The South Carolina Ethics Commission has posted Advisory Opinion 2019-001 on its website, and you can read it here.
Basically, what it says is that a candidate or person elected to office cannot use campaign funds to pay fines and penalties assessed by the Ethics Commission.
There is an interesting comparison of the Ethics Commissions' opinions of the South Carolina House of Representatives and the South Carolina Senate. The House says "No, you can't", but the Senate says "Yes, you can."
The Ethics Commission, whose authority now exists over the House and the Senate, says, "No, you can't."
Unfortunately, the door was left ajar, as is revealed in the last sentence in the Opinion. It reads, "The Commission accepts the recommendation of the Commission staff that this Opinion be issued on a prospective basis only."
Does that mean that, if Amelia McKie has any campaign funds left over, she'll be able to use donated campaign funds to settle part of her $51,850 debt at the Ethics Commission? I wonder how her donors and supporters will feel about that.
Friday, April 12, 2019
Is "moral turpitude" involved?
Today's The State newspaper reports the sentence imposed on former Richland County Council member Kelvin Washington, who pled guilty on October 1st to first-offense DUI and two counts of second-degree assault and battery. The charges resulted from a DUI crash on February 27, 2016.
The wheels of justice do slowly turn in Richland County; right? Read the article to see the slap on the wrist administered to Washington by the court.
Included in the article was mention of Washington's removal from office a month after the crash (March 2016?) by former Gov. Nikki Haley. But she didn't throw him out of the office because of the DUI or assault and battery charges. She threw him out because of his conviction for "failure to pay three years' worth on state income taxes," according to the article in The State.
Gov. Haley considered that as "moral turpitude" and gave Washington the boot.
I suppose the key element there was not just that he hadn't paid three years' worth of state income taxes, but that he was convicted of that. And how long did that case take?
Which brings me to Richland 2 School District. (I imagine you were just waiting to find out.)
McKie filed a Statement of Economic Interests on August 15, 2014 and never filed another report with the South Carolina Ethics Commission until December 4, 2018.
On December 4, 2018 McKie filed Statements of Economic Interests for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. The filing of the 2018 Statement on December 4 made her eligible to take the oath of office following her re-election to the School Board, but she has not taken an oath since then. She did take the oath of office on November 13, 2018, but that was in violation of S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A).
In 2019 McKie filed (late) Campaign Disclosure Forms for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
McKie's debt to the Ethics Commission is $51,850, as of April 1, 2019.
If a person failed to file required Campaign Disclosure Forms with the South Carolina Ethics Commission for four years and also didn't file a required Statement of Economic Interests Reports, and god fines thousands of dollars for that, would that decision by the Ethics Commission constitute a "conviction" and open the door for the current Governor to remove said person from the School Board for the reason that Gov. Haley used when she removed Washington?
Is it optional for the Governor to do that? Or is it incumbent upon the Governor to do so?
The Governor's Office has told me that he doesn't have the authority to remove a school board member. That's untrue.
The wheels of justice do slowly turn in Richland County; right? Read the article to see the slap on the wrist administered to Washington by the court.
Included in the article was mention of Washington's removal from office a month after the crash (March 2016?) by former Gov. Nikki Haley. But she didn't throw him out of the office because of the DUI or assault and battery charges. She threw him out because of his conviction for "failure to pay three years' worth on state income taxes," according to the article in The State.
Gov. Haley considered that as "moral turpitude" and gave Washington the boot.
I suppose the key element there was not just that he hadn't paid three years' worth of state income taxes, but that he was convicted of that. And how long did that case take?
Which brings me to Richland 2 School District. (I imagine you were just waiting to find out.)
McKie filed a Statement of Economic Interests on August 15, 2014 and never filed another report with the South Carolina Ethics Commission until December 4, 2018.
On December 4, 2018 McKie filed Statements of Economic Interests for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. The filing of the 2018 Statement on December 4 made her eligible to take the oath of office following her re-election to the School Board, but she has not taken an oath since then. She did take the oath of office on November 13, 2018, but that was in violation of S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A).
In 2019 McKie filed (late) Campaign Disclosure Forms for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
McKie's debt to the Ethics Commission is $51,850, as of April 1, 2019.
If a person failed to file required Campaign Disclosure Forms with the South Carolina Ethics Commission for four years and also didn't file a required Statement of Economic Interests Reports, and god fines thousands of dollars for that, would that decision by the Ethics Commission constitute a "conviction" and open the door for the current Governor to remove said person from the School Board for the reason that Gov. Haley used when she removed Washington?
Is it optional for the Governor to do that? Or is it incumbent upon the Governor to do so?
The Governor's Office has told me that he doesn't have the authority to remove a school board member. That's untrue.
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Remember the Empty Chair?
Amelia McKie was absent from the April 9, 2019 meeting of the Richland 2 School Board, but her chair was there and unoccupied for the meeting.
The Executive Session was called to orderat 5:30PM by Lindsay Agostini, who is the Secretary of the School Board. McKie's chair was empty, and I was curious why Mrs. Agostini was calling the meeting to order, rather than Dr. Elkins-Johnson, who is the Vice Chair. The red light on the microphone in front of Mrs. Agostini was on, but her voice was not amplified, and I did not hear all of what she said.
All of Mrs. Agostini's words during the open session should have been captured for the Richland 2 video-recording that will be available on YouTube within a few days. Because the red light of her microphone was off for the end of her remarks, I have some early doubts about their having been recorded.
The Board adjourned, after a short delay, and entered the Executive Session.
