The make-up meeting for parents concerned about the re-districting will be held tomorrow evening, Monday, November 25, 2019 at 6:00PM at Bookman Road Elementary School.
Parents were invited to provide feedback on a form on the District's website. Visit this District webpage for more information. To find it directly, go the www.Richland2.org. Click on Explore; click on News.
Richland 2 is proposing to re-zone Jacobs Creek and Forest Creek subdivisions from Catawba Trail Elementary to Bookman Road Elementary.
The proposal will be up for a vote at the Special Board Meeting scheduled for December 3, 2019, starting at 5:30PM. BE SURE TO CHECK THE AGENDA FOR THE LOCATION OF THIS SPECIAL-CALLED BOARD MEETING. IT MAY NOT BE AT R2i2.
Is it a "done deal"?
YOU can influence your board members by contacting them by phone and by e-mail and, most importantly, by showing up in person. Watch for the Agenda for the December 3rd Special Called Meeting. It should be online (on the District's website) this Wednesday, November 27 (the day before Thanksgiving), although the Board might postpone publishing it until the last minute (5:29PM on Monday, December 2, 2019, which will be 24 hours before the starting time of the meeting).
Read parent feedback via the above link to the District webpage.
Although the webpage informs parents that they can read feedback received as of November 20, the report published is dated November 8. My guess is that Richland 2 received an earful of complaints from parents and did not update its November 8 Report.
Page 1 of the Report indicates the District received only 80 responses from the Jacobs Creek Community. Seriously? And 91% of the respondents were against the proposed re-zoning (or unsure).
Read some of the parent comments.
If you have an interest in this re-zoning, be at the meeting tomorrow night.
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Friday, November 22, 2019
R2 Board still short two legal Trustees
It was almost a year ago that The Independent Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County reported that Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes had not filed their required Statements of Economic Interests Reports ("Statements") with the South Carolina Ethics Commission.
The first article in The Voice was on December 6, 2018. Reporter Michael Smith had done his homework, and his long article carefully detailed the problem.
It turned out that McKie had not filed Statements with the S.C. Ethics Commissions that were required for 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. By December 2018 she was subject to a Decision and Order by the Ethics Commission and was ordered to pay substantial fines and fees for those violations.
McKie was first elected to the Richland 2 School Board in November 2014. In June 2018 she was elected Board Chair for the term July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019. On November 6, 2018 she was re-elected to the School Board. When the election was certified on November 9, 2018 she became "qualified" as a Trustee. But she was not yet "eligible" to be a Trustee.
Holmes was elected on November 6, 2018 to her present four-year term on the School Board.
As a result of their failures to file the Statements, both violated S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A) when they took the oath of office on November 13, 2018.
This law reads, in part, "No public official, regardless of compensation, and no public member or public employee as designated in subsection (B) may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests in accordance with the provisions of this chapter with the appropriate supervisory office."
As of November 13, 2018 they had not filed their Statements. On November 13 they took the oath of office and attended that night's School Board meeting as officials. Therefore, they violated §8-13-1110(A). Thus, they did not lawfully take the oath of office. Thus, they are not legal board members.
On December 4, 2018 they filed their Statements. Thus, on December 4 they first became eligible to take the oath of office. They have not taken the oath of office.legally.
Yet they are allowed to continue to act as if they are Board Trustees. Therefore, they are usurping public office, violating S.C. Code of Laws Section 15-53-60. And the School District is paying them while they do so.
An additional problem for McKie is that she claimed, and was allowed by the Board to claim, her role as Board Chair after November 6, 2018 and until June 30, 2019. Since she was not a legal Board member, she could not legally hold the position as Board Chair. Her signature as Board Chair on bond documents is not legal.
The five legal members of the Board could refuse to allow McKie and Holmes to sit at the board until they legally take the oath of office. McKie and Holmes are, legally, no more a Board member than I am.
By refusing to act, has the full board become complicit in deceiving taxpayers and voters as to its legal composition?
Richland 2 School District has my request to be informed of the date, time and location for any ceremony to administer the oath of office, legally, to McKie and Holmes.
The South Carolina Ethics Commission filed a Judgment for $51,750 against McKie on July 10, 2019. Case No. 2019CP4003809 is languishing in the online court records, with no update since it was filed four months ago. The S.C. Department of Revenue should be the agency that collects on the Judgment by all legal means possible, including attachment of assets, home, bank accounts, automobiles and garnishment of wages (Richland 2 pays W-2 income to McKie as a school board trustee).
