Columbia's WIS-TV reports today (August 16, 2019) that a smelly situation existed earlier this year in Richland 2 athletics. Read the long, exhaustive article on the WISTV.com website at https://www.wistv.com/2019/08/16/investigation-suggests-blythewood-hs-coach-tried-recruit-student-athletes/
You can safely click on the link, copy and paste it, or go directly to www.wistv.com and search for the article.
I've attending almost all the school board meetings since January, and I don't remember any mention of this.
If you are interested in all the gory details, read the WIS-TV news article. They did an excellent job of digging out the dirt and reporting it.
You can bet that the administrators and the lawyers were busy word-smithing the response by Richland 2.
In my opinion, if there is a major ethics problem with an employee, then you give that employee an "opportunity to be happily employed somewhere else."
Friday, August 16, 2019
Thursday, August 15, 2019
Coach Terry on AEDs
At the August 13 school board meeting, the one speaker during the Public Participation segment was Coach Lawrence Terry, a Richland 2 employee at Richland Northeast High. You can view his comments on the YouTube recording for August 13, 2019, at 20:20 on the timer.
Coach Terry spoke about the importance of Automated External Defibrillators (AED) and especially of the importance of the training that should precede Certification.
Coach Terry suffered sudden cardiac arrest last year and mentioned a student who also suffered such a heart event, although the student was not on campus at the time. He spoke about the need for the equipment to be available where their use might suddenly be called for, such as on a sports field. If the AED is hanging on the wall somewhere back in a building, too much time might elapse before it could be found and brought to a victim on a field. He also referenced cold tubs to treat those who become over-heated and the ice required for the tub.
Of course, who would expect a member of the track team or football team out in 100ยบ to become overheated or have a heart event???
No employee of Richland 2 should sign any document that reads that he has received adequate training in First Aid, CPR or use of an AED, if he has not received that training.
Don't stick your neck out. If you sign it and you haven't received the training, guess who will be hung out to dry when the truth comes out?
If you are expected to hold a Certification, then get the training, and get enough of it to be competent to administer aid.
Parents: ask where the AEDs are, how many there are, and how many Certificated employees know how to use them. Ask about First Aid. Ask about CPR training.
Employees: do you know where the First Aid kits are? Do you know where the AEDs are? Are they where they are supposed to be? Did you ever open the door of the First-Aid cabinet and look inside? Do you know what all those bandages and wraps are for? Are they adequately stocked? Do you know exactly what to do, if a student or colleague or visitor suffers a serious injury in your classroom?
If the First Aid kits are depleted, send a written request to your Supervisor and request re-stocking. And then follow up. New supplies should be in place within a week. There is no reason for it to take longer.
Ask the Principal of your kids' schools to sponsor First Aid and CPR training and training for using an AED. And what to do if someone is choking. Can you perform the Heimlich Maneuver safely?
Coach Terry spoke about the importance of Automated External Defibrillators (AED) and especially of the importance of the training that should precede Certification.
Coach Terry suffered sudden cardiac arrest last year and mentioned a student who also suffered such a heart event, although the student was not on campus at the time. He spoke about the need for the equipment to be available where their use might suddenly be called for, such as on a sports field. If the AED is hanging on the wall somewhere back in a building, too much time might elapse before it could be found and brought to a victim on a field. He also referenced cold tubs to treat those who become over-heated and the ice required for the tub.
Of course, who would expect a member of the track team or football team out in 100ยบ to become overheated or have a heart event???
No employee of Richland 2 should sign any document that reads that he has received adequate training in First Aid, CPR or use of an AED, if he has not received that training.
Don't stick your neck out. If you sign it and you haven't received the training, guess who will be hung out to dry when the truth comes out?
If you are expected to hold a Certification, then get the training, and get enough of it to be competent to administer aid.
Parents: ask where the AEDs are, how many there are, and how many Certificated employees know how to use them. Ask about First Aid. Ask about CPR training.
Employees: do you know where the First Aid kits are? Do you know where the AEDs are? Are they where they are supposed to be? Did you ever open the door of the First-Aid cabinet and look inside? Do you know what all those bandages and wraps are for? Are they adequately stocked? Do you know exactly what to do, if a student or colleague or visitor suffers a serious injury in your classroom?
