Be sure to watch and read this news article on WIS-TV about the use of your new bond money in Richland School District Two. Click here to go to the WIS-TV story. At the bottom of the WIS-TV story, click through to see about the projects. This connects to the Richland Two website. One of the tabs will be to "High Bond Projects". They mean High School Bond Projects. Keep clicking.
As you'll see in the news story, the District is to manage the new $468,406,000 ($381,952,000 + 86,454,000). That's almost half a BILLION dollars.
Now take a look at the Board of Trustees of Richland School District Two. You'll find them here. These seven people who are not only responsible for managing this new $468 Million, but also millions of dollars of other assets, thousands of students and hundreds of teachers.
Does any reader (or voter) know or care about their backgrounds, skills, training, financial education, critical understanding of financial statements and economic forecasts?
Some of them are closely related to the world of education. Does that necessarily make them the best choices to steer the finances of a large school district?
Every taxpayer should be paying close attention to the School Board and showing up at meetings to examine how the Board conducts business. If you attended 3-4 Board meetings recently, you'd fire most of them, if you owned this business.
Most of them are nice people. I say "most", because some are not. Or they too might even be "nice" people, just ignorant in certain matters or careless in others. One owes over $51,000 in fines and penalties to the South Carolina Ethics Commission. Another made false statements in a police report recently.
But which of them (any?) really has the experience and expertise to direct the management of this new half-billion dollars and the other millions in assets? They should stop nit-picking small matters at Board meetings and concentrate on the important stuff.
When the next School Board election comes around in 2020, perhaps some highly-experienced business people will run for election. The positions of Trustees Elkins-Johnson, Agostini and Shadd will be on the ballot in 2020.
The other four (McKie, Caution-Parker, Holmes and Manning) are safe until 2022.
If more poorly-qualified trustees are elected in 2020, Richland Two will enter very dangerous waters. The rocks are already in sight. The coral reefs are too close.
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
First Amendment - DOA?
As soon as the video of the March 26, 2019 School Board pops up on YouTube, I'll provide more detail about a serious problem that surfaced at last night's meeting.
At the beginning of the Public Participation segment, Mrs. McKie, in a soft voice barely audible in the large room, made her general introductory remarks about watch for the red light on the microphone, state your name but not your address, you'll have three minutes; don't mention any students or staff by name, and the Board won't respond following your comments.
And then she turned the microphone over to her cohort and fellow illegal Board member, Ms. Holmes.
Holmes ordered speakers to stay on business of the children of the District, not to mention Board members by name, no profanity, and, if a speaker strays, she hoped the Chair would gavel the speaker into submission. Or some such words.
Too bad I wasn't recording the meeting myself. I'll have to wait until the recording is available on YouTube.
In all the school board and other public meetings I have attended, I have never once heard profanity. Where did that come from? Was it an insinuation that "Person A" might use profanity at the microphone?
And exactly when did McKie and Holmes cook up the tag-team match idea? Was the entire Board behind that? Or was the remainder of the Board shocked? Trustee Shadd is an attorney and should be the best-versed member of the Board about the U.S. Constitution. Did he know that was coming?
Placing restrictions on free speech by a public body (government) is really not a very good idea. While they didn't "make a law" and they aren't "Congress", does the First Amendment apply to Richland 2 as a public body?
As soon as the recording is available, I'll post verbatim what Holmes said.
Then you can judge for yourself.
One remedy that the members of the Board might start pondering between now and the Executive Session on April 9 is how to word an apology to the residents of Richland School District Two for the possible infringement on the Constitutional Right to free speech.
Was it a coincidence that last night's verbal warning followed Teresa Holmes' complaint of harassment filed against me last week at the Richland County Sheriff's Department? Why did McKie pick Holmes, who is the newest Board member? Was this payback for my advocacy and activism? Sometimes things are coincidences; sometimes, things are not.
At the beginning of the Public Participation segment, Mrs. McKie, in a soft voice barely audible in the large room, made her general introductory remarks about watch for the red light on the microphone, state your name but not your address, you'll have three minutes; don't mention any students or staff by name, and the Board won't respond following your comments.
