Nary a word was spoken

Guess it's a good thing I didn't wear my favorite tie to last night's Richland 2 School Board meeting. I came >>>/this/<<< close to wearing it.

You'd have thought all was quiet on the Western Front. Nary a word was spoken about an fight earlier in the day involving an employee (teacher?) and a student at Ridge View High School, one of Richland 2's five high schools.

WIS-TV's first story was at 5:47PM, and it was updated today at 10:20AM. The incident must have  occurred shortly before 1:00PM on Tuesday, May 28, 2019, as WIS-TV reported that the SRO responded at 1:00PM.

Wouldn't you think there would have been some mention at the school board meeting? Okay, so no details. But why treat people showing up at a school board meeting like mushrooms? There was a valuable "teaching moment" about transparency, and the Board missed it.

The principal of Ridge View HS was at the school board meeting. Was the principal, Brenda Mack-Foxworth, Ed.D. told, in no uncertain terms, that she was not to mention one word about the fight?

Maybe the rule is, "If it ain't on the Agenda, we ain't talkin' 'bout it." Do you think that, if the R2i2 building caught on fire, there would be no announcement because it wasn't on the Agenda?

Let's see if Richland 2 throws the teacher under the bus. The smart move will be to make a thorough, independent investigation of what happened, who started it, who prolonged it and what previous trouble, if any, there had been with that student.

Richland 2 might do that, but what the public will hear is, "The District does not comment on personnel matters."

Will the kid be arrested for disturbing schools or assaulting a teacher?

Trustee Manning - MIA 5/28/19

At last night's Richland 2 School Board meeting Trustee James Manning was absent. His name plate was there, but he wasn't. Not only that, his name was never mentioned during the meeting.

You may remember my comments about the lengthy message read by Supt. Davis, when Amelia McKie missed a meeting. It went on and on. So where was a mention last night about Mr. Manning's absence?

When it came time for votes last night, any record of his vote (or lack thereof) was ignored. The four choices for a vote on a Motion are:
Yes
No
Abstain
Not Present at Vote

Why were votes recorded, for example, as 6-0, instead of 6-0-0-1?

Was this a subtle snub at Mr. Manning by the person in charge of the meeting? Was it intentional or just done in ignorance?

One of these days the School Board is going to have to review ALL votes taken on and since November 13, 2018. Votes that came out as 3-4 (Failing), such as on the Resolution to allow the Board to remove an Officer, actually would have Passed, when the votes of McKie and Holmes are tossed out. Other votes, for example, on student matters would have had different outcomes.

At last night's meeting the vote by the Board to pass the proposed Agenda for the June 11, 2019 meeting actually failed. The vote was 4-2. But, when you toss the votes of McKie and Holmes, who are not legal members of the School Board, then the vote was 2-2. A tie-vote is considered failing. So there is no approved agenda for June 11, 2019.

Parents question the cell phone tower plans

At tonight's school board meeting, parents continued to question the plans of Richland 2 to construct a cell phone tower on the grounds of Kelly Mill Middle School.

One parent told me they are having trouble getting a meeting arranged with the superintendent and getting answers to the questions about the status of that cell phone tower construction at Kelly Mill.

Based on the "information meeting" on April 24, 2019, I think it's a "done deal". I think Richland 2 contracted at some time in the past for the construction of towers on the grounds of several schools.

Tonight one of the parents told me they have filed a Freedom of Information Act Request with Richland 2, so they should be getting answers to their questions.

At the May 14, 2019 school board meeting Mrs. Agostini asked Amelia McKie for a future agenda to include a cell phone tower update. No other board member backed her up, and her request died at the table.

This school board, as presently composed, has too many followers and too few members who are demanding accountability of themselves.

Weren't they listening when the staffer presented the Leadership Development Update. I heard "Demonstrate Integrity and Character at all times."

That bears repeating.

"Demonstrate Integrity and Character at all times."

Contract has been signed

During tonight's school board meeting, during the discussion for the Agenda for the June 11, 2019 meeting, Trustee Lindsay Agostini requested the bond attorney to attend the Executive Session

Supt. Davis said, "The contract has already been signed." By the "contract" did he mean the bond documents that contacted two provisions that Mrs. Agostini had refused to sign as Board Secretary? Mrs. Agostini was seeking information from the bond attorney (and the Administration) about why the Board had not been briefed on the documents and, especially, on the two questionable provisions that resulted in her resignation as Board Secretary at the end of April.

Trustee Elkins-Johnson said the Board should get an explanation when one is requested.

Trustee Caution-Parker asked if the District would have to pay for the bond attorney to attend and said it was a "waste of time".

The Board voted on whether to invite the bond attorney to the Executive Session. The vote was 3-3; a tie meant it failed. BUT the correct vote 2-2, when the votes of McKie and Holmes are tossed. But that was still a Fail.

Then the Board voted to approve the Agenda for the June 11, 2019 meeting (without the bond attorney). That vote was 4-2 (Passed), BUT the true vote (without votes of McKie and Holmes) was 2-2, a tie, which meant that it Failed.

Here's the problem, as I see it. I don't have any "inside" information. All I know if what I have heard at public meetings. Anyone who attended or who has watched the meetings on YouTube knows as much as I know about it.

The Board apparently did not get to review the bond documents that it was being asked to authorize.

The Board didn't get to read, review and question to the special additional paragraphs. Those were the Certificate of Incumbency and the Signature and No-Litigation Certificate.

Apparently, the Board never saw or considered a Resolution that would authorize the Board Chair and the Board Secretary to sign those documents on behalf of Richland School District Two.

The Certificate of Incumbency stated that Amelia McKie is the Board Chair and that her term-of-office as Board Chair is July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019. Those statements are false.

The Signature and No-Litigation Certificate was designed to relieve bondholders of worries about significant legal woes related to Amelia McKie's problems with the Ethics Commission. Factually, that Certificate was correct, insofar as it went. But it didn't go far enough. It was incomplete and misleading.

When one certificate is false and the other is incomplete and misleading, that can only mean trouble ahead for a $468,000,000 set of public-finance bonds.

It is going to take a strong legal step to correct the problems that have been allowed to continue since November 13, 2018.

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.