If the First Aid kits are depleted, send a written request to your Supervisor and request re-stocking. And then follow up. New supplies should be in place within a week. There is no reason for it to take longer.
Ask the Principal of your kids' schools to sponsor First Aid and CPR training and training for using an AED. And what to do if someone is choking. Can you perform the Heimlich Maneuver safely?
Supt. Gets Whopping 12.3% Raise
At the August 13, 2019 Regular Meeting of the school board, the board voted 7-0 to award an "Overall Distinguished" evaluation to Supt. Davis.
Then they moved on to a Motion related to the superintendent's employment contract. Go to YouTube and watch this portion of the meeting, which starts at 26:00 on the timer.
As read by Trustee Caution-Parker the Motion included terms "reviewed and discussed" in executive session for a two-year contract extension (to June 30, 2023), a 12.3% increase in his annual salary, an additional 2.5% increase in his annuity, and a simple majority vote of the board for actions pursuant to Section 11D of the contract. The motion was seconded by Trustee Shadd.
Section 11D was not explained.
The discussion of the Motion was quite interesting. First, Trustee Elkins-Johnson commented. She stated that she would not support the new contract for one reason - the Board was not allowed an opportunity to discuss the matter. She stated that the Board Chair (James Manning) had telephoned each board member to poll them. She supported many provisions in the renewal contract, but she said the board was not allowed to pull one item out. She objected to the "Super Majority" provision in the contract renewal, on which she did not elaborate.
Trustee-elect Holmes (who actually should not be at the board table and should not have had access to the contract or the executive session, because she has never taken the oath of office legally to become a full-fledged board member) stated that she would support the contract renewal, but she too did not like the Super Majority condition. She too said that the board could not pull that one provision out for discussion.
The truth is that the Board could have pulled it out. Somebody had put the contract amendment together. "Somebody" could have been told to continue to negotiate it with the superintendent. They couldn't "vote" on that in Executive Session, because no decisions can be made in Executive Session, nor can they choose up sides in Executive Session. They got bullied on that, and it worked.
But at the open session, a board member could have made a motion to pull that section out of the contract for discussion. The vote might have passed 4-3, or it might have failed 3-4. My guess is that it would have failed.
Holmes went on to say that the board decides by majority vote (4/7) on every other issue, and she did not agree with the requirement of a Super Majority (5/7) to remove the superintendent. She added that she was not planning to seek his removal. But her objection was not strong enough to cause her to vote No on the contract renewal.
Holmes said she would support the contract (YouTube @29:15), "because the majority actually ruled on this..."
WAIT JUST ONE MINUTE. When did the majority "rule" on that? What did she mean by "rule"? Did they take a vote in Executive Session?
Trustee Agostini made the final comment on the contract renewal. She stated two reasons for not being able to support the new contract for the superintendent. Her first reason was the requirement of a Super Majority vote to oust the superintendent, should that concern arise. Her second reason was concern about setting precedence "with such a large salary increase."
Board Chair Manning explained for the public that the board did have the opportunity to discuss the contract in Executive Session on more than one occasion "before coming to the final decision."
Then Trustee Elkins-Johnson made her final comment, saying "We did not have an opportunity as a board to discuss salary or any other concerns. We had an opportunity as a board to express our concerns only [emphasized] to the Chair."
The vote on the Motion to approve the renewal contract for Supt. Davis was 5-2 ("No" votes by Elkins-Johnson and Agostini).
Section 11D was not explained publicly.
Was there a violation of the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act?
South Carolina's Freedom of Information Act is found in Title 30, Chapter 4, Section 30-4-70 (b) which reads, in part, "No action may be taken in executive session except to (a) adjourn or (b) return to public session. The members of a public body may not commit the public body to a course of action by a polling of members in executive session.
(c) No chance meeting, social meeting, or electronic communication may be used in circumvention of the spirit of requirements of this chapter to act upon a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.
Was a decision, conclusion or agreement reached in the Executive Session? What did Trustee-elect Holmes mean when she said, "because the majority actually ruled on this..." Did she mean that a vote was taken in Executive Session and the majority (4/7) "ruled" in favor?