And then she turned the microphone over to her cohort and fellow illegal Board member, Ms. Holmes.
Holmes ordered speakers to stay on business of the children of the District, not to mention Board members by name, no profanity, and, if a speaker strays, she hoped the Chair would gavel the speaker into submission. Or some such words.
Too bad I wasn't recording the meeting myself. I'll have to wait until the recording is available on YouTube.
In all the school board and other public meetings I have attended, I have never once heard profanity. Where did that come from? Was it an insinuation that "Person A" might use profanity at the microphone?
And exactly when did McKie and Holmes cook up the tag-team match idea? Was the entire Board behind that? Or was the remainder of the Board shocked? Trustee Shadd is an attorney and should be the best-versed member of the Board about the U.S. Constitution. Did he know that was coming?
Placing restrictions on free speech by a public body (government) is really not a very good idea. While they didn't "make a law" and they aren't "Congress", does the First Amendment apply to Richland 2 as a public body?
As soon as the recording is available, I'll post verbatim what Holmes said.
Then you can judge for yourself.
One remedy that the members of the Board might start pondering between now and the Executive Session on April 9 is how to word an apology to the residents of Richland School District Two for the possible infringement on the Constitutional Right to free speech.
Was it a coincidence that last night's verbal warning followed Teresa Holmes' complaint of harassment filed against me last week at the Richland County Sheriff's Department? Why did McKie pick Holmes, who is the newest Board member? Was this payback for my advocacy and activism? Sometimes things are coincidences; sometimes, things are not.
Back to the marathons
The Richland 2 School Board returned to their marathons last night.
For at least one meeting (March 12, 2019) there was hope that sanity and good management skill had returned to the Board. After prior meetings of 3½ hours, the Board got its business done in 1 hour 20 minutes. Trustee Manning expressed it best in his final comment that evening, "Hallelujah!" That was March 12.
But, by last night, there was no countdown clock running. (Hey, there's an idea; set a loud timer for 90 minutes when the meeting starts.) A too-long Inspirational Moment (just how long should a "Moment" be?) opened the meeting. The speaker had a soft voice and could not be heard. The Chair should establish, when a speaker is invited, that an inspiration moment is to be just that - a moment. Or maybe a couple of minutes. Not longer.
During a lengthy recognition ceremony and photo opp, the District staffer grabbed a cordless microphone for her remarks and introductions. THANK YOU. She could be heard. Many of the students mumbled their names, but she spoke clearly and was heard by all.
In another article I shall comment on the introduction of the Public Participation segment of the March 26th meeting. You'll want to see that, for sure.
And then the routine, boring reports and drivel soaked up time. At one point I left, wondering if the Board intended to wind up by midnight.
In the lobby a reporter from ABC Columbia asked to speak with me. He wanted to know about my interaction with the sheriff's department last week.
Then endurance returned and I went back into the meeting room.
More reports. Then a long discussion about whether teachers are allowed to counsel students. Dr. Elkins-Johnson was asking good questions, and then the nitpicking began. As soon as the video-recording is posted to YouTube, I'll put on a large pot of coffee and prepare an Index.
This Board is sucking the humanness out of teaching. The gist of teacher-vs.-counselor is the worry that a teacher might not pack off little Susie to the school counselor quickly enough, if she looks sad one day. I exaggerate only slightly.
How many students will talk to their teacher but won't go the the school counselor right away? Are they just worried about the stigma? Or that they'll get labeled or branded as a wuss?
A teacher is on the front line. One day the School Board says, "Build relationships with your students." Last night it was "Pack 'em off to the counselor and get back to teaching."
Well, that'll sure keep $83/000/year in the counselor's pay envelope and pay increases out-of-sight for the $35,000/year teachers.
That's where I got fed up and left before the end of the meeting.
For at least one meeting (March 12, 2019) there was hope that sanity and good management skill had returned to the Board. After prior meetings of 3½ hours, the Board got its business done in 1 hour 20 minutes. Trustee Manning expressed it best in his final comment that evening, "Hallelujah!" That was March 12.
