About the school board's attorney

Following is the School Board Policy that describes its attorney's relationship with it. See if you can spot the immediate problem...

Policy BDG Board Attorney/Legal Services

Issued 8/17

The complexity of school board operations requires the frequent procurement of legal services. Consequently, the board, by majority vote, may designate an attorney or law firm to counsel the board and administration on legal matters involving the district’s welfare.

The attorney will serve at the pleasure of the board and will be paid for services rendered.

The board may ask the attorney to attend such board meetings or other meetings as may be needed. A decision to seek legal advice or assistance on behalf of the school system may be made by the superintendent, the board, or may take place as a consequence of formal board direction. Such action will be taken as consistent with board policy and as it meets an obvious need of the board. It may take place as a consequence of formal board direction.

Except in unusual circumstances, the board will make all communications to the board attorney through the superintendent or board chairman.

Adopted 10/1/72; Revised 1/28/75, 8/12/97, 3/25/03, 8/8/17

Got it? It shows up in the last paragraph, just above the dates of adoption and revisions to the policy.

Part of that paragraph makes complete sense. An organization can't allow seven trustees to be calling the board's attorney all the time. When the phone rings, the attorney starts the meter; when the attorney hangs up, the meter stops. Well, then there is that other meter that keeps running.

Most legal questions should be funneled past the superintendent or the board chair (if there is a board chair). In the case of the Richland 2 School Board, there is no legal Board Chair.

The attorney for the District and the attorney for the legal work on the $468,000,000 bonds simply cannot know that the Richland 2 School Board has been operating since November 13, 2018 with two vacancies. Mrs. McKie is not a legal board member (and, thus, cannot be Chair), and Ms. Holmes is not a legal board member.

I would say that these two vacancies create the "unusual circumstances" under which any Board member should have already called the attorney for the District.

Board to self-evaluate annually

Two years ago, on April 18, 2017, the Richland 2 School Board adopted this Policy. Has it been followed?

Have three board evaluations (2017, 2018, 2019) been conducted? Has a summary report been presented to the public after each evaluation? Have two? Has one? When will the next evaluation be conducted?

How detailed is the questionnaire offered by the South Carolina School Boards Association?

Policy BAA Board Self-Evaluation

"Issued 4/17

"The school board is committed to quality, excellence, growth, and leading by example. To that end, the board will conduct annual self-evaluations during a special meeting.

"Self-assessment by the board provides valuable information, discussion, and communication in an effort to build a unified body of effective leaders. The evaluation will assist the board, as a governance team, in continuous improvement of the following areas:

• providing a starting point for effective goal setting and long-range planning
• allowing new board members an opportunity to understand board processes, roles, and responsibilities
• identifying strengths and weaknesses of the board as a public body and steps for board development
• improving decision making by enhancing a common understanding of philosophies and goals
• fostering open communication
• holding the board accountable to themselves and the district

"SCSBA will assist the board with the annual evaluation by providing the assessment instrument, analysis, and feedback on how the board may improve its operation.

"Following the evaluation, the board chairman will make a summary report of the process at the next regularly scheduled board meeting.

"Adopted 4/18/17"

Note that the Policy, as written by and adopted by the school district, states that the SCSBA "will" assist the board. That's just shy of "shall assist", and the degree of assistance is greater than "may assist" or "might assist" or "is available to assist" the Richland 2 School Board.

What are "self-evaluations"? Does each board member evaluate himself? Are the evaluations 360º; i.e., each board member evaluates himself and is evaluated by each other board member?

Can the Richland 2 School Board really evaluate itself? Honestly? This is not a rhetorical question. I mean, can they do an honest evaluation of themselves? Some of them can and will. Others? Not so sure.

What happens if one or more board members gets negative feedback from the other board members?

Is the superintendent absent from the board evaluations process? He should be (absent). He shouldn't supervise, coach or monitor the evaluation process.

Is the assessment instrument available for review? How about the individual assessment results? Nothing in Policy BAA says the information is private. It should all be available upon request or by FOIA.

Note that the Policy reads "during a special meeting"; it does not read "during executive session". This means that the evaluations are to be done in public. And the special meeting should be recorded and published on YouTube.

Read carefully the accountability requirement, which is "to themselves and the district". By "district" (lower-case), does this policy mean to the taxpayers, voters, parents, students, community members? Or does "district" mean to the school district, which they govern?

Board members: review Policy BEDL

Certain Richland 2 Board members should take a few minutes and review Policy BEDL Board Members and Electronic Communications.

This Policy pertains to the use of devices such as cell phones, tablets, computers, etc. for communication during meetings with the public.

At the budget input meetings held recently, several board members spent time with their electronic devices and appeared to be reading messages and texting or emailing.

Those were public meetings and are subject to FOIA. As such, all communications are public. The audience cannot read what a board member is reading or writing on an electronic device.

Also, all communications should be audible; i.e., spoken into the microphones so that the voice is amplified and can be heard throughout the room. This rules out "side" conversations.

If you watch the videorecording of the May 20, 2019 on YouTube, the first 30 minutes is the budget input period, followed by the Special Called Board meeting at 5:30PM. Note the number of times electronic devices are in use and also how you cannot hear any of the conversations among the board members during that public meeting.

Cell Phone Tower Update - Kelly Mill MS

What is the status of the proposed cell phone tower at Kelly Mill Middle School, located at 1141 Kelly Mill Road, Blythewood?

Following are the recent official comments from the Administration and the School Board about that tower:

"                                                                                                                                 "

That's it. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Ничего.