What did Chair Manning mean when he said, "the board did have the opportunity to discuss the contract in Executive Session on more than one occasion 'before coming to the final decision'."
Did the polling of the board members on the topic of the superintendent's contract constitute a violation of the Freedom of Information Act? Could his calls to each board member be construed as the prohibited "electronic communication"?
Regarding Trustee Agostini's reference to "such a large salary increase", on his Statement of Economic Interests Report filed with the South Carolina Ethics Commission, dated February 15, 2019, Supt. Davis listed his salary as $189,108, plus an $18,000 automobile allowance. Calculating 12.3% of $189,108, the superintendent picked up a raise of $23,260.
Then they moved on to a Motion related to the superintendent's employment contract. Go to YouTube and watch this portion of the meeting, which starts at 26:00 on the timer.
As read by Trustee Caution-Parker the Motion included terms "reviewed and discussed" in executive session for a two-year contract extension (to June 30, 2023), a 12.3% increase in his annual salary, an additional 2.5% increase in his annuity, and a simple majority vote of the board for actions pursuant to Section 11D of the contract. The motion was seconded by Trustee Shadd.
Section 11D was not explained.
The discussion of the Motion was quite interesting. First, Trustee Elkins-Johnson commented. She stated that she would not support the new contract for one reason - the Board was not allowed an opportunity to discuss the matter. She stated that the Board Chair (James Manning) had telephoned each board member to poll them. She supported many provisions in the renewal contract, but she said the board was not allowed to pull one item out. She objected to the "Super Majority" provision in the contract renewal, on which she did not elaborate.
Trustee-elect Holmes (who actually should not be at the board table and should not have had access to the contract or the executive session, because she has never taken the oath of office legally to become a full-fledged board member) stated that she would support the contract renewal, but she too did not like the Super Majority condition. She too said that the board could not pull that one provision out for discussion.
The truth is that the Board could have pulled it out. Somebody had put the contract amendment together. "Somebody" could have been told to continue to negotiate it with the superintendent. They couldn't "vote" on that in Executive Session, because no decisions can be made in Executive Session, nor can they choose up sides in Executive Session. They got bullied on that, and it worked.
But at the open session, a board member could have made a motion to pull that section out of the contract for discussion. The vote might have passed 4-3, or it might have failed 3-4. My guess is that it would have failed.
Holmes went on to say that the board decides by majority vote (4/7) on every other issue, and she did not agree with the requirement of a Super Majority (5/7) to remove the superintendent. She added that she was not planning to seek his removal. But her objection was not strong enough to cause her to vote No on the contract renewal.
Holmes said she would support the contract (YouTube @29:15), "because the majority actually ruled on this..."
WAIT JUST ONE MINUTE. When did the majority "rule" on that? What did she mean by "rule"? Did they take a vote in Executive Session?
Trustee Agostini made the final comment on the contract renewal. She stated two reasons for not being able to support the new contract for the superintendent. Her first reason was the requirement of a Super Majority vote to oust the superintendent, should that concern arise. Her second reason was concern about setting precedence "with such a large salary increase."
Board Chair Manning explained for the public that the board did have the opportunity to discuss the contract in Executive Session on more than one occasion "before coming to the final decision."
Then Trustee Elkins-Johnson made her final comment, saying "We did not have an opportunity as a board to discuss salary or any other concerns. We had an opportunity as a board to express our concerns only [emphasized] to the Chair."
The vote on the Motion to approve the renewal contract for Supt. Davis was 5-2 ("No" votes by Elkins-Johnson and Agostini).
Section 11D was not explained publicly.
Was there a violation of the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act?
South Carolina's Freedom of Information Act is found in Title 30, Chapter 4, Section 30-4-70 (b) which reads, in part, "No action may be taken in executive session except to (a) adjourn or (b) return to public session. The members of a public body may not commit the public body to a course of action by a polling of members in executive session.
(c) No chance meeting, social meeting, or electronic communication may be used in circumvention of the spirit of requirements of this chapter to act upon a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.
Was a decision, conclusion or agreement reached in the Executive Session? What did Trustee-elect Holmes mean when she said, "because the majority actually ruled on this..." Did she mean that a vote was taken in Executive Session and the majority (4/7) "ruled" in favor?