But, by last night, there was no countdown clock running. (Hey, there's an idea; set a loud timer for 90 minutes when the meeting starts.) A too-long Inspirational Moment (just how long should a "Moment" be?) opened the meeting. The speaker had a soft voice and could not be heard. The Chair should establish, when a speaker is invited, that an inspiration moment is to be just that - a moment. Or maybe a couple of minutes. Not longer.
During a lengthy recognition ceremony and photo opp, the District staffer grabbed a cordless microphone for her remarks and introductions. THANK YOU. She could be heard. Many of the students mumbled their names, but she spoke clearly and was heard by all.
In another article I shall comment on the introduction of the Public Participation segment of the March 26th meeting. You'll want to see that, for sure.
And then the routine, boring reports and drivel soaked up time. At one point I left, wondering if the Board intended to wind up by midnight.
In the lobby a reporter from ABC Columbia asked to speak with me. He wanted to know about my interaction with the sheriff's department last week.
Then endurance returned and I went back into the meeting room.
More reports. Then a long discussion about whether teachers are allowed to counsel students. Dr. Elkins-Johnson was asking good questions, and then the nitpicking began. As soon as the video-recording is posted to YouTube, I'll put on a large pot of coffee and prepare an Index.
This Board is sucking the humanness out of teaching. The gist of teacher-vs.-counselor is the worry that a teacher might not pack off little Susie to the school counselor quickly enough, if she looks sad one day. I exaggerate only slightly.
How many students will talk to their teacher but won't go the the school counselor right away? Are they just worried about the stigma? Or that they'll get labeled or branded as a wuss?
A teacher is on the front line. One day the School Board says, "Build relationships with your students." Last night it was "Pack 'em off to the counselor and get back to teaching."
Well, that'll sure keep $83/000/year in the counselor's pay envelope and pay increases out-of-sight for the $35,000/year teachers.
That's where I got fed up and left before the end of the meeting.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Does RCSD have a problem?
Since the brouhaha after the School Board meeting on January 22, 2019, one or more members of the Richland 2 School Board must be worried about their "safe space", because the District has hired three off-duty sheriff's deputies to be present at each board meeting.
None of us wants a Parkland School incident at a Richland 2 School Board meeting. Am I being extreme with that reference? That happens to be the exact reference given to me by a deputy, when I questioned the intense presence of security in addition to the Richland 2 security staff. I thought, "You're kidding! Parkland? Give me a break!"
And we are nowhere close to becoming another Parkland. And it is preposterous that such a comparison would even be made. Just because there was a disagreement after one board meeting between two sisters (one being a State Senator), one husband of a Board member, and one Board member does not mean we have to live in a police state.
But here is the problem. At every Board meeting a crime (violation of S.C. Code of Laws 8-13-1110(A)) has been occurring. That is a State law. Violation of that statute is a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is a crime. State laws are enforced by sheriff's deputies.
What is illegal? Read other articles on this blog for exact details on the participation on the Richland 2 School Board by two women who are not entitled at this point-in-time to sit on the Board.
Since the February 12th school board meeting, deputies have been present. The violation of this law has been occurring at each meeting, right in front of them. They have witnessed the crime. The deputies witnessed the crime on February 12, February 26 and March 12. And I expect they'll see it on March 26.
For there to be no violation on March 26, one of two things has to happen. Either 1. Mrs. McKie and Ms. Holmes have to take the oath of office or 2. Mrs. McKie and Ms. Holmes must not sit at the Board desks.
All right, I'll admit that the deputies' training may not have covered this law. But now they know about it. And once they know about it, isn't it their responsibility to enforce the law?
The School Board has put the Richland County Sheriff's Department in a very sticky predicament. It hired these three deputies through the Department. Does that allow these deputies to overlook the crime?
Any one of the three deputies could file a complaint and begin prosecution of the violators. They are directly observing the crime and can take action, such as citing the violators. Any legal member of the Board could file a complaint against the violators. The Superintendent could file the complaint. Parents, voters and taxpayers could file the complaint. A student could file a complaint.
