Oh, it's "old news" now and so easily forgotten.
Remember the parents who showed up to complain about cell phone towers on the grounds of Richland 2 school? Where are they now? Well, not at school board meetings.
Has construction started near Kelly Mill Middle School?
Check out this November 13, 2018 article from New Zealand.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12154228&fbclid=IwAR1hLlZ0YkUCuJdwnj3yjHaRGvpzyYudDs6WP00g-F_OdQrjLnoDdUDv2Js
Saturday, October 12, 2019
Friday, October 11, 2019
Guns in Richland 2 Schools?
At the next school board meeting, on Tuesday, October 15, 2019, the Richland 2 School Board will again take up the issue of guns on school grounds.
Teachers and parents, how do you feel about this?
At least two Richland 2 employees have been authorized to carry concealed firearms on school grounds. They are not law-enforcement officers; they are not uniformed. Their employment is not for the purpose of direct security. Uniformed Security personnel of the District are unarmed.
I have sent the following email to board members and the press.
Please show up Tuesday evening for 6:30PM open session. Register before you enter the meeting room and plan to address the Board.
Members of the Board and Trustees-Elect McKie and Holmes,
Teachers and parents, how do you feel about this?
At least two Richland 2 employees have been authorized to carry concealed firearms on school grounds. They are not law-enforcement officers; they are not uniformed. Their employment is not for the purpose of direct security. Uniformed Security personnel of the District are unarmed.
I have sent the following email to board members and the press.
Please show up Tuesday evening for 6:30PM open session. Register before you enter the meeting room and plan to address the Board.
Members of the Board and Trustees-Elect McKie and Holmes,
There was vigorous discussion at the September 24, 2019 board meeting about Policy GBEB and authority requested by the superintendent for him to approve carrying of concealed, loaded firearms on school grounds. Several of you expressed concerns that agreed with my suggestion during public participation that the authority should rest with the Board, not with the superintendent.
As Supt. Davis said at that meeting, he was happy to pass the responsibility on to you.
The Policy revision in the Agenda for the 10/15/19 board meeting has not been changed. The authority would still rest with the superintendent, as proposed by the Administration.
The financial risk to Richland School District 2 is immense, should an employee utilize his firearm, even if later found to be a justified use-of-force. Please consider the liability for injury or death of a student, teacher, staff member, vendor or visitor. There needs to be a complete Board Policy addressing such possession and carrying of a firearm on school grounds.
I request that the Board claim the responsibility for approval.
Further, I request that Richland 2 rescind approvals that are in effect now for certain employees to carry, until the Board can thoroughly consider and approve a good policy.
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
WANTED: Attorney
Can someone in the community recommend an attorney for a legal action against the Richland School District Two that involves getting Leave from a Circuit Judge to file writs of quo warranto in the South Carolina Supreme Count?
SECTION 15-63-60. Action against usurpers, for forfeiture of office or against persons acting as corporation.
An action may be brought by the Attorney General in the name of the State upon his own information or upon the complaint of any private party or by a private party interested on leave granted by a circuit judge against the parties offending in the following cases:
(1) When any person shall usurp, intrude into, or unlawfully hold or exercise any public office, civil or military, or any franchise within this State or any office in a corporation, created by the authority of this State;
The Office of the South Carolina Attorney General took a very close look at my complaint and opted not to pursue it. The Richland County Sheriff and SLED were very helpful.
An outside option was that they have "prosecutorial discretion" and that may have been the reason for declining to prosecute. I'll certainly agree that putting away murderers, robbers and crooked state politicians ranks higher in any office that might have limited resources.
But having two people on the school board illegally is important.
Why won't the School Board just administer the oath of office to McKie and Holmes. After all, they did file their Statement of Economic Interests Reports on December 4, 2018. They are eligible now to take the oath of office legally.
SECTION 15-63-60. Action against usurpers, for forfeiture of office or against persons acting as corporation.
An action may be brought by the Attorney General in the name of the State upon his own information or upon the complaint of any private party or by a private party interested on leave granted by a circuit judge against the parties offending in the following cases:
(1) When any person shall usurp, intrude into, or unlawfully hold or exercise any public office, civil or military, or any franchise within this State or any office in a corporation, created by the authority of this State;
The Office of the South Carolina Attorney General took a very close look at my complaint and opted not to pursue it. The Richland County Sheriff and SLED were very helpful.