What did Chair Manning mean when he said, "the board did have the opportunity to discuss the contract in Executive Session on more than one occasion 'before coming to the final decision'."
Did the polling of the board members on the topic of the superintendent's contract constitute a violation of the Freedom of Information Act? Could his calls to each board member be construed as the prohibited "electronic communication"?
Regarding Trustee Agostini's reference to "such a large salary increase", on his Statement of Economic Interests Report filed with the South Carolina Ethics Commission, dated February 15, 2019, Supt. Davis listed his salary as $189,108, plus an $18,000 automobile allowance. Calculating 12.3% of $189,108, the superintendent picked up a raise of $23,260.
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Concealed firearm in school board meeting
At last evening's Richland 2 School Board meeting there was a man carrying a concealed firearm in the meeting room just before the meeting started. I had noticed him in the room, wearing a cap with some type of image, and then I observed the "imprint" of a possible firearm under his shirt. A little later as he walked from the front of the room to the exit door in the back of the room, his sweatshirt had ridden up to reveal the butt of a semi-automatic pistol in an inside-the-belt holster.
People in the room seemed to know him, and I am not alarmed in the presence of concealed firearms, even though I know it is illegal for most citizens to carry them on school property.
After a speaker addressed the board during the public participation segment, he left the room, and I followed because I wanted to learn more about his topic. I'll have to wait for the YouTube recording, as most of his words were lost in space, even though I was sitting only two rows behind him.
In the lobby the man with the concealed firearm was speaking to him. As I waited, I noticed there was a logo on his shirt for Richland 2 and "Emergency Services". Upon inquiring at the information desk, I learned he might be the assistant manager of some department. Emergency Services usually includes a wide range of services.
If the Richland 2 School Board is going to permit certain employees to be armed, I wonder if they have made a decision about concealed-carry by employees in civilian attire and how a visitor, parent or other employee is to know that that person is legally on campus with a firearm.
Obviously, the man's firearm should have been concealed at all times, and a shirt or sweatshirt should be long enough in the back to cover the firearm. "Printing" is a concern, because then the carrier's firearm is not fully concealed. But visible is different than "printing".
Should District 2 have a policy that armed employees are to wear a uniform that clearly identifies them as armed school security personnel? Examples might be a shirt with a badge, the word "Security" (it would not be permissible to use "Police"), or a school security badge worn in a belt holder. Could a school security officer even legally carry a firearm in a holster on his belt?
Or perhaps District 2 ought to just authorize any law-abiding citizen to carry concealed on campus and issue the appropriate written authorization, to be carried when armed on campus. That will happen right after the sun comes up in the West some morning!
When I looked for that man after talking with the speaker from the public participation segment, that man had apparently gone on to other duties. I didn't get a chance to ask him who he was or to introduce myself. How might he have responded if I had said, "I notice you are carrying a firearm. May I ask what your authority is to do so on campus?"
People in the room seemed to know him, and I am not alarmed in the presence of concealed firearms, even though I know it is illegal for most citizens to carry them on school property.
After a speaker addressed the board during the public participation segment, he left the room, and I followed because I wanted to learn more about his topic. I'll have to wait for the YouTube recording, as most of his words were lost in space, even though I was sitting only two rows behind him.
In the lobby the man with the concealed firearm was speaking to him. As I waited, I noticed there was a logo on his shirt for Richland 2 and "Emergency Services". Upon inquiring at the information desk, I learned he might be the assistant manager of some department. Emergency Services usually includes a wide range of services.
If the Richland 2 School Board is going to permit certain employees to be armed, I wonder if they have made a decision about concealed-carry by employees in civilian attire and how a visitor, parent or other employee is to know that that person is legally on campus with a firearm.
Obviously, the man's firearm should have been concealed at all times, and a shirt or sweatshirt should be long enough in the back to cover the firearm. "Printing" is a concern, because then the carrier's firearm is not fully concealed. But visible is different than "printing".
Should District 2 have a policy that armed employees are to wear a uniform that clearly identifies them as armed school security personnel? Examples might be a shirt with a badge, the word "Security" (it would not be permissible to use "Police"), or a school security badge worn in a belt holder. Could a school security officer even legally carry a firearm in a holster on his belt?