What will happen tonight?
None of us wants a Parkland School incident at a Richland 2 School Board meeting. Am I being extreme with that reference? That happens to be the exact reference given to me by a deputy, when I questioned the intense presence of security in addition to the Richland 2 security staff. I thought, "You're kidding! Parkland? Give me a break!"
And we are nowhere close to becoming another Parkland. And it is preposterous that such a comparison would even be made. Just because there was a disagreement after one board meeting between two sisters (one being a State Senator), one husband of a Board member, and one Board member does not mean we have to live in a police state.
But here is the problem. At every Board meeting a crime (violation of S.C. Code of Laws 8-13-1110(A)) has been occurring. That is a State law. Violation of that statute is a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is a crime. State laws are enforced by sheriff's deputies.
What is illegal? Read other articles on this blog for exact details on the participation on the Richland 2 School Board by two women who are not entitled at this point-in-time to sit on the Board.
Since the February 12th school board meeting, deputies have been present. The violation of this law has been occurring at each meeting, right in front of them. They have witnessed the crime. The deputies witnessed the crime on February 12, February 26 and March 12. And I expect they'll see it on March 26.
For there to be no violation on March 26, one of two things has to happen. Either 1. Mrs. McKie and Ms. Holmes have to take the oath of office or 2. Mrs. McKie and Ms. Holmes must not sit at the Board desks.
All right, I'll admit that the deputies' training may not have covered this law. But now they know about it. And once they know about it, isn't it their responsibility to enforce the law?
The School Board has put the Richland County Sheriff's Department in a very sticky predicament. It hired these three deputies through the Department. Does that allow these deputies to overlook the crime?
Any one of the three deputies could file a complaint and begin prosecution of the violators. They are directly observing the crime and can take action, such as citing the violators. Any legal member of the Board could file a complaint against the violators. The Superintendent could file the complaint. Parents, voters and taxpayers could file the complaint. A student could file a complaint.
What will happen tonight?
Scene of the Crime - be there!
Have you ever been at the scene of a crime, right when it was happening? What was it like? Pretty exciting?
Over the past three months you may have been at the scene of the crime and didn't even know it. There were plenty of witnesses; in fact, a whole meeting room full of them. And there were even sheriff's deputies there more recently.
But now you can plan to be at the scene of the crime, when it happens. You'll want to be at the Richland 2 School Board meeting at R2i2 on Tuesday, March 26, 2019. It will start at 5:30PM and the Board will quickly vote to go into the Executive Session. If you get there at 5:30PM, watch carefully to see who votes.
An hour later, at 6:30PM, the Board will re-convene the public session. Pay close attention to who is seated at the Board desks. Will there be only the five legal members? Or will two others be seated with them? Pay close attention to who is chairing the meeting.
If the March 26, 2019 meeting is run in the same manner as the seven Board meetings since (and including) November 13, 2018, you will be watching a crime in action.
Two of the women on the Board are there improperly and illegally. They were elected on November 6, 2018, but they were not eligible to take the oath of office when they took it on November 13. Why not? Because neither had filed her Statement of Economic Interests Report with the South Carolina Ethic Commission. Read S.C. Code of Laws 8-13-1110(A). You can Google it by just searching for "8-13-1110(A)". Scroll down to Section 1110(A). Each filed her Statement on December 4. The law reads that you cannot take the oath of office and enter upon your responsibilities unless you have filed the Statement.
Each of the two women has been violating this law since November 13, 2018. Why don't they just take the oath of office now and become legal members of the Board?
Next: Does RCSD have a problem?
Over the past three months you may have been at the scene of the crime and didn't even know it. There were plenty of witnesses; in fact, a whole meeting room full of them. And there were even sheriff's deputies there more recently.
But now you can plan to be at the scene of the crime, when it happens. You'll want to be at the Richland 2 School Board meeting at R2i2 on Tuesday, March 26, 2019. It will start at 5:30PM and the Board will quickly vote to go into the Executive Session. If you get there at 5:30PM, watch carefully to see who votes.