There was a public information meeting on April 24. The meeting room at the Sandhills Library was packed, and almost everyone thought that their attendance, questions and concerns would be considered by the School Board. Near the end the audience was reminded that it was an "information" meeting. In other words, the purpose of the meeting was to give information. One District staffer was present. No school board member attended.

Few understood that their input that night was little more than words that would never be considered.

At the May 14, 2019 School Board meeting Trustee (and former Board Secretary) Lindsay Agostini asked Mrs. McKie to put a cell phone tower update on the Agenda for a future meeting. To hear her request, watch the video-recording of the May 14th meeting on YouTube. Fast-forward to (3:38:03) on the time-counter.

Be sure to watch this segment of the long board meeting. Supt. Davis finished his lengthy oration about the agenda proposed for May 28 at (3:36:41) on the YouTube recording's time-counter. During his recitation McKie was busy fanning herself; it was not hot in the room. Is she well? Then there was a 20-second delay while McKie stared at her tablet and scrolled forward. During that time she kept Mrs. Agostini waiting.

The Agenda for the May 28, 2019 school board meeting has been published on the District 2 website. There is NO cell phone tower update.

If you want to know the status of the planned cell phone tower at Kelly Mill Middle School, send your written request to Supt. Davis at badavis@richland2.org  Be specific about what you want to know. You might want to ask:

Does the cell phone tower at Kelly Mill MS require any further approval by the School Board before construction begins?
When will construction begin?
When will construction be complete?
When will the cell tower go into operation?
How many more cell towers can be built on Richland 2 school grounds without further school board approval?
When was the contract executed for the cell phone towers?
And for how many towers?

Do you want the Board to make a public statement (cell phone tower update) at a school board meeting? Email the superintendent and put your request in writing. Refer to Board Policy BEDH as your authority to make your request. Also, email your school board members.

Board Policy BEDH reads, in part,

"Citizens wanting an item to be placed on the agenda for a specific board meeting should direct requests to the superintendent or board chairman. A citizen must submit a written request for an item to be placed on the agenda a minimum of three business days prior to a scheduled meeting of the board. That request will state the name of the individual or group submitting the request, the address, the purpose of the request, and the topic to be addressed."

Tell or wait?

If you suspect that a Federal crime is about to be committed, do you tell someone? Or do you wait until it happens and then report it?

If you can prevent its happening, is that best? Should you try to keep people from doing something really bad, especially if all they have to do is pause, realize that they are doing something criminal and make a different decision about an action they are about to take?

If one person in a group is wise enough to perceive the problem and avoid it, shouldn't that be a strong clue to the others?

How big a problem is generated by being a Follower, instead of a Leader?

One of the problems at the Richland 2 School Board is that it is being led, rather than doing the leading.

At the last Regular meeting of the school board (May 14) Amelia McKie said at least twice that the "majority of the board" supports the superintendent. And she said it with emphasis on "majority". Who are those four (or more)? Why would she make such a divisive statement?

McKie might just as well have said, "There are some on this board, the minority of the board, who do not support the superintendent."

I would assert that would be an untrue statement, and I'm glad she did not say those words.

What is the Federal crime that is about to be committed? Can you guess? Put your guess in the Comment box below.

Recording conversations, phone calls

Have you ever wanted to record an IEP* or other meeting with a school official (teacher, department head, principal, administrator)?

Have you taken a tape-recorder or digital recorder to a meeting? Were you ever told you could not record the meeting, such as an IEP?

Can you record the meeting without telling the other person or persons?

The answer is Yes.

South Carolina is a one-party consent state. At least one party must know that the conversation (phone or in-person) is being recorded. If you are recording it, then you are that "one person".

If I am in the meeting with you and am participating (for example, as an advocate for your child in his IEP), then I can record the conversation.

However, if you and a school employee (or any other person) are speaking by telephone and I'm listening in (and they don't know it), then I cannot record the conversation without the permission of at least one person; e.g., you. If I fail to get the consent of at least one person, then I'm committing a felony. And that won't look good on my resume.

Personally, I think it's a good idea to inform all that the meeting (or phone call) is being recorded. If the other person doesn't want to be recorded, he can leave. Or not speak. I don't like being sneaky. I encourage you not to like it, either.

* IEP is Individualized Education Plan

School Board abdicates responsibility

Should the Richland 2 School Board abdicate responsibility and pass all the bucks along to the superintendent? Absolutely not!

It is the School Board that is elected by the public, and the School Board is responsible to the public. If a member of the public makes a complaint to a school board member, that member of the public is entitled to a response. And the appropriate response might come from the board member.

Board Policies do a good job at attempting to muzzle board members. And, indeed, board members should be cautious about responding. Any one board member cannot speak for the Board or obligate the Board. But that does not mean a board member cannot respond!

Board Policy BBAA, Board Member Authority And Responsibilities includes this condition: "Questions, requests, complaints, and other information presented to individual board members outside of a board meeting by members of the public should be referred to the superintendent."

This is absolutely wrong and "should" should be changed without delay.

There would likely be no reason to avoid informing the superintendent of a complaint, but there should NOT be a condition that the board member must refer it to the superintendent.

This condition rips the floor right out from under the authority of the School Board. 

The receiving member might refer the complaint to the superintendent with a request to handle and to include the board member on any written response. If the response is telephonic, then a Memo should be sent to the board member. 

Lately, the Board has been inundated with Board Policy revisions "brought forward" by the administration. It will take a Motion by a board member and a decision by the Board to direct the superintendent to prepare a revision to BBAA. Which board member(s) will carry the flag on this one?

Comments, anyone?