Every action being taken by the Richland 2 School Board can be called into question - every action since November 13, 2018.
That's when two persons were seated - improperly - on the School Board.
There are five legal members and two "others".
What can the five legal members do?
When the Board convenes at 5:30PM on Tuesday, April 9, 2019, the first motion will be to enter Executive (closed) Session.
The five legal members should vote "No". It is improper to have visitors at the Executive Session. If at least four legal members vote "No", there will not be an Executive Session.
There they can sit and twiddle their thumbs until the public session is scheduled to start at 6:30PM. They cannot discuss official business. Or they might adjourn until 6:30PM, which is the scheduled starting time of the public session.
When the motion is made to convene the public session, if seven are seated (plus the Superintendent), then four of the five (or all five) should again vote No.
If Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes stand up and leave the front of the room, then the five can vote "Yes" to re-convene and continue with the regular business of the meeting. The Vice Chair will run the meeting.
For McKie and Holmes to be legally on the Board, they must take the oath of office - legally; i.e., after December 4, 2018.
Saturday, April 6, 2019
Friday, April 5, 2019
Who is for transparency and accountability?
I'm so glad I came across Brad Warthen's blog today. I got an education on the election race for the Richland 2 School Board in 2014. Remember that one? That's where race surfaced as an identity issue in the School Board race.
In case you forgot, check out Brad's blog right here.
In the linked article Brad leads off with "I really, really hated to see the first sentence of this story about the Richland School District 2 election: 'Race has become the defining issue in the Richland 2 school board election, as rumors circulate of a shift in power from a white-majority to a black-majority board.' "
Well down in the body of the article appears this "Because if Amelia McKie .. is elected, we’ll have a strong voice on R2’s school board who’ll fight for students, communicate with parents and demand real transparency and accountability."
Now that was back in 2014. Fast forward to 2018-2019.
Amelia McKie is the one who didn't file Campaign Disclosure Forms and Statements of Economic Interest Reports with the South Carolina Ethics Commission for several years. Amelia McKie now owes over $51,000 in fines and penalties to the Ethics Commission.
Amelia McKie is the one (well, one of them) who took the oath of office illegally on November 13, 2018 for her second term of office, 2018-2022.
How's that for transparency and accountability?
Who will demand "real transparency and accountability" from Amelia McKie? The Richland 2 Black Parents' Association has said that McKie's problem with the Ethics Commission is not about race; it's about ethics.
Will the BPA step up and put some pressure on McKie to obey S.C. Code of Laws 8-13-1110(A) and now legally take the oath of office?
In case you forgot, check out Brad's blog right here.
In the linked article Brad leads off with "I really, really hated to see the first sentence of this story about the Richland School District 2 election: 'Race has become the defining issue in the Richland 2 school board election, as rumors circulate of a shift in power from a white-majority to a black-majority board.' "
Well down in the body of the article appears this "Because if Amelia McKie .. is elected, we’ll have a strong voice on R2’s school board who’ll fight for students, communicate with parents and demand real transparency and accountability."
Now that was back in 2014. Fast forward to 2018-2019.
Amelia McKie is the one who didn't file Campaign Disclosure Forms and Statements of Economic Interest Reports with the South Carolina Ethics Commission for several years. Amelia McKie now owes over $51,000 in fines and penalties to the Ethics Commission.
Amelia McKie is the one (well, one of them) who took the oath of office illegally on November 13, 2018 for her second term of office, 2018-2022.
How's that for transparency and accountability?
Who will demand "real transparency and accountability" from Amelia McKie? The Richland 2 Black Parents' Association has said that McKie's problem with the Ethics Commission is not about race; it's about ethics.
Will the BPA step up and put some pressure on McKie to obey S.C. Code of Laws 8-13-1110(A) and now legally take the oath of office?
Remembering Spring Valley H.S.and the SRO
Almost every week I think about the incident at Spring Valley High School in October 2015 that involved two disruptive students, a teacher, a staff member (Asst. Principal?) and the School Resource Officer (SRO). That was on
Just today I happened across a blog by Brad Warthen at http://www.bradwarthen.com/2015/11/mia-mcleod-and-joel-lourie-on-spring-valley-protest/
I wish I had found it and him at the time.
In the article found through the above link are messages to S.C. Sen. John Scott from both S.C. Sen. Mia McLeod and former S.C. Sen. Joel Lourie.
You've got to read these messages, especially the view of Sen. McLeod who wrote about the "violently ejected student" (her 10/30/2015 message at 2:03PM to Sen. Scott). She clearly had her mind made about what had happened.
When the incident was first publicized, I began asking, "What happened before that?" - "that" being when Deputy Fields removed the student from her desk.