Or perhaps District 2 ought to just authorize any law-abiding citizen to carry concealed on campus and issue the appropriate written authorization, to be carried when armed on campus. That will happen right after the sun comes up in the West some morning!
When I looked for that man after talking with the speaker from the public participation segment, that man had apparently gone on to other duties. I didn't get a chance to ask him who he was or to introduce myself. How might he have responded if I had said, "I notice you are carrying a firearm. May I ask what your authority is to do so on campus?"
Monday, August 12, 2019
45 Policies to be Approved - Absurd!
The absurdity continues.
Tomorrow night the school board will be asked by the superintendent to approve 45 (FORTY-FIVE) Board Policies Presumably these are all revisions to Board Policies, although the Agenda does not so state. Of course, this isn't solely the fault of the superintendent, because both the Board Chair and he created the agenda late last week.
Jamming 45 Policies into one meeting almost guarantees a lack of quality attention by the board members.
Let's say that each board member spent just five minutes carefully considering each revision. 45 x 5 = 225 minutes (almost four hours). Won't some of them be bleary-eyed or begin to skim, rather than read closely? Will some of them even bother to read any of them at all?
That whole revision project looks to me like a make-work project. The next thing they will be doing is going through each and every Policy to make it genderless.
I recall a neighbor who worked for the Federal Government telling me in 1972 that her job consisted of reading government documents and changing every "he" to "he or she" and every "him" to "him or her". And for that she earned $35,000/year (1972 dollars) I remember thinking that I should have been a government employee!
If she is still there, now she's probably now changing every "him or her" to the (grammatically incorrect) "they". This is now how newspaper reporters refer to the injured or deceased single-occupant driver of a vehicle. To be gender-correct (and wrong), they refer to him or her as "they".
Tomorrow night the school board will be asked by the superintendent to approve 45 (FORTY-FIVE) Board Policies Presumably these are all revisions to Board Policies, although the Agenda does not so state. Of course, this isn't solely the fault of the superintendent, because both the Board Chair and he created the agenda late last week.
Jamming 45 Policies into one meeting almost guarantees a lack of quality attention by the board members.
Let's say that each board member spent just five minutes carefully considering each revision. 45 x 5 = 225 minutes (almost four hours). Won't some of them be bleary-eyed or begin to skim, rather than read closely? Will some of them even bother to read any of them at all?
That whole revision project looks to me like a make-work project. The next thing they will be doing is going through each and every Policy to make it genderless.
I recall a neighbor who worked for the Federal Government telling me in 1972 that her job consisted of reading government documents and changing every "he" to "he or she" and every "him" to "him or her". And for that she earned $35,000/year (1972 dollars) I remember thinking that I should have been a government employee!
If she is still there, now she's probably now changing every "him or her" to the (grammatically incorrect) "they". This is now how newspaper reporters refer to the injured or deceased single-occupant driver of a vehicle. To be gender-correct (and wrong), they refer to him or her as "they".
8/13/19 Board Meeting - Special Recognition
At the August 13, 2019 Regular Board Meeting the Special Recognition portion is to include acknowledgement of 13 employees.
And two trustees-elect will be recognized for completing levels of "Boardmanship" with the South Carolina School Boards Association (SCSBA).
The problem? The two trustees-elect are not legitimate Board Members of the Richland 2 School Board and should not be members of the SCSBA.
The School District is on thin ice when it pays any membership fees or course fees for Amelia McKie's and Teresa Holmes' involvement with the SCSBA, because neither McKie nor Holmes has ever legally taken the oath of office to serve as a board member.
They are trustees-elect, not Trustees.
All they have to do is take the oath of office, and they will be official. But the District and the Board seem to have dug in their heels and refuse to obey, honor and respect the state law of South Carolina.
The longer this goes on, the more serious it becomes.
Both became eligible to take the oath of office on December 4, 2018, when they filed their Statements of Economic Interests with the South Carolina Ethics Commission.
Back in March a senior officer at the Richland County Sheriff's Department asked me why McKie and Holmes didn't just take the oath of office (legally). I didn't have an answer for him.
As I recall my interview with two SLED investigators at the South Carolina Attorney General's office in May, I was asked the same question. I still didn't have an answer.
And I still don't know the answer today.
But one day the District is going to have to answer that question.
