School Board meetings are public meetings by public bodies.
Anything said at a public meeting by an official should be audible throughout the room.
There is a Board Policy about texting and emailing during meetings. The policy is, Don't. Do. It.
Who will remind board members to put down their phones?
Should the School Board have a parliamentarian or a sergeant-at-arms? Someone to remind them to speak into the microphone and pull the microphone close to them, instead of sitting back 18-24 inches from it or turning away from it while speaking?
Last night's praise for giving good microphone goes to Teresa Holmes and Baron Davis. Thank you.
The booby prizes go to Amelia McKie, Cheryl Caution-Parker and James Shadd. Assuming that what you have to say is important, then say it loudly enough that all can hear you. Please!
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
Richland Library - irresponsible decision
Richland Library patrons are receiving an email that announces the end to fines.
This is a terrible decision and is going to bite them hard on the bottom line.
OK, so now, when I check out a book, I don't have to return it. I'll just keep it as long as I want. How nice that the Library will remind me that my book is due. I'll just tell them I haven't finished it yet.
And this sentence in the Library's email? "If you lose or damage an item, we’ll simply add a replacement fee to your account so that we can replace the item."
How will it know whether I have lost or damaged it? At what point will they add a replacement fee? The books now have no due dates!!!
I just checked out Operation Lost Trust, by John Crangle. It was published in 2016, and my copy (autographed) looks brand-new and never opened. It's the story of corruption in S.C. government. Only 600 pages?
What does it sell for? $25.00? $50.00? It's not listed on Amazon.com. Author Crangle was quoted in the media as saying that wholesale price was less than $25.00; thus, legislators wouldn't have to report his gift on their Ethics Commission filings.
Why should I ever return this book? (If you know me (or even if you don't), I will read it, and I shall return it.)
When I lived in Santa Fe, New Mexico, its library had a similar policy. Teachers would check out 50-100 books for use in classrooms, and the books were never returned.
You can forget reserving a popular, newly-released book. The first person will check it out and never return it. Then the Library will buy another copy. And another. And another.
This is a terrible decision and is going to bite them hard on the bottom line.
OK, so now, when I check out a book, I don't have to return it. I'll just keep it as long as I want. How nice that the Library will remind me that my book is due. I'll just tell them I haven't finished it yet.
And this sentence in the Library's email? "If you lose or damage an item, we’ll simply add a replacement fee to your account so that we can replace the item."
How will it know whether I have lost or damaged it? At what point will they add a replacement fee? The books now have no due dates!!!
I just checked out Operation Lost Trust, by John Crangle. It was published in 2016, and my copy (autographed) looks brand-new and never opened. It's the story of corruption in S.C. government. Only 600 pages?
What does it sell for? $25.00? $50.00? It's not listed on Amazon.com. Author Crangle was quoted in the media as saying that wholesale price was less than $25.00; thus, legislators wouldn't have to report his gift on their Ethics Commission filings.
Why should I ever return this book? (If you know me (or even if you don't), I will read it, and I shall return it.)
When I lived in Santa Fe, New Mexico, its library had a similar policy. Teachers would check out 50-100 books for use in classrooms, and the books were never returned.
You can forget reserving a popular, newly-released book. The first person will check it out and never return it. Then the Library will buy another copy. And another. And another.
Tutoring Policy
The School Board once again nitpicked its way through Policy revisions last night. But they, for a change, did it pretty quickly by voting en masse to approve a large number of the proposed revisions - without showing them to the public.
One target of discussion was Board Policy GCRD - Tutoring for Pay.
I swear, you'd think that Richland 2 is in competition with the Federal Government, when it comes to writing policies. Read Policy GCRD and the proposed revisions here.
What is Richland 2 worried about?
That a teacher might tutor a student on school property. OMG. It's taxpayer-supported property. Can't have that!!! Then the District would have to let private tutoring services onto school property. Well, okay; why not? Just charge a small fee for the use of two chairs and a table for an hour. Let's say, $1.00. Charge the teacher, too.
A staff comment was made that allowing paid tutoring by a teacher on school property would be a violation of State Ethics policy. Well, I'll bet there is a legal way around that.
The prohibition should be on undisclosed tutoring-for-pay. The solution? Just disclose it. The worry seemed to be that a teacher would be tutoring "for personal gain".
How many teachers tutor just for the big bucks they earn after working all day? Half a dozen? Two? One? None?
What about the "personal gain" of the student?
