principal, but now she has at least one student in her school who is not supposed to be there.
What if an unfair liability is assigned to Blythewood Academy Principal Marylin Ross Frederick for accepting the transfer of Student 1? She's only doing her job as Principal, but now she has at least one student in her school who is not supposed to be there.
This is why Richland 2 School Board must stop conducting business with two people who are not legally seated on the Board.
Updated 3/20/19 8:08AM
Who administered the oath of office on Nov. 13?
A reader asked me who administered the oath of office to Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes on November 13, 2018.
I was asked, "Wouldn't that person have known that he was not entitled to take the oath?"
It's a good question, but I'm not sure it really matters under the specific section (Section 8-13-1110(A)) of South Carolina law that was violated.
The law says that no public official may take the oath of office or enter upon official responsibilities unless he (she) has filed a statement of economic interests...
McKie and Holmes took the oath on November 13, 2018.
McKie and Homes filed their statements of economic interests with the S.C. Ethics Commission on December 4, 2018.
The violator is the person who took the oath, not the person who administered the oath.
It's quite likely that the person who administered the oath didn't know that he shouldn't be doing so (in view of the lack of statements of economic interests).
But the violator is the person who took the oath. Both of them.
I was asked, "Wouldn't that person have known that he was not entitled to take the oath?"
It's a good question, but I'm not sure it really matters under the specific section (Section 8-13-1110(A)) of South Carolina law that was violated.
The law says that no public official may take the oath of office or enter upon official responsibilities unless he (she) has filed a statement of economic interests...
McKie and Holmes took the oath on November 13, 2018.
McKie and Homes filed their statements of economic interests with the S.C. Ethics Commission on December 4, 2018.
The violator is the person who took the oath, not the person who administered the oath.
It's quite likely that the person who administered the oath didn't know that he shouldn't be doing so (in view of the lack of statements of economic interests).
But the violator is the person who took the oath. Both of them.
Attorney for Richland 2 School District?
Who is the attorney or law firm for the Richland 2 School District?
Does any reader here know?
If you do, please call or text me at 847.971.7083. Or email me at gusphilpott@gmail.com
I keep sources of information confidential.
I realize I could FOIA this information, but the District could take up to ten days to respond. I'd like to know before the March 26 Board meeting.
Eighteen months ago I inserted myself into the business of a small non-profit in eastern Indiana. I was a volunteer for seven weeks and paid for a membership, so that I would have standing to complain. I believed it had been functioning for years without a legally-constituted Board of Directors. There were many other problems. Their non-profit status was at risk, as well as their 501(c)(3) exemption.
My complaints fell on deaf ears. Finally, the person who was acting as Chairman of the Board announced she would talk to the non-profit's attorney and then she'd straighten me out. Well, it didn't turn out that way. I wrote the attorney and explained what was going on.
The attorney went to a Board meeting and told them that I was right and that they didn't even have a legal board. Then he guided them in correcting the many things they had been doing wrong.
Does any reader here know?
If you do, please call or text me at 847.971.7083. Or email me at gusphilpott@gmail.com
I keep sources of information confidential.
I realize I could FOIA this information, but the District could take up to ten days to respond. I'd like to know before the March 26 Board meeting.
Eighteen months ago I inserted myself into the business of a small non-profit in eastern Indiana. I was a volunteer for seven weeks and paid for a membership, so that I would have standing to complain. I believed it had been functioning for years without a legally-constituted Board of Directors. There were many other problems. Their non-profit status was at risk, as well as their 501(c)(3) exemption.
My complaints fell on deaf ears. Finally, the person who was acting as Chairman of the Board announced she would talk to the non-profit's attorney and then she'd straighten me out. Well, it didn't turn out that way. I wrote the attorney and explained what was going on.
The attorney went to a Board meeting and told them that I was right and that they didn't even have a legal board. Then he guided them in correcting the many things they had been doing wrong.
Should McKie, Holmes have themselves arrested?