An outside option was that they have "prosecutorial discretion" and that may have been the reason for declining to prosecute. I'll certainly agree that putting away murderers, robbers and crooked state politicians ranks higher in any office that might have limited resources.
But having two people on the school board illegally is important.
Why won't the School Board just administer the oath of office to McKie and Holmes. After all, they did file their Statement of Economic Interests Reports on December 4, 2018. They are eligible now to take the oath of office legally.
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Board says "No" to Access to Attorney
Since February 2019 I have asserted that Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes are not legitimate members of the Richland 2 School Board.
During the summer I requested a meeting with the Board Chair and the attorney for the School District:
At the end of August I received this reply on behalf of the School Board:
"We have sought counsel from several entities, including our legal counsel, that have all assured us that our board members are legal members of the board based on current State Law, interpretation of that law, and all matters related to State Ethics. While I understand your desire to hear more from our counsel on this directly, it is not appropriate for me to have legal counsel engage with you as a member of the public on this matter."
My concern hinges on these facts:
1. Both took an oath of office illegally and before they were eligible to do so.
2. Neither McKie nor Holmes has ever taken the oath of office legally.
McKie's 2014-2018 term of office ended on November 6, 2018. She was re-elected on November 6, 2018 for the term 2018-2022. She took the oath of office illegally on November 13, 2018. She attended and participated in the November 13, 2018 school board meeting. However, the 2018-2022 term legally began one week after her election was certified. Her election was certified on November 9, 2018, and the term of office began on November 16, 2018, three days after that board meeting.
While she was "qualified" to become a trustee for the school board term on 2018-2022, she was not eligible to be sworn in, because she had not filed a Statement of Economic Interests Report with the South Carolina Ethics Commission.
By the November election date McKie was subject to an Order and Decision by the S.C. Ethics Commission for numerous violations of ethics laws. She now owes $51,750, and a Judgment was filed in Richland County Common Pleas Court on July 10, 2019. The S.C. Department of Revenue should begin collection efforts soon, which may include wage garnishment, attachment of assets, seizure of bank accounts and other steps to collect the $51,750.
The problem is the same for Holmes, because she violated the law on November 13, 2018 and has never legally taken the oath of office. And now she is serving as Board Vice Chairman, an office to which she is not entitled.
Because McKie has never legally taken the oath of office (on or after December 4, 2018), I assert she is not a legal board member and also that she could not continue after November 6, 2018 as Board Chair (which the Board allowed her to do to the end of that term of office on June 30, 2019).
The "counsel" that the Board received from "several entities" appears to be faulty. Even the counsel from the District's own attorney appears to be in error. The logical question is who were the "several entities".
The State law (S.C. Code of Laws 8-13-1110(A) is absolutely clear. McKie and Holmes violated it. The Ethics Commission fined Holmes $100.00 because she filed her SEI late. But the Ethics Commission addresses only civil matters, not criminal matters. The Ethics Commission doesn't prosecute criminal matters.
State criminal laws were violated. Ethics laws were violated. The advice to the School Board must hinge on "interpretation" of state law.
I have never been shy about disagreeing with legal opinions that appear to be wrong. In Colorado I questioned an attorney whose advice was about to cause a mutual client $75,000 in unnecessary Federal Income Tax. The lawyer told me he had the best tax attorney in Colorado on his staff, and I told him he'd better go to Wyoming (90 miles north) for a second opinion. When I told him that I would urge our mutual client to get his legal advice about the specific section of the IRS Code on his letterhead (thereby establishing proof of his advice), his response was, "Let me call you back in a couple of hours."
He called back ten minutes later and told me the client would not be making the change (that would have resulted in the client's $75,000 tax expense)!
In March 2019 I suggested the simple, cost-free remedy to the School Board. Just administer the oath of office - legally - to McKie and Holmes. It didn't, and it hasn't done so. The longer the Board waits, the more it will cost them to go all the way back of November 13, 2018 and correct all the decisions that include votes by McKie and Holmes. Some important decisions will change. Many decisions on student transfers and expulsions will change.