An hour later, at 6:30PM, the Board will re-convene the public session. Pay close attention to who is seated at the Board desks. Will there be only the five legal members? Or will two others be seated with them? Pay close attention to who is chairing the meeting.
If the March 26, 2019 meeting is run in the same manner as the seven Board meetings since (and including) November 13, 2018, you will be watching a crime in action.
Two of the women on the Board are there improperly and illegally. They were elected on November 6, 2018, but they were not eligible to take the oath of office when they took it on November 13. Why not? Because neither had filed her Statement of Economic Interests Report with the South Carolina Ethic Commission. Read S.C. Code of Laws 8-13-1110(A). You can Google it by just searching for "8-13-1110(A)". Scroll down to Section 1110(A). Each filed her Statement on December 4. The law reads that you cannot take the oath of office and enter upon your responsibilities unless you have filed the Statement.
Each of the two women has been violating this law since November 13, 2018. Why don't they just take the oath of office now and become legal members of the Board?
Next: Does RCSD have a problem?
Educational Reform Update
Last night's public meeting at Dent Middle School was well attended. Lots of teachers and school personnel. It was sponsored by Sen. Mia McLeod, and Sen. Mike Fanning and Rep. Ivory Thigpen were at the front, too.
SC for Education was well-represented.
The program was introduced as a Listening Session, which I took to mean that the legislators would be listening to the audience.
That worked pretty well, except in 2-3 cases. One woman at the speaker's table on the right side (audience view) went on and on ad nauseum about the legislative process. Five minutes would have been enough.
The meeting should have started on time and should have ended on time. If people arrive late, then they miss out. When meetings start late, all you do is train people to be late. Starting late shows disrespect for who who arrived on time.
Ending on time is important, too. The person-in-charge should keep an eye on the time. As the end-time approaches, you indicate to speakers to wind it up.
There was a generous three- minute speaking allowance. Most kept to that. Some who rambled should have been cut off. A time-keeper with a clock and a bell, other than the chairperson of the meeting, should be introduced and asked publicly to announce when time runs out.
If you want to know what was said, you should have been there.
NEXT LOCAL MEETING: Rep. Ivory Thigpen will sponsor an educational reform information meeting on Tuesday, April 2, 2019, at 6:30PM at the Sandhills Library building.
SC for Education was well-represented.
The program was introduced as a Listening Session, which I took to mean that the legislators would be listening to the audience.
That worked pretty well, except in 2-3 cases. One woman at the speaker's table on the right side (audience view) went on and on ad nauseum about the legislative process. Five minutes would have been enough.
The meeting should have started on time and should have ended on time. If people arrive late, then they miss out. When meetings start late, all you do is train people to be late. Starting late shows disrespect for who who arrived on time.
Ending on time is important, too. The person-in-charge should keep an eye on the time. As the end-time approaches, you indicate to speakers to wind it up.
There was a generous three- minute speaking allowance. Most kept to that. Some who rambled should have been cut off. A time-keeper with a clock and a bell, other than the chairperson of the meeting, should be introduced and asked publicly to announce when time runs out.
If you want to know what was said, you should have been there.
NEXT LOCAL MEETING: Rep. Ivory Thigpen will sponsor an educational reform information meeting on Tuesday, April 2, 2019, at 6:30PM at the Sandhills Library building.
Saturday, March 23, 2019
School Board emails - Big Problem?
Since November 13, 2018 Richland 2 School Board has presented two people as members of the Board when, in fact, they are not.
Here's one more piece of the puzzle called Problems.
These two people were elected by Richland 2 School District voters on November 6. Then they took the oath of office on November, but they took the oath on November 13 in violation of S.C. Code of Laws 8-13-1110(A). Since taking the oath was illegal, they are not yet legitimate Board members.
Amelia McKee was re-elected; Teresa Holmes was elected for the first time.
Each has an email address posted on the Richland 2 website under School Board members. McKie's email address is ameliamckie@richland2.org. Since she has not been a legal school board member since November 13, 2018, she should not have a District 2 email address. The District should suspend that email address and remove her from the Member listing on its website, until she takes the oath of office legally.