Amelia McKie, who has been acting as a member of the Richland 2 School Board and chairing public meetings (and presumably attending and chairing Executive Sessions), illegally took the oath of office on November 13, 2018. So did Teresa Holmes.
Should they have themselves arrested for violating S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A)?
There is precedent for a public official's arresting himself.
The late Reuben Greenberg (1943-2014) was Chief of the Charleston Police Department. When he was a rookie cop, he got into an accident enroute to a call. It was his fault, so he wrote himself a ticket. I bought and read his book Let's Take Back Our Streets (1989) and carried it with me each time I visited Columbia from Illinois. I had wanted to meet him, shake his hand, thank him and ask him to autograph the book, but I was not ever in Columbia when he was available in Charleston.
In his book he wrote about what he would make his officers do, if they served a warrant, got the wrong house and damaged the house (you can imagine) while executing the warrant. He made them go back and repair the house!!!
Now that is my kind of cop.
And I read about a sheriff in Wisconsin who had passed a stopped school bus while its red lights were flashing. He realized what he had done and wrote himself a ticket. And paid the fine!
Now these are two examples of high integrity.
OK, so Mrs. McKie and Ms. Holmes don't have to turn themselves in. All they have to do is get sworn in properly. - before the next school board meeting on March 26 at 5:30PM.
Should they have themselves arrested for violating S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A)?
There is precedent for a public official's arresting himself.
The late Reuben Greenberg (1943-2014) was Chief of the Charleston Police Department. When he was a rookie cop, he got into an accident enroute to a call. It was his fault, so he wrote himself a ticket. I bought and read his book Let's Take Back Our Streets (1989) and carried it with me each time I visited Columbia from Illinois. I had wanted to meet him, shake his hand, thank him and ask him to autograph the book, but I was not ever in Columbia when he was available in Charleston.
In his book he wrote about what he would make his officers do, if they served a warrant, got the wrong house and damaged the house (you can imagine) while executing the warrant. He made them go back and repair the house!!!
Now that is my kind of cop.
And I read about a sheriff in Wisconsin who had passed a stopped school bus while its red lights were flashing. He realized what he had done and wrote himself a ticket. And paid the fine!
Now these are two examples of high integrity.
OK, so Mrs. McKie and Ms. Holmes don't have to turn themselves in. All they have to do is get sworn in properly. - before the next school board meeting on March 26 at 5:30PM.
Who Is Responsible?
Just who is responsible for seeing that the Board of Trustees of the Richland 2 School District is a duly-constituted and legal Board?
The ultimate responsibility falls on the Board. Or perhaps it will end up being a Court's responsibility.
At the present time there are only five legal members on the Board: Lindsay Agostini, James Manning, Cheryl Caution-Parker, James Shadd and Monica Elkins-Johnson.
Amelia McKee was re-elected on November 6, 2018, but she took the oath of office illegally on November 13, 2018, so she is not a member of the Board. See S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A). McKie didn't file the required Statement of Economic Interests Report until December 4, 2018.
Teresa Holmes was elected on November 6, 2018, but she too took the oath of office illegally on November 13, 2018, so she is not a member of the Board. See S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A). Holmes didn't file the required Statement of Economic Interests Report until December 4, 2018.
Is the Superintendent responsible? As Administrator it is his job to run the District (employees) and to help guide the Board. By now he must realize that McKie and Holmes are not legally members of the Board. But he works for the Board; the Board doesn't work for him.
So why isn't the Board acting immediately to resolve the problem? The fix is easy. All that is needed is to administer the oath of office to McKie and Holmes.
Then McKie and Holmes can legally embark upon the duties of their office. On the Board. But McKie cannot resume as Chair, because they was a break in her service on the Board.
The rest of the Board (the five legal members of the Board) have allowed two unauthorized persons (McKie and Holmes) to sit at the Board desks; to have confidential Board tablets; to attend closed Executive Sessions and to hear matters involving confidential student affairs; to vote on suspensions, transfers, expulsions, diplomas; and to receive compensation as if they were Board members.
The Board may be reluctant to administer the oath of office now, because it will result in the admission that it was incorrectly done on November 13, 2018. If they don't act? It just gets worse.