Note the policy reads that "This practice must be limited tochildren students other than those for whom the teacher is
currently exercising teaching, administrative or supervisory responsibility."
That's a pretty dumb restriction. Who would have the best knowledge of that student and his/her needs? The classroom teacher! I don't think any teacher is going to short a kid in the classroom just to drum up a few bucks after school.
Who will best understand the learning style or obstacles to learning of the student in need of tutoring? The classroom teacher, of course!
Maybe, instead of wasting time on re-writing so many policies, somebody ought to just take a big pair of scissors and cut up most of the policies.
One target of discussion was Board Policy GCRD - Tutoring for Pay.
I swear, you'd think that Richland 2 is in competition with the Federal Government, when it comes to writing policies. Read Policy GCRD and the proposed revisions here.
What is Richland 2 worried about?
That a teacher might tutor a student on school property. OMG. It's taxpayer-supported property. Can't have that!!! Then the District would have to let private tutoring services onto school property. Well, okay; why not? Just charge a small fee for the use of two chairs and a table for an hour. Let's say, $1.00. Charge the teacher, too.
A staff comment was made that allowing paid tutoring by a teacher on school property would be a violation of State Ethics policy. Well, I'll bet there is a legal way around that.
The prohibition should be on undisclosed tutoring-for-pay. The solution? Just disclose it. The worry seemed to be that a teacher would be tutoring "for personal gain".
How many teachers tutor just for the big bucks they earn after working all day? Half a dozen? Two? One? None?
What about the "personal gain" of the student?
Note the policy reads that "This practice must be limited to
That's a pretty dumb restriction. Who would have the best knowledge of that student and his/her needs? The classroom teacher! I don't think any teacher is going to short a kid in the classroom just to drum up a few bucks after school.
Who will best understand the learning style or obstacles to learning of the student in need of tutoring? The classroom teacher, of course!
Maybe, instead of wasting time on re-writing so many policies, somebody ought to just take a big pair of scissors and cut up most of the policies.
12 Years of Perfect Attendance
The best part of last night's school board meeting was the recognition of 12 years of perfect attendance by Chasity Thomas, 2019 graduate of Ridge View High School.
Can you imagine the commitment it takes to attend every single day of school? That was 2,160 days over the 12 years.
Chasity's certificate of perfect attendance was accepted for her by her younger brother, Chase.
Congratulations!!!
Can you imagine the commitment it takes to attend every single day of school? That was 2,160 days over the 12 years.
Chasity's certificate of perfect attendance was accepted for her by her younger brother, Chase.
Congratulations!!!
Friday, June 7, 2019
"Something so out of kilter"?
At the May 28th Richland 2 School Board Meeting there was quite a discussion after the agenda for the June 11th Board meeting was proposed.
Trustee Lindsay Agostini made a motion to amend the proposed agenda to include having the bond attorney attend the executive session to explain the POS (whatever that is) and the No-Litigation Certificate which are part of the bond documents she refused to sign. The motion was seconded by Dr. Elkins-Johnson.
Trustee Caution-Parker asked if they'd have to pay the attorney to attend. Well, duhhh... of course. Attorneys don't work for free. (Watch the YouTube recording of the 5/28/2019 meeting, and start at (1:21:20) on the timer.)
Caution-Parker asked, "Is there something so out-of-kilter that we need to have her there?" Then Caution-Parker mentioned a letter that Supt. Davis gave to all the board members that explains the attorney's views.
What could that "something so out-of-kilter" be?
Actually, I can name about three things that will create H-U-G-E problems for those who signed the documents, which I have since learned pertain to the April 11, 2019 sale of the bonds.
And probably not just for those who signed, but possibly for the entire Board, because it has not addressed the problem that arose on November 13, 2018.
Notice how McKie allowed the meeting to run out-of-control after the discussion ended and she called for a vote. The voting opened, and then Caution-Parker had a question. She was too late and should have been cut off, but McKie didn't cut her off.
Then McKie recognized James Shadd, who was also too late for discussion. McKie continues to run meetings by the McKie Rules of Order, rather than by Robert's Rules of Order. Shadd, for some strange reason (and especially strange, since he is an attorney himself) said the bond attorney (Heizer) would not be at an executive session for legal advice.
Well, that's exactly why she would be there.
At that point, Supt. Davis said "the contract has already been signed." What he meant was the contract for the sale of the bonds. And that's why he needed the Board Secretary to hurry up and sign.