Holmes doesn't use a Richland 2 School District email address. For some reason, the District is allowing her to use a private email account, "docholmesschoolboard2@gmail.com".
There is a serious problem facing Richland 2 for allowing her to use an off-server email address. The Hillary Clinton private email server scandal provides a clear reason why all official email should be only on the official email platform.
Should a member of the community, a media service or even a law-enforcement agency submit a FOIA request all for official emails to and from Teresa Holmes, could he or it have a reason to suspect the quantity in the FOIA response? Could there be off-server emails (sent or received) that were not included? Who would know?
Remember how some people wanted to believe that Clinton hadn't done anything wrong? Even today more emails are surfacing that should have been provided long ago. And, legally, there never should have been any there in the first place. Everything should have been right in Clinton's secure .gov email account.
Does Holmes know the FOIA rules? Did the District explain that all official emails, received and sent, at her private email address are subject to FOIA? Would Holmes have any problem if every one of the emails on that account was inspected, even the private messages?
Has she ever deleted any email from that gmail.com account? Did she ever delete official-District email from that account, even one as innocuous as "Are you going to the meeting?" NO official business email is to be deleted. Does District 2 have a signed statement from her that the FOIA email rules have been explained to her?
What happens when she is not re-elected in 2022? What happens to all the official District 2 emails in that account? Will she just dump them? How would District 2 respond to a FOIA request in 2023 for official email to and from her? Would she say,"Nobody told me anything", as she did in regard to the late filing of her Statement of Economic Interest Report?
Holmes should not even be receiving any official District email or documents, since she hasn't yet legally taken the oath of office. When she does take it, the District should set up an official email account for her and post it on the website.
Here's one more piece of the puzzle called Problems.
These two people were elected by Richland 2 School District voters on November 6. Then they took the oath of office on November, but they took the oath on November 13 in violation of S.C. Code of Laws 8-13-1110(A). Since taking the oath was illegal, they are not yet legitimate Board members.
Amelia McKee was re-elected; Teresa Holmes was elected for the first time.
Each has an email address posted on the Richland 2 website under School Board members. McKie's email address is ameliamckie@richland2.org. Since she has not been a legal school board member since November 13, 2018, she should not have a District 2 email address. The District should suspend that email address and remove her from the Member listing on its website, until she takes the oath of office legally.
Holmes doesn't use a Richland 2 School District email address. For some reason, the District is allowing her to use a private email account, "docholmesschoolboard2@gmail.com".
There is a serious problem facing Richland 2 for allowing her to use an off-server email address. The Hillary Clinton private email server scandal provides a clear reason why all official email should be only on the official email platform.
Should a member of the community, a media service or even a law-enforcement agency submit a FOIA request all for official emails to and from Teresa Holmes, could he or it have a reason to suspect the quantity in the FOIA response? Could there be off-server emails (sent or received) that were not included? Who would know?
Remember how some people wanted to believe that Clinton hadn't done anything wrong? Even today more emails are surfacing that should have been provided long ago. And, legally, there never should have been any there in the first place. Everything should have been right in Clinton's secure .gov email account.
Does Holmes know the FOIA rules? Did the District explain that all official emails, received and sent, at her private email address are subject to FOIA? Would Holmes have any problem if every one of the emails on that account was inspected, even the private messages?
Has she ever deleted any email from that gmail.com account? Did she ever delete official-District email from that account, even one as innocuous as "Are you going to the meeting?" NO official business email is to be deleted. Does District 2 have a signed statement from her that the FOIA email rules have been explained to her?
What happens when she is not re-elected in 2022? What happens to all the official District 2 emails in that account? Will she just dump them? How would District 2 respond to a FOIA request in 2023 for official email to and from her? Would she say,"Nobody told me anything", as she did in regard to the late filing of her Statement of Economic Interest Report?
Holmes should not even be receiving any official District email or documents, since she hasn't yet legally taken the oath of office. When she does take it, the District should set up an official email account for her and post it on the website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)