I heard about, but never saw, a video of what happened before "that"; apparently, that student slapped at Deputy Fields three times, resulting in her being removed from her desk. I wondered why The State didn't publish that video and also why it continued to use the "Glamour Shots" photo of the student who wasn't a minor, instead of her booking photo.
The Richland 2 policy regarding SRO involvement was not followed. When the assistant principal arrived, the teacher should have taken the rest of the class elsewhere, thus removing the audience of the non-compliant student. That procedure is in the National SRO manual and it's in the Richland 2 rules. And it didn't happen.
Be sure to read through comments posted after the above article.
Deputy Fields was fired too quickly, as then-Solicitor Dan Johnson said eleven months later, when he dismissed the Disruption of Schools charges against the two girls. I knew Fields had been fired too quickly at the time and I said so. In my opinion, it's too bad that Solicitor Johnson dropped those charges. Both girls deserved their day in court and to be found guilty of disrupting schools, which they clearly did.
I believe Deputy Fields' wrongful termination lawsuit is winding its way through court now.
Just today I happened across a blog by Brad Warthen at http://www.bradwarthen.com/2015/11/mia-mcleod-and-joel-lourie-on-spring-valley-protest/
I wish I had found it and him at the time.
In the article found through the above link are messages to S.C. Sen. John Scott from both S.C. Sen. Mia McLeod and former S.C. Sen. Joel Lourie.
You've got to read these messages, especially the view of Sen. McLeod who wrote about the "violently ejected student" (her 10/30/2015 message at 2:03PM to Sen. Scott). She clearly had her mind made about what had happened.
When the incident was first publicized, I began asking, "What happened before that?" - "that" being when Deputy Fields removed the student from her desk.
I heard about, but never saw, a video of what happened before "that"; apparently, that student slapped at Deputy Fields three times, resulting in her being removed from her desk. I wondered why The State didn't publish that video and also why it continued to use the "Glamour Shots" photo of the student who wasn't a minor, instead of her booking photo.
The Richland 2 policy regarding SRO involvement was not followed. When the assistant principal arrived, the teacher should have taken the rest of the class elsewhere, thus removing the audience of the non-compliant student. That procedure is in the National SRO manual and it's in the Richland 2 rules. And it didn't happen.
Be sure to read through comments posted after the above article.
Deputy Fields was fired too quickly, as then-Solicitor Dan Johnson said eleven months later, when he dismissed the Disruption of Schools charges against the two girls. I knew Fields had been fired too quickly at the time and I said so. In my opinion, it's too bad that Solicitor Johnson dropped those charges. Both girls deserved their day in court and to be found guilty of disrupting schools, which they clearly did.
I believe Deputy Fields' wrongful termination lawsuit is winding its way through court now.
Thursday, April 4, 2019
Take the Oath or Go Home
Consider this scenario and comment below how you would view it.
What would be the proper name for a person who claims a public office but who is not entitled to hold it?
To hold a public office you must be qualified and eligible.
Being "qualified" means you are old enough, have the correct residency, are not disqualified because of criminal convictions, and are legally elected.
Being "eligible" means you meet all the requirements.
If you've been following this blog, you'll know where I'm going with this.
One of the requirements of being eligible is the filing of the Statement of Economic Interests Report with the South Carolina Ethics Commission. This reports reveals potential conflicts of interest and sources of income.
The law says you cannot take the oath of office or begin your duties unless you have filed that Statement.
How hard is that to understand? I'm thinking that a third-grader could understand it. It's kind of like, "Johnny, you don't get to go to fourth grade unless you have passed third grade. Understand?"
What does Johnny say? "I got it." If Johnny fails third grade but shows up for fourth grade, he can't get in.
If you take the oath of office before you file the Statement, the oath doesn't count (because the law says you cannot take it).
You can't begin your duties until you take the oath of office.
After you file the Statement, then you can take the oath and begin your duties.
So what do you call the person who doesn't follow the instructions and assumes the duties of the office?
1. An imposter?
2. A cheat?
3. A fraud?
4. A trespasser?
5. A usurper?
Do you think there is some risk, perhaps some breach of fiduciary duty, to the others on the Board for allowing unauthorized persons to carry on the duties of a Board member?
Is it time for the five legal Richland 2 School Board members to stand up and say, "Enough! Take the oath of office now or go home."
What would be the proper name for a person who claims a public office but who is not entitled to hold it?
To hold a public office you must be qualified and eligible.
Being "qualified" means you are old enough, have the correct residency, are not disqualified because of criminal convictions, and are legally elected.
Being "eligible" means you meet all the requirements.
If you've been following this blog, you'll know where I'm going with this.