Parents, voters, teachers, staff and even students should contact the Board of Trustees and insist that they conduct business legally. McKie and Holmes should not be allowed to sit at the Board desks and act like Board members, unless they are Board members.
Phone numbers and email addresses for the Board members are on the Richland 2 website. Call and/or email today.
And please post your comments below about action you will take or have taken.
The ultimate responsibility falls on the Board. Or perhaps it will end up being a Court's responsibility.
At the present time there are only five legal members on the Board: Lindsay Agostini, James Manning, Cheryl Caution-Parker, James Shadd and Monica Elkins-Johnson.
Amelia McKee was re-elected on November 6, 2018, but she took the oath of office illegally on November 13, 2018, so she is not a member of the Board. See S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A). McKie didn't file the required Statement of Economic Interests Report until December 4, 2018.
Teresa Holmes was elected on November 6, 2018, but she too took the oath of office illegally on November 13, 2018, so she is not a member of the Board. See S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A). Holmes didn't file the required Statement of Economic Interests Report until December 4, 2018.
Is the Superintendent responsible? As Administrator it is his job to run the District (employees) and to help guide the Board. By now he must realize that McKie and Holmes are not legally members of the Board. But he works for the Board; the Board doesn't work for him.
So why isn't the Board acting immediately to resolve the problem? The fix is easy. All that is needed is to administer the oath of office to McKie and Holmes.
Then McKie and Holmes can legally embark upon the duties of their office. On the Board. But McKie cannot resume as Chair, because they was a break in her service on the Board.
The rest of the Board (the five legal members of the Board) have allowed two unauthorized persons (McKie and Holmes) to sit at the Board desks; to have confidential Board tablets; to attend closed Executive Sessions and to hear matters involving confidential student affairs; to vote on suspensions, transfers, expulsions, diplomas; and to receive compensation as if they were Board members.
The Board may be reluctant to administer the oath of office now, because it will result in the admission that it was incorrectly done on November 13, 2018. If they don't act? It just gets worse.
Parents, voters, teachers, staff and even students should contact the Board of Trustees and insist that they conduct business legally. McKie and Holmes should not be allowed to sit at the Board desks and act like Board members, unless they are Board members.
Phone numbers and email addresses for the Board members are on the Richland 2 website. Call and/or email today.
And please post your comments below about action you will take or have taken.
McKie and the S.C. Ethics Commission
Amelia McKie, who sits in the position of Chair of the Richland 2 School Board, owes more than $51,000 to the South Carolina Ethics Commission.
In February the Ethics Commission told me that there would be no hearing on her matter that month, but there would be one in March.
Early in March the Ethics Commission told me that there would be no hearing on McKie at the March regular hearing date.
Will McKie just get lost among the 300 debtors on the multi-page list that is posted on the Ethics Commission website? They are "so busy" at the Ethics commission that the debtor's list, dated 1/3/2019, has not been updated. That ought to be somebody's job there. After all, it could bring in much-needed revenue to run the Commission.
Prominently displayed on the homepage of the Ethics Commission is this headline:
"Restoring Public Trust in Government"
Lucas Daprile, a reporter at The State, wrote an interesting article on March 6, 2019 about the deadbeats on the Ethics Commission's debtor's list. You can read it here.
It seems that McKie isn't even a legitimate member of the Richland 2 School Board, except she has been sitting in the position as Chair after being sworn in on November 13, 2018. The problem is that she violated S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A), when she took the oath of office on that date. So she is not really sworn in and is not really a Board member. There are six other members of the Board (well, really only five legitimate members) who are not doing anything about McKie's illegal participation on the Board.
Could I take the oath of office for a School Board member and just sit down at the front of the room twice a month. You say that I wasn't elected and haven't filed a Statement of Economic Interests? So what? I took the oath. How fast would Richland 2 security or a deputy sheriff remove me?