At 6:30PM the Board reconvened in open session and the Board's Vice Chair, Dr. Elkins-Johnson, called the meeting to order. McKie's chair was still empty. Superintendent Baron Davis was recognized, and he read a lengthy (and unnecessary, in my opinion) message from McKie about her absence that evening. Supt. Davis leaned forward and spoke directly into his microphone, and his voice was amplified into the room.
He read McKie's assurance that the Board was in good hands and how she knew they'd have a good meeting and how she hadn't missed a meeting in five years on the Board, and her message finished up with "May God bless you all".
Like, give me a break. I looked around for a blowing American Flag and the official Seal of the United States of America and wondered if I was about to hear "Hail to the Chief". It would have completely sufficient for the Vice Chair to read a short statement like "Mrs. McKie is away this evening on personal business."
I was reminded of how the Agenda is set for a meeting. McKie and Supt. Davis create it.
I wondered why McKie's chair remained empty. Perhaps there should have been a spotlight over it. Why didn't someone flip down her nameplate? Why didn't the other board members close ranks and leave an empty chair on the end? Why didn't the Vice Chair sit in the center? I didn't notice on Dr. Elkins-Johnson's nameplate whether it displayed "Chair" for the evening. At the same time I was reminded of Clint Eastwood's speech to the empty chair at the RNC in 2012.
Dr. Elkins-Johnson did a nice job of chairing the meeting. The meeting flowed smoothly from item to item.
The Inspirational Moment lasted far too long - again. Whoever invites the person to give the Inspiration Moment should tell him or her, "Two minutes - max."
Last night's School Focus was on Langford Elementary School, and the students were fantastic! Each spoke to the Board and provided a model for the Board to follow. Each spoke in full voice and clearly. It helped that the staff sound man set up the cordless microphone at the podium, so that their voices were amplified and audible throughout the room.
But that microphone was removed before the Public Participation period, and the two young women who addressed the Board could hardly be heard. I was interested, because each seemed to be presenting information about something that's wrong. More on this, after the video shows up on YouTube in a couple of days.
On the way into the meeting I was asked, "What's new?" My answer was "Lots, but I'm not ready to talk about it yet."
Stay tuned.
The Executive Session was called to orderat 5:30PM by Lindsay Agostini, who is the Secretary of the School Board. McKie's chair was empty, and I was curious why Mrs. Agostini was calling the meeting to order, rather than Dr. Elkins-Johnson, who is the Vice Chair. The red light on the microphone in front of Mrs. Agostini was on, but her voice was not amplified, and I did not hear all of what she said.
All of Mrs. Agostini's words during the open session should have been captured for the Richland 2 video-recording that will be available on YouTube within a few days. Because the red light of her microphone was off for the end of her remarks, I have some early doubts about their having been recorded.
The Board adjourned, after a short delay, and entered the Executive Session.
At 6:30PM the Board reconvened in open session and the Board's Vice Chair, Dr. Elkins-Johnson, called the meeting to order. McKie's chair was still empty. Superintendent Baron Davis was recognized, and he read a lengthy (and unnecessary, in my opinion) message from McKie about her absence that evening. Supt. Davis leaned forward and spoke directly into his microphone, and his voice was amplified into the room.
He read McKie's assurance that the Board was in good hands and how she knew they'd have a good meeting and how she hadn't missed a meeting in five years on the Board, and her message finished up with "May God bless you all".
Like, give me a break. I looked around for a blowing American Flag and the official Seal of the United States of America and wondered if I was about to hear "Hail to the Chief". It would have completely sufficient for the Vice Chair to read a short statement like "Mrs. McKie is away this evening on personal business."
I was reminded of how the Agenda is set for a meeting. McKie and Supt. Davis create it.
I wondered why McKie's chair remained empty. Perhaps there should have been a spotlight over it. Why didn't someone flip down her nameplate? Why didn't the other board members close ranks and leave an empty chair on the end? Why didn't the Vice Chair sit in the center? I didn't notice on Dr. Elkins-Johnson's nameplate whether it displayed "Chair" for the evening. At the same time I was reminded of Clint Eastwood's speech to the empty chair at the RNC in 2012.
Dr. Elkins-Johnson did a nice job of chairing the meeting. The meeting flowed smoothly from item to item.
The Inspirational Moment lasted far too long - again. Whoever invites the person to give the Inspiration Moment should tell him or her, "Two minutes - max."
Last night's School Focus was on Langford Elementary School, and the students were fantastic! Each spoke to the Board and provided a model for the Board to follow. Each spoke in full voice and clearly. It helped that the staff sound man set up the cordless microphone at the podium, so that their voices were amplified and audible throughout the room.
But that microphone was removed before the Public Participation period, and the two young women who addressed the Board could hardly be heard. I was interested, because each seemed to be presenting information about something that's wrong. More on this, after the video shows up on YouTube in a couple of days.
On the way into the meeting I was asked, "What's new?" My answer was "Lots, but I'm not ready to talk about it yet."
Stay tuned.
Monday, April 8, 2019
Integrity
Saw this on Facebook this morning.
"If you value your integrity, then be prepared to take a beating from those who have none." (Constable Wayne Thompson posted that.)
Years ago I heard someone say, "Integrity is what you do, when you know no one is watching."
Thoughts?
"If you value your integrity, then be prepared to take a beating from those who have none." (Constable Wayne Thompson posted that.)
Years ago I heard someone say, "Integrity is what you do, when you know no one is watching."
Thoughts?
Saturday, April 6, 2019
Correct School Board Action on April 9
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)