The first article in The Voice was on December 6, 2018. Reporter Michael Smith had done his homework, and his long article carefully detailed the problem.
It turned out that McKie had not filed Statements with the S.C. Ethics Commissions that were required for 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. By December 2018 she was subject to a Decision and Order by the Ethics Commission and was ordered to pay substantial fines and fees for those violations.
McKie was first elected to the Richland 2 School Board in November 2014. In June 2018 she was elected Board Chair for the term July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019. On November 6, 2018 she was re-elected to the School Board. When the election was certified on November 9, 2018 she became "qualified" as a Trustee. But she was not yet "eligible" to be a Trustee.
Holmes was elected on November 6, 2018 to her present four-year term on the School Board.
As a result of their failures to file the Statements, both violated S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A) when they took the oath of office on November 13, 2018.
This law reads, in part, "No public official, regardless of compensation, and no public member or public employee as designated in subsection (B) may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests in accordance with the provisions of this chapter with the appropriate supervisory office."
As of November 13, 2018 they had not filed their Statements. On November 13 they took the oath of office and attended that night's School Board meeting as officials. Therefore, they violated §8-13-1110(A). Thus, they did not lawfully take the oath of office. Thus, they are not legal board members.
On December 4, 2018 they filed their Statements. Thus, on December 4 they first became eligible to take the oath of office. They have not taken the oath of office.legally.
Yet they are allowed to continue to act as if they are Board Trustees. Therefore, they are usurping public office, violating S.C. Code of Laws Section 15-53-60. And the School District is paying them while they do so.
An additional problem for McKie is that she claimed, and was allowed by the Board to claim, her role as Board Chair after November 6, 2018 and until June 30, 2019. Since she was not a legal Board member, she could not legally hold the position as Board Chair. Her signature as Board Chair on bond documents is not legal.
The five legal members of the Board could refuse to allow McKie and Holmes to sit at the board until they legally take the oath of office. McKie and Holmes are, legally, no more a Board member than I am.
By refusing to act, has the full board become complicit in deceiving taxpayers and voters as to its legal composition?
Richland 2 School District has my request to be informed of the date, time and location for any ceremony to administer the oath of office, legally, to McKie and Holmes.
The South Carolina Ethics Commission filed a Judgment for $51,750 against McKie on July 10, 2019. Case No. 2019CP4003809 is languishing in the online court records, with no update since it was filed four months ago. The S.C. Department of Revenue should be the agency that collects on the Judgment by all legal means possible, including attachment of assets, home, bank accounts, automobiles and garnishment of wages (Richland 2 pays W-2 income to McKie as a school board trustee).
Utah school arms teachers
In Utah County, Utah folks are serious about protecting their children in schools.
Read/watch this NBC report on arming of teachers.
When the Richland 2 School Board went the other way, when it revised Board Policy GBEB, was it a short-sighted, ill-conceived move? Not only did the R2 Board take away the authority of two Emergency Services Department employees to carry firearms on school grounds, it also removed the language ("unless otherwise authorized by law") from that Policy.
Although the Board voted on October 29, 2019 to revise Policy GBEB, the revised policy has yet to be published on the District's website.
Richland 2 took a step backwards in the defense and protection of students and staff, when it made its October 29th decision. The policy, as the revised version reads, now makes possession of weapons on school grounds an act of Misconduct by a teacher or staff member. Is there anyone who thinks that will not be a reason for termination of employment?
A teacher or staff member cannot now commute to/from work with his personal-protection weapon in his car and then park that car on school grounds. A teacher cannot leave her pepper spray in her car. Better leave that baseball bat at home. Keep in mind that weapon will now be defined as any item that could be used as a weapon.
If the student policy (JICI) definition of weapon is really to apply to the employee policy GBEB, and then extended beyond employee to contracted workers, could SROs be in violation of GBEB. How would Richland 2 disciplinary action be taken against them?
What Richland 2 needs is a well-thought-out policy to protect students, teachers, staff and visitors.
Understanding that at least five of the Richland 2 School Board Trustees are anti-gun, how are they going to make a decision that allows their charges to protect themselves (and those for whom they are responsible) from an armed attacker?
They might hate guns, but how will they answer this one question?
If a school is in lock-down and a teacher is barricaded in her classroom with 20 students, and a madman with a gun is breaking down the door to enter and harm those students and her, isn't that teacher going to hope she has a gun to defend her students and herself?