During the summer I requested a meeting with the Board Chair and the attorney for the School District:
At the end of August I received this reply on behalf of the School Board:
"We have sought counsel from several entities, including our legal counsel, that have all assured us that our board members are legal members of the board based on current State Law, interpretation of that law, and all matters related to State Ethics. While I understand your desire to hear more from our counsel on this directly, it is not appropriate for me to have legal counsel engage with you as a member of the public on this matter."
My concern hinges on these facts:
1. Both took an oath of office illegally and before they were eligible to do so.
2. Neither McKie nor Holmes has ever taken the oath of office legally.
While she was "qualified" to become a trustee for the school board term on 2018-2022, she was not eligible to be sworn in, because she had not filed a Statement of Economic Interests Report with the South Carolina Ethics Commission.
By the November election date McKie was subject to an Order and Decision by the S.C. Ethics Commission for numerous violations of ethics laws. She now owes $51,750, and a Judgment was filed in Richland County Common Pleas Court on July 10, 2019. The S.C. Department of Revenue should begin collection efforts soon, which may include wage garnishment, attachment of assets, seizure of bank accounts and other steps to collect the $51,750.
The problem is the same for Holmes, because she violated the law on November 13, 2018 and has never legally taken the oath of office. And now she is serving as Board Vice Chairman, an office to which she is not entitled.
Because McKie has never legally taken the oath of office (on or after December 4, 2018), I assert she is not a legal board member and also that she could not continue after November 6, 2018 as Board Chair (which the Board allowed her to do to the end of that term of office on June 30, 2019).
The "counsel" that the Board received from "several entities" appears to be faulty. Even the counsel from the District's own attorney appears to be in error. The logical question is who were the "several entities".
The State law (S.C. Code of Laws 8-13-1110(A) is absolutely clear. McKie and Holmes violated it. The Ethics Commission fined Holmes $100.00 because she filed her SEI late. But the Ethics Commission addresses only civil matters, not criminal matters. The Ethics Commission doesn't prosecute criminal matters.
State criminal laws were violated. Ethics laws were violated. The advice to the School Board must hinge on "interpretation" of state law.
I have never been shy about disagreeing with legal opinions that appear to be wrong. In Colorado I questioned an attorney whose advice was about to cause a mutual client $75,000 in unnecessary Federal Income Tax. The lawyer told me he had the best tax attorney in Colorado on his staff, and I told him he'd better go to Wyoming (90 miles north) for a second opinion. When I told him that I would urge our mutual client to get his legal advice about the specific section of the IRS Code on his letterhead (thereby establishing proof of his advice), his response was, "Let me call you back in a couple of hours."
He called back ten minutes later and told me the client would not be making the change (that would have resulted in the client's $75,000 tax expense)!
In March 2019 I suggested the simple, cost-free remedy to the School Board. Just administer the oath of office - legally - to McKie and Holmes. It didn't, and it hasn't done so. The longer the Board waits, the more it will cost them to go all the way back of November 13, 2018 and correct all the decisions that include votes by McKie and Holmes. Some important decisions will change. Many decisions on student transfers and expulsions will change.
Saturday, October 5, 2019
Oct. 1 2019 Special Board Meeting - Unofficial?
On October 1, 2019 the Richland 2 School Board held a Special-Called Board Meeting. The video recording of the meeting has been posted on YouTube on the Richland 2 channel.
The first thing I noticed was the two empty chairs. Although no roll call was taken (as it never is at board meetings), Mr. Manning noted that Teresa Holmes and Monica Elkins-Johnson were absent. This left five present, plus the superintendent.
That number presented a dilemma for the Board. A quorum for a meeting is five board members. Two trustees-elect (McKie and Holmes) have never legally taken the oath of office. In the opinion of some, including this writer, they are not legal board members. Thus, with McKie not being a legal board member, there were only four legal board members present - one short of a quorum, and no business should have been conducted.
The vote of five (including McKie) on the motion to approve the agenda for the meeting was wrong. There should not have been a vote, because there was no quorum, and an accurate vote should have been 4-0.
The purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss 28 Board Policies and suggested revisions, with no vote to be taken. You can see the list of Policies in the Agenda for the meeting.
The meeting was only 36 minutes long, and the first order of business can be viewed on YouTube at 1:13 on the video timer.