A Richland 2 parent told me that she believes McKie wasn't even entitled to be on the November 6, 2018, ballot. Seems McKie had a "little problem" and didn't file campaign disclosure reports. See Note below for viewing McKie's past-due campaign disclosure reports.
So, tell me once more about "Restoring public trust in government"?
The Ethics Commission should turn McKie's debt over to the S.C. Department of Revenue. If the DOR can't collect it in three months, they should turn it over to a private collection agency with instructions to sue within three months. Then hope that there is a judge in some court around here who won't let it languish on his docket for 5-6 years.
NOTE: To find Amelia McKie's campaign disclosure reports, all the way back to 2015, follow these steps:
Go to ethics.sc.gov
On the hompage, click on the link near the top "Public Reporting"
On page for Public Disclosure and Accountability Reporting Welcome, click on "Individual Financial Reports"
On page for Public Disclosure and Accountability Reporting Individual Reports, click on "Candidate Reports"
For Individual Reports Candidates, enter McKie; select office of School Board Trustee; select Year of 2018. Click "Next"
Select District as RICHLAND #2. Click SEARCH
Click on the Name, "McKie, Amelia B"
In that long list, you'll see all the campaign disclosure reports that she filed late. You'll also see the Statement of Economic Interest Reports that she filed late. You'll also see one filed 8/15/2014 for Year 2014, so she can't say that she didn't know she was supposed to file them.
In February the Ethics Commission told me that there would be no hearing on her matter that month, but there would be one in March.
Early in March the Ethics Commission told me that there would be no hearing on McKie at the March regular hearing date.
Will McKie just get lost among the 300 debtors on the multi-page list that is posted on the Ethics Commission website? They are "so busy" at the Ethics commission that the debtor's list, dated 1/3/2019, has not been updated. That ought to be somebody's job there. After all, it could bring in much-needed revenue to run the Commission.
Prominently displayed on the homepage of the Ethics Commission is this headline:
"Restoring Public Trust in Government"
Lucas Daprile, a reporter at The State, wrote an interesting article on March 6, 2019 about the deadbeats on the Ethics Commission's debtor's list. You can read it here.
It seems that McKie isn't even a legitimate member of the Richland 2 School Board, except she has been sitting in the position as Chair after being sworn in on November 13, 2018. The problem is that she violated S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A), when she took the oath of office on that date. So she is not really sworn in and is not really a Board member. There are six other members of the Board (well, really only five legitimate members) who are not doing anything about McKie's illegal participation on the Board.
Could I take the oath of office for a School Board member and just sit down at the front of the room twice a month. You say that I wasn't elected and haven't filed a Statement of Economic Interests? So what? I took the oath. How fast would Richland 2 security or a deputy sheriff remove me?
A Richland 2 parent told me that she believes McKie wasn't even entitled to be on the November 6, 2018, ballot. Seems McKie had a "little problem" and didn't file campaign disclosure reports. See Note below for viewing McKie's past-due campaign disclosure reports.
So, tell me once more about "Restoring public trust in government"?
The Ethics Commission should turn McKie's debt over to the S.C. Department of Revenue. If the DOR can't collect it in three months, they should turn it over to a private collection agency with instructions to sue within three months. Then hope that there is a judge in some court around here who won't let it languish on his docket for 5-6 years.
NOTE: To find Amelia McKie's campaign disclosure reports, all the way back to 2015, follow these steps:
Go to ethics.sc.gov
On the hompage, click on the link near the top "Public Reporting"
On page for Public Disclosure and Accountability Reporting Welcome, click on "Individual Financial Reports"
On page for Public Disclosure and Accountability Reporting Individual Reports, click on "Candidate Reports"
For Individual Reports Candidates, enter McKie; select office of School Board Trustee; select Year of 2018. Click "Next"
Select District as RICHLAND #2. Click SEARCH
Click on the Name, "McKie, Amelia B"
In that long list, you'll see all the campaign disclosure reports that she filed late. You'll also see the Statement of Economic Interest Reports that she filed late. You'll also see one filed 8/15/2014 for Year 2014, so she can't say that she didn't know she was supposed to file them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)