And two trustees-elect will be recognized for completing levels of "Boardmanship" with the South Carolina School Boards Association (SCSBA).
The problem? The two trustees-elect are not legitimate Board Members of the Richland 2 School Board and should not be members of the SCSBA.
The School District is on thin ice when it pays any membership fees or course fees for Amelia McKie's and Teresa Holmes' involvement with the SCSBA, because neither McKie nor Holmes has ever legally taken the oath of office to serve as a board member.
They are trustees-elect, not Trustees.
All they have to do is take the oath of office, and they will be official. But the District and the Board seem to have dug in their heels and refuse to obey, honor and respect the state law of South Carolina.
The longer this goes on, the more serious it becomes.
Both became eligible to take the oath of office on December 4, 2018, when they filed their Statements of Economic Interests with the South Carolina Ethics Commission.
Back in March a senior officer at the Richland County Sheriff's Department asked me why McKie and Holmes didn't just take the oath of office (legally). I didn't have an answer for him.
As I recall my interview with two SLED investigators at the South Carolina Attorney General's office in May, I was asked the same question. I still didn't have an answer.
And I still don't know the answer today.
But one day the District is going to have to answer that question.
Sunday, August 11, 2019
School Board should direct, not manage
The Special Called Board Meeting on August 6, 2019 should prompt a reminder to board members of their own duties and powers.
The board directs. It does not manage the School District. That's the job of the Superintendent. He is the Administrator, and he alone tells staff what to do and not do.
During the nitpicking of the Meal Plan Debt segment of the meeting (which should have been a five-minute report), many requests were made to staff members; ex., copies of letters to be sent to parents; information about the debt per school, the age of the debt, etc.
The questions are fine, but they should have been directed to the superintendent.
A review of certain Board Policies might be helpful to some of the board members.
Policy BBA Board Powers and Duties reads, in part,
It may be necessary for the superintendent to run interference and "protect" his employees from Board Member requests. I'm confident that CFO Miley and Will Anderson are creating carefully-worded letters that should prompt responses from parents regarding the meal debt.
The original plan was to send three letters to parents. At the meeting it was explained that the superintendent directed the staff to send four letters, with the fourth letter informing parents that the debt would be sent to Collection, if a parent did not contact the District about the debt.
How many times do you have to ask for parents to step up to their responsibility? The three-letter plan was sufficient. If you continue to ask and ask and ask, parents actually learn that they don't have to respond, because you will just keep asking. Keep in mind that they had plenty of warning of the increasing debt through weekly phone calls and emails, which they must have ignored.
The board directs. It does not manage the School District. That's the job of the Superintendent. He is the Administrator, and he alone tells staff what to do and not do.
During the nitpicking of the Meal Plan Debt segment of the meeting (which should have been a five-minute report), many requests were made to staff members; ex., copies of letters to be sent to parents; information about the debt per school, the age of the debt, etc.
The questions are fine, but they should have been directed to the superintendent.
A review of certain Board Policies might be helpful to some of the board members.
Policy BBA Board Powers and Duties reads, in part,
Executive
The board will employ a superintendent to serve as the chief executive officer. In that role, the superintendent performs administrative duties for the board by virtue of the powers delegated to him/her. The board will hold the superintendent accountable for the proper and efficient administration of the district.
Policy BBAA Board Member Authority And Responsibilities reads, in part,
The board and its members will deal with administrative services through the superintendent and will not give orders to any subordinates of the superintendent either publicly or privately but may make suggestions and recommendations.
Policy BC Board Member Conduct reads, in part,
It is the responsibility of each board member to do the following (in part):
- Understand that the basic function of a school board is policymaking, not administration, and accept the responsibility of learning to discriminate intelligently between these two functions.
The original plan was to send three letters to parents. At the meeting it was explained that the superintendent directed the staff to send four letters, with the fourth letter informing parents that the debt would be sent to Collection, if a parent did not contact the District about the debt.
How many times do you have to ask for parents to step up to their responsibility? The three-letter plan was sufficient. If you continue to ask and ask and ask, parents actually learn that they don't have to respond, because you will just keep asking. Keep in mind that they had plenty of warning of the increasing debt through weekly phone calls and emails, which they must have ignored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)