The silliness of some of these revisions can be seen in the first item, Board Policy IHCF Childcare Programs" on the Agenda. Somebody at Richland 2 is getting the big bucks to revise "ages 5-14" to "ages five through fourteen" and strike the word "years". Grab your wallets, Taxpayers!
In the discussion for Policy IIA Grouping for Discussion, Trustee Shadd motioned for addition of "sexual orientation and, gender identity status" to the listed protected classes of "race, religion, sex, or socioeconomic status." McKie seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
Mrs. Agostini clearly reads and studies the massive number of revisions being foisted on the Board. She asked an important question in Policy IJ, where the wording refers to "invasive physical exam". Is she the only Trustee who reads every word in these proposed revisions? It seems the Administration just wants to swallow any recommendation of the South Carolina School Boards Association (SCSBA), and Mrs. Agostini and the absent Dr. Elkins-Johnson are on the only Trustees who challenge the concept of just rolling over and accepting SCSBA recommendations.
At 12:27 Trustee Shadd's phone rang. He grabbed it and began reading a message. Mrs. McKie leaned over toward him. WAS HE RECEIVING A MESSAGE ABOUT THE TOPIC UNDER DISCUSSION DURING THIS OPEN, PUBLIC MEETING??? Isn't there a Board Policy about use of electronics during meetings? How can the public know what message he is receiving? It's a Public meeting. He should have been called on to read aloud the message on his phone.
Amelia McKie pre-empted Board Chair Manning's role of thanking the staff for their work (34:40). There was no reason for her to do so. She is no longer the Board Chair; some will assert that, since November 6, 2018, she has not even been a legal member of the board or board chair from November 6, 2018 to June 30, 2019. McKie said she wanted to appreciate the staff for the time they are taking to go to the policies.
NOTE TO ALL: Staff is being paid quite well to do their jobs, which include policy revisions as directed by the superintendent. McKie has no need to thank them for doing their jobs. The superintendent will take care of that!
The first thing I noticed was the two empty chairs. Although no roll call was taken (as it never is at board meetings), Mr. Manning noted that Teresa Holmes and Monica Elkins-Johnson were absent. This left five present, plus the superintendent.
That number presented a dilemma for the Board. A quorum for a meeting is five board members. Two trustees-elect (McKie and Holmes) have never legally taken the oath of office. In the opinion of some, including this writer, they are not legal board members. Thus, with McKie not being a legal board member, there were only four legal board members present - one short of a quorum, and no business should have been conducted.
The vote of five (including McKie) on the motion to approve the agenda for the meeting was wrong. There should not have been a vote, because there was no quorum, and an accurate vote should have been 4-0.
The purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss 28 Board Policies and suggested revisions, with no vote to be taken. You can see the list of Policies in the Agenda for the meeting.
The meeting was only 36 minutes long, and the first order of business can be viewed on YouTube at 1:13 on the video timer.
The silliness of some of these revisions can be seen in the first item, Board Policy IHCF Childcare Programs" on the Agenda. Somebody at Richland 2 is getting the big bucks to revise "ages 5-14" to "ages five through fourteen" and strike the word "years". Grab your wallets, Taxpayers!
In the discussion for Policy IIA Grouping for Discussion, Trustee Shadd motioned for addition of "sexual orientation and, gender identity status" to the listed protected classes of "race, religion, sex, or socioeconomic status." McKie seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
Mrs. Agostini clearly reads and studies the massive number of revisions being foisted on the Board. She asked an important question in Policy IJ, where the wording refers to "invasive physical exam". Is she the only Trustee who reads every word in these proposed revisions? It seems the Administration just wants to swallow any recommendation of the South Carolina School Boards Association (SCSBA), and Mrs. Agostini and the absent Dr. Elkins-Johnson are on the only Trustees who challenge the concept of just rolling over and accepting SCSBA recommendations.
At 12:27 Trustee Shadd's phone rang. He grabbed it and began reading a message. Mrs. McKie leaned over toward him. WAS HE RECEIVING A MESSAGE ABOUT THE TOPIC UNDER DISCUSSION DURING THIS OPEN, PUBLIC MEETING??? Isn't there a Board Policy about use of electronics during meetings? How can the public know what message he is receiving? It's a Public meeting. He should have been called on to read aloud the message on his phone.