Mrs. Agostini was wise to consult with her private attorney and to refuse to sign the Certificate of Incumbency and the Signature and No-Litigation Certification.
After James Shadd was appointed successor Board Secretary, he signed the documents on April 30.
Finally one board member supported Mrs. Agostini. Dr. Elkins-Johnson said it was proper to support a board member's request for clarification. Of course!!!
The vote on the amendment to the motion is shown at (1:32:51). The vote was 3-3 (Failed). Agostini, Elkins-Johnson and Holmes voted in favor. McKie, Caution-Parker and Shadd voted against. Manning was absent. (The vote should have been recorded as 3-3-0-1.)
Tossing out the votes of McKie and Holmes, who are not legal members of the board, then the vote would have been 2-2-0-1. Had Trustee Manning been present, I suspect the vote would have been 3-2 (without the votes of McKie and Holmes recognized), passing instead of failing.
Does anyone remember a Resolution coming before the Board to authorize the Board Chair and the Board Secretary to sign the bond sale documents on behalf of Richland School District Two?
Was that buried in some document or motion months ago, so that the signatures could be affixed without a current Resolution?
Trustee Lindsay Agostini made a motion to amend the proposed agenda to include having the bond attorney attend the executive session to explain the POS (whatever that is) and the No-Litigation Certificate which are part of the bond documents she refused to sign. The motion was seconded by Dr. Elkins-Johnson.
Trustee Caution-Parker asked if they'd have to pay the attorney to attend. Well, duhhh... of course. Attorneys don't work for free. (Watch the YouTube recording of the 5/28/2019 meeting, and start at (1:21:20) on the timer.)
Caution-Parker asked, "Is there something so out-of-kilter that we need to have her there?" Then Caution-Parker mentioned a letter that Supt. Davis gave to all the board members that explains the attorney's views.
What could that "something so out-of-kilter" be?
Actually, I can name about three things that will create H-U-G-E problems for those who signed the documents, which I have since learned pertain to the April 11, 2019 sale of the bonds.
And probably not just for those who signed, but possibly for the entire Board, because it has not addressed the problem that arose on November 13, 2018.
Notice how McKie allowed the meeting to run out-of-control after the discussion ended and she called for a vote. The voting opened, and then Caution-Parker had a question. She was too late and should have been cut off, but McKie didn't cut her off.
Then McKie recognized James Shadd, who was also too late for discussion. McKie continues to run meetings by the McKie Rules of Order, rather than by Robert's Rules of Order. Shadd, for some strange reason (and especially strange, since he is an attorney himself) said the bond attorney (Heizer) would not be at an executive session for legal advice.
Well, that's exactly why she would be there.
At that point, Supt. Davis said "the contract has already been signed." What he meant was the contract for the sale of the bonds. And that's why he needed the Board Secretary to hurry up and sign.
Mrs. Agostini was wise to consult with her private attorney and to refuse to sign the Certificate of Incumbency and the Signature and No-Litigation Certification.
After James Shadd was appointed successor Board Secretary, he signed the documents on April 30.
Finally one board member supported Mrs. Agostini. Dr. Elkins-Johnson said it was proper to support a board member's request for clarification. Of course!!!
The vote on the amendment to the motion is shown at (1:32:51). The vote was 3-3 (Failed). Agostini, Elkins-Johnson and Holmes voted in favor. McKie, Caution-Parker and Shadd voted against. Manning was absent. (The vote should have been recorded as 3-3-0-1.)
Tossing out the votes of McKie and Holmes, who are not legal members of the board, then the vote would have been 2-2-0-1. Had Trustee Manning been present, I suspect the vote would have been 3-2 (without the votes of McKie and Holmes recognized), passing instead of failing.
Does anyone remember a Resolution coming before the Board to authorize the Board Chair and the Board Secretary to sign the bond sale documents on behalf of Richland School District Two?
Was that buried in some document or motion months ago, so that the signatures could be affixed without a current Resolution?
2 teens - armed home invasion
As I was driving out of The Summit on Wednesday, June 5, I encountered a long line of traffic backed up on Summit Parkway at Hard Scrabble Road. I turned and drove through Elders Pond subdivision to access Hard Scrabble Road by Walgreens. There were many deputies and at least one K-9 who seemed to be searching around the pond near Kendrick Road.
This article in The State, finally published on June 6, 2019 at 5:08PM, explains what it was all about.