One of the requirements of being eligible is the filing of the Statement of Economic Interests Report with the South Carolina Ethics Commission. This reports reveals potential conflicts of interest and sources of income.
The law says you cannot take the oath of office or begin your duties unless you have filed that Statement.
How hard is that to understand? I'm thinking that a third-grader could understand it. It's kind of like, "Johnny, you don't get to go to fourth grade unless you have passed third grade. Understand?"
What does Johnny say? "I got it." If Johnny fails third grade but shows up for fourth grade, he can't get in.
If you take the oath of office before you file the Statement, the oath doesn't count (because the law says you cannot take it).
You can't begin your duties until you take the oath of office.
After you file the Statement, then you can take the oath and begin your duties.
So what do you call the person who doesn't follow the instructions and assumes the duties of the office?
1. An imposter?
2. A cheat?
3. A fraud?
4. A trespasser?
5. A usurper?
Do you think there is some risk, perhaps some breach of fiduciary duty, to the others on the Board for allowing unauthorized persons to carry on the duties of a Board member?
Is it time for the five legal Richland 2 School Board members to stand up and say, "Enough! Take the oath of office now or go home."
Next School Board Meeting - Tues., April 9, 6:30PM
Parents, voters, taxpayers are requested at the next Richland 2 School Board meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, April 9, 2019. Please plan to speak and remember to sign up on the two forms.
The public session starts at 6:30PM at R2i2.
The public session is preceded by an Executive Session at 5:30PM. A public session opens the 5:30PM meeting and the Board immediately votes to enter a closed Executive Session.
If Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes have not taken the oath of office by then, it is hoped that the five legal members of the Board will vote "No" on the motion to go to Executive Session.
In the Executive Session there is discussion about confidential student matters, including suspension, expulsions, transfers, referral for mental health treatment at LRADAC, and other matters specified on a special Agenda. NO decisions can be made in Executive Session and NO action can be taken. Matters must be voted on in the public session, although the public will not know who Student 1 or Student 2 is.
The Executive Session is closed to the public. Only legal Board members should be allowed in it. Since November 13, 2018, the five legal members of the Board have allowed McKie and Holmes in the Executive Sessions.
This needs to stop. Now.
Do laws matter? Do ethics matter? Where are we headed, if they don't matter?
The public session starts at 6:30PM at R2i2.
The public session is preceded by an Executive Session at 5:30PM. A public session opens the 5:30PM meeting and the Board immediately votes to enter a closed Executive Session.
If Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes have not taken the oath of office by then, it is hoped that the five legal members of the Board will vote "No" on the motion to go to Executive Session.
In the Executive Session there is discussion about confidential student matters, including suspension, expulsions, transfers, referral for mental health treatment at LRADAC, and other matters specified on a special Agenda. NO decisions can be made in Executive Session and NO action can be taken. Matters must be voted on in the public session, although the public will not know who Student 1 or Student 2 is.
The Executive Session is closed to the public. Only legal Board members should be allowed in it. Since November 13, 2018, the five legal members of the Board have allowed McKie and Holmes in the Executive Sessions.
This needs to stop. Now.
Do laws matter? Do ethics matter? Where are we headed, if they don't matter?
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Not even one Board member
Last night there was an educational reform presentation at the Sandhills Library. It was sponsored by State Representatives Ivory Thigpen (House District 79) and Kambrell Garvin (District 77). Joining them at the front of the room was Michael Anzelmo, Chief of Staff to S.C. House Speaker Jay Lucas, and Joanie Lawson, Government Relations Specialist at the South Carolina Education Association.
I'd like to say that the third-floor library auditorium was full. I'd like to say it was half-full. A quarter-full? There were about thirty in the audience, with the majority appearing to be teachers and members of SC for Ed. The youngest member of the audience was 5, and he was very well behaved while the "grown-ups" talked for 90 minutes.
As I looked around, I did not see one Richland 2 School Board member. (If I missed you, my apologies.)
Rep. Thigpen had told me about this meeting on March 25, or I wouldn't have known of it. Although it was being held at the library, it was not on the library's online calendar. And it wasn't on the Richland 2 calendar.
S.C. House Bill 3759 has been sent to the S.C. Senate, where it will be considered while the Senate works up its own Bill, S. 419. This legislative session will end early in May.
If you are a parent, student or taxpayer, you'll want to pay attention to this educational reform bill. Now is the time to contact your State Senator and express your comments and requests.
At the March 25 educational reform presentation, sponsored by Sen. Mia McLeod, there was a comment that South Carolina and Mississippi are fighting hard for the bottom ranking of Education. Should it be that way? For how much longer?
If you are a teacher in Richland 2, let me hear your stories about your classrooms and discipline. Is it as bad as the rumors? Your privacy and confidentiality are safe with me.