Amelia McKie pre-empted Board Chair Manning's role of thanking the staff for their work (34:40). There was no reason for her to do so. She is no longer the Board Chair; some will assert that, since November 6, 2018, she has not even been a legal member of the board or board chair from November 6, 2018 to June 30, 2019. McKie said she wanted to appreciate the staff for the time they are taking to go to the policies.
NOTE TO ALL: Staff is being paid quite well to do their jobs, which include policy revisions as directed by the superintendent. McKie has no need to thank them for doing their jobs. The superintendent will take care of that!
Friday, October 4, 2019
Stressed Out?
Are you stressed out?
Worried about your kids? Schools? School safety? Gun Violence? Guns? The foolishness in Washington, D.C.? Or right here at the State Capitol in Columbia, S.C.? Work? Money? Life?
Take William James' (1842-1910) advice:
"The greatest weapon against stress is our ability to choose one thought over another."
Comments?
Worried about your kids? Schools? School safety? Gun Violence? Guns? The foolishness in Washington, D.C.? Or right here at the State Capitol in Columbia, S.C.? Work? Money? Life?
Take William James' (1842-1910) advice:
"The greatest weapon against stress is our ability to choose one thought over another."
Comments?
Bullet Found on Bus; decapitation threatened - Lex. 1
The State newspaper is reporting that a bullet was found on a school bus in the Lexington 1 School District. Also, that a 12-year-old student assaulted a teacher and a 16-year-old student threatened a teacher.
According to the newspaper article, after the 12-year-old threatened the teacher and said he'd chop off her head with a machete, "(t)he student was disciplined by school administrators..."
"Disciplined"?
Why is this important to Richland 2 parents, students, teachers, administrators and community members?
Because thse incidents need to be addressed as criminal matters, not just as school discipline. To what extent is Lexington 1 doing that?
The social justice warriors (SJW) want too many incidents to be classified as school discipline problems, rather than addressed as crimes. Sure, it's important to reduce the "school-to-prison pipeline", as many want to call it. Want to stop that pipeline? Well, kids, stop doing the crimes! It's really that simple.
If more parents said, "If you do the crime, you'll suffer the consequences" and stopped bailing their kids out or instantly asserting their innocence, perhaps the number of crimes at school would drop.
There was a time when kids feared more what was going to happen to them if their parents found out a problem at school. That time seems to be far in the past. Now it's somebody else's fault - the teacher's, the principal's, the cop's, the court's, the system's, the (fill-in-the-blank)'s fault.
Soon I'll start posting here how Richland 2 handles minor and major incidents on school grounds.
In the meantime start reading Why Meadow Died: The People and Policies That Created The Parkland Shooter and Endanger America's Students
I own both the e-book and the hardcover editions. The footnotes are a whole story in themselves, and the links in the footnotes in the e-book help you go quickly to the source.
According to the newspaper article, after the 12-year-old threatened the teacher and said he'd chop off her head with a machete, "(t)he student was disciplined by school administrators..."
"Disciplined"?
Why is this important to Richland 2 parents, students, teachers, administrators and community members?
Because thse incidents need to be addressed as criminal matters, not just as school discipline. To what extent is Lexington 1 doing that?
The social justice warriors (SJW) want too many incidents to be classified as school discipline problems, rather than addressed as crimes. Sure, it's important to reduce the "school-to-prison pipeline", as many want to call it. Want to stop that pipeline? Well, kids, stop doing the crimes! It's really that simple.
If more parents said, "If you do the crime, you'll suffer the consequences" and stopped bailing their kids out or instantly asserting their innocence, perhaps the number of crimes at school would drop.
There was a time when kids feared more what was going to happen to them if their parents found out a problem at school. That time seems to be far in the past. Now it's somebody else's fault - the teacher's, the principal's, the cop's, the court's, the system's, the (fill-in-the-blank)'s fault.
Soon I'll start posting here how Richland 2 handles minor and major incidents on school grounds.
In the meantime start reading Why Meadow Died: The People and Policies That Created The Parkland Shooter and Endanger America's Students
I own both the e-book and the hardcover editions. The footnotes are a whole story in themselves, and the links in the footnotes in the e-book help you go quickly to the source.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)