Two students, 14 and 15, are described as having invaded a home on Wild Indigo Court (map), and the younger threatened to kill the teen-age girl who had been asleep when they broke in. Fortunately, she did not hesitate to call the Richland County Sheriff's Department.
Ridge View High School was placed on lockdown. Were the two boys students there? The story says the girl in the home knew them. Was Rice Creek Elementary School also locked down?
Where did they get the gun? Were both armed?
Should the identities of minors who are accused of committing major crimes like this be withheld from the public? I don't think so!
A 14-year-old with a gun who threatens to kill someone does not deserve to have his identity shielded by an archaic law.
If you know who they are, let me know. After I confirm it, I'll publish their names, addresses and the name of any school in which they are enrolled.
Hopefully, they will be charged and tried as adults. They should not be allowed to take advantage of the more lenient treatment that juvenile offenders expect.
Comments?
This article in The State, finally published on June 6, 2019 at 5:08PM, explains what it was all about.
Two students, 14 and 15, are described as having invaded a home on Wild Indigo Court (map), and the younger threatened to kill the teen-age girl who had been asleep when they broke in. Fortunately, she did not hesitate to call the Richland County Sheriff's Department.
Ridge View High School was placed on lockdown. Were the two boys students there? The story says the girl in the home knew them. Was Rice Creek Elementary School also locked down?
Where did they get the gun? Were both armed?
Should the identities of minors who are accused of committing major crimes like this be withheld from the public? I don't think so!
A 14-year-old with a gun who threatens to kill someone does not deserve to have his identity shielded by an archaic law.
If you know who they are, let me know. After I confirm it, I'll publish their names, addresses and the name of any school in which they are enrolled.
Hopefully, they will be charged and tried as adults. They should not be allowed to take advantage of the more lenient treatment that juvenile offenders expect.
Comments?
Wednesday, June 5, 2019
Investigations continue
Update to readers....
The change in frequency for postings here has nothing to do with any reduced interest in the shortcomings of the Richland 2 School Board or its willingness to address critical issues that it has been burying since January.
Continued digging is occurring. Sometimes it's just better to dig and not talk about the digging.
When the wheels come off, they will be coming off in a big way.
Certain members of the School Board have failed the public in terms of
Ethics
Character
Integrity
Honesty
They may think they've got a free ride until 2022.
One of these days the S.C. Ethics Commission will get around to turning uncollected debts over the the S.C. Dept. of Revenue. As of May 20, 2019 Amelia McKie owed $51,750 in fines and penalties. According to the Ethics Commission, the period for bargaining and negotiating has expired. That's what she owes. That's what the DOR will be collecting. How does the DOR collect it? By every available means.
Could Gov. Henry McMaster remove McKie from office? He could apply the same standard to McKie that former Gov. Nikki Haley applied when she removed Kelvin Washington from the Richland County Council in March 2016 after his conviction for failing to pay S.C. income tax for three years. Gov. Haley considered that an act of moral turpitude; it wasn't Washington's DUI guilty plea that cooked his goose. It was his failing to pay income taxes.
How similar is a public official's failing to file Statements of Economic Interests Reports and Campaign Disclosure Reports for four years? Pretty close, I'd say.
The change in frequency for postings here has nothing to do with any reduced interest in the shortcomings of the Richland 2 School Board or its willingness to address critical issues that it has been burying since January.
Continued digging is occurring. Sometimes it's just better to dig and not talk about the digging.
When the wheels come off, they will be coming off in a big way.
Certain members of the School Board have failed the public in terms of
Ethics
Character
Integrity
Honesty
They may think they've got a free ride until 2022.
One of these days the S.C. Ethics Commission will get around to turning uncollected debts over the the S.C. Dept. of Revenue. As of May 20, 2019 Amelia McKie owed $51,750 in fines and penalties. According to the Ethics Commission, the period for bargaining and negotiating has expired. That's what she owes. That's what the DOR will be collecting. How does the DOR collect it? By every available means.
Could Gov. Henry McMaster remove McKie from office? He could apply the same standard to McKie that former Gov. Nikki Haley applied when she removed Kelvin Washington from the Richland County Council in March 2016 after his conviction for failing to pay S.C. income tax for three years. Gov. Haley considered that an act of moral turpitude; it wasn't Washington's DUI guilty plea that cooked his goose. It was his failing to pay income taxes.
How similar is a public official's failing to file Statements of Economic Interests Reports and Campaign Disclosure Reports for four years? Pretty close, I'd say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)