Rep. Thigpen is planning another meeting on educational reform. I'll get the details on April 4 and publish them.
I'd like to say that the third-floor library auditorium was full. I'd like to say it was half-full. A quarter-full? There were about thirty in the audience, with the majority appearing to be teachers and members of SC for Ed. The youngest member of the audience was 5, and he was very well behaved while the "grown-ups" talked for 90 minutes.
As I looked around, I did not see one Richland 2 School Board member. (If I missed you, my apologies.)
Rep. Thigpen had told me about this meeting on March 25, or I wouldn't have known of it. Although it was being held at the library, it was not on the library's online calendar. And it wasn't on the Richland 2 calendar.
S.C. House Bill 3759 has been sent to the S.C. Senate, where it will be considered while the Senate works up its own Bill, S. 419. This legislative session will end early in May.
If you are a parent, student or taxpayer, you'll want to pay attention to this educational reform bill. Now is the time to contact your State Senator and express your comments and requests.
At the March 25 educational reform presentation, sponsored by Sen. Mia McLeod, there was a comment that South Carolina and Mississippi are fighting hard for the bottom ranking of Education. Should it be that way? For how much longer?
If you are a teacher in Richland 2, let me hear your stories about your classrooms and discipline. Is it as bad as the rumors? Your privacy and confidentiality are safe with me.
Rep. Thigpen is planning another meeting on educational reform. I'll get the details on April 4 and publish them.
What would YOU call this?
Let's say a person walked into your business, sat down at a desk and started answering the phone and writing checks on your business account. What would you do?
Or let's say a person bought a badge, pinned it on the front of his shirt and started writing tickets to jaywalkers? What would you do?
Or a person walked into a bank, hopped over the counter, cleaned out the till and walked out?
Or let's say a person took an oath of office when she wasn't legally entitled to, and then sat in a selected chair at public meetings, heard confidential student matters, voted on them, or maybe even ran meetings?
When a person assumes duties in a "public body" (ex., state, city, county government; school board) to which she is not entitled and is allowed to do so unchallenged by other equal members of that public body, what would YOU call this?
There isn't just one person who has assumed such duties. There are two such persons. And right here on the Richland 2 School Board.
The problem is that, when each took the oath of office on November 13, 2018 and entered upon official duties, neither was eligible to do so - under South Carolina law! Section 8-13-1110(A).
Neither had filed the required Statement of Economic Interests with the South Carolina Ethics. Commission. Each filed that Statement on December 4, 2018. Neither has taken the oath of office after filing the Statement.
Therefore, neither is legally on the Board. Yet there they sit.
This continues to be a problem not only for the two women there illegally, but now also for the five legal members of the Board who are doing nothing to stop them. And will the problem overflow to the Superintendent?
Couldn't he - shouldn't he - advise the five legal members of the Board that Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes need to be sworn in?
Doing so will force the District to acknowledge that it has been operating since November 13, 2018 with two persons improperly involved in Board matters. Many votes will have to be undone. Some matters concerning students will be reversed.
What can you do? Email or phone Board members (names and phone numbers on Richland 2's website) and tell them to fix this now.
Or let's say a person bought a badge, pinned it on the front of his shirt and started writing tickets to jaywalkers? What would you do?
Or a person walked into a bank, hopped over the counter, cleaned out the till and walked out?
Or let's say a person took an oath of office when she wasn't legally entitled to, and then sat in a selected chair at public meetings, heard confidential student matters, voted on them, or maybe even ran meetings?
When a person assumes duties in a "public body" (ex., state, city, county government; school board) to which she is not entitled and is allowed to do so unchallenged by other equal members of that public body, what would YOU call this?
There isn't just one person who has assumed such duties. There are two such persons. And right here on the Richland 2 School Board.
The problem is that, when each took the oath of office on November 13, 2018 and entered upon official duties, neither was eligible to do so - under South Carolina law! Section 8-13-1110(A).
Neither had filed the required Statement of Economic Interests with the South Carolina Ethics. Commission. Each filed that Statement on December 4, 2018. Neither has taken the oath of office after filing the Statement.
Therefore, neither is legally on the Board. Yet there they sit.
This continues to be a problem not only for the two women there illegally, but now also for the five legal members of the Board who are doing nothing to stop them. And will the problem overflow to the Superintendent?
Couldn't he - shouldn't he - advise the five legal members of the Board that Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes need to be sworn in?
Doing so will force the District to acknowledge that it has been operating since November 13, 2018 with two persons improperly involved in Board matters. Many votes will have to be undone. Some matters concerning students will be reversed.
What can you do? Email or phone Board members (names and phone numbers on Richland 2's website) and tell them to fix this now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)