If your answer is "No", please explain in the comment section below.
Read/watch this NBC report on arming of teachers.
When the Richland 2 School Board went the other way, when it revised Board Policy GBEB, was it a short-sighted, ill-conceived move? Not only did the R2 Board take away the authority of two Emergency Services Department employees to carry firearms on school grounds, it also removed the language ("unless otherwise authorized by law") from that Policy.
Although the Board voted on October 29, 2019 to revise Policy GBEB, the revised policy has yet to be published on the District's website.
Richland 2 took a step backwards in the defense and protection of students and staff, when it made its October 29th decision. The policy, as the revised version reads, now makes possession of weapons on school grounds an act of Misconduct by a teacher or staff member. Is there anyone who thinks that will not be a reason for termination of employment?
A teacher or staff member cannot now commute to/from work with his personal-protection weapon in his car and then park that car on school grounds. A teacher cannot leave her pepper spray in her car. Better leave that baseball bat at home. Keep in mind that weapon will now be defined as any item that could be used as a weapon.
If the student policy (JICI) definition of weapon is really to apply to the employee policy GBEB, and then extended beyond employee to contracted workers, could SROs be in violation of GBEB. How would Richland 2 disciplinary action be taken against them?
What Richland 2 needs is a well-thought-out policy to protect students, teachers, staff and visitors.
Understanding that at least five of the Richland 2 School Board Trustees are anti-gun, how are they going to make a decision that allows their charges to protect themselves (and those for whom they are responsible) from an armed attacker?
They might hate guns, but how will they answer this one question?
If a school is in lock-down and a teacher is barricaded in her classroom with 20 students, and a madman with a gun is breaking down the door to enter and harm those students and her, isn't that teacher going to hope she has a gun to defend her students and herself?
If your answer is "No", please explain in the comment section below.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Board Meeting Minutes and FOIA
This week's speaker at the Special Called Board Meeting on November 19, 2019 commented on requirements for Meeting Minutes. The speaker was retired attorney Helen McFadden.
The five minimum things that must be in Minutes are (See 21:40 on the YouTube recording):
Ms. McFadden watched 6-8 hours of meetings and has never seen any member recuse himself. She assumed they are doing that. (They aren't, but perhaps no situation has arisen that would require it.)
Recently I suggested to the Board that a statement be included in the Minutes about the superintendent's cancellation of employees' right to carry a firearm at work on school grounds. I had read the Minutes after the Agenda was published and before the Board approved the Minutes, but no member of the Board felt included to request that his statement be included in the Minutes.
When you read the Minutes of a meeting, it is very difficult to know what took 1½-3 hours in a meeting. District Meetings could be much more complete.
RECUSAL
At 1:08:27 on the recording Ms. McFadden pointed out that Richland 2 does not have a Board Policy on prejudice or bias, which is applicable to administrative hearings. She mentioned racial prejudice, religious prejudice, gender-based prejudice for matters of prejudice and bias.
Prejudice and bias are reasons for a board member to recuse himself or herself.
Her comment caused me to wonder whether at least three board members might have to recuse themselves from certain votes in the future, because they have spoken so extensively, persuasively and often on behalf of the District's black students. Could their attention to this one segment of the District's student body be considered prejudice or bias?
Ms. McFadden will be invited back to present a second part of her overall presentation. Hopefully, the District will give the public more than the 24 hours' notice of this special meeting that she mentioned earlier in her presentation, when she addressed the requirements of South Carolina state law.
The five minimum things that must be in Minutes are (See 21:40 on the YouTube recording):
- Date and Place
- Who is present and who is absent
- Substance of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided
- Recording the vote
- Any other information that is asked to be included by a member. "A member of the Board has an absolute right to get a reasonable amount of information included in the record and must put into the record in writing any recusal under Title VIII,: she said.
Ms. McFadden watched 6-8 hours of meetings and has never seen any member recuse himself. She assumed they are doing that. (They aren't, but perhaps no situation has arisen that would require it.)
Recently I suggested to the Board that a statement be included in the Minutes about the superintendent's cancellation of employees' right to carry a firearm at work on school grounds. I had read the Minutes after the Agenda was published and before the Board approved the Minutes, but no member of the Board felt included to request that his statement be included in the Minutes.
When you read the Minutes of a meeting, it is very difficult to know what took 1½-3 hours in a meeting. District Meetings could be much more complete.
RECUSAL
At 1:08:27 on the recording Ms. McFadden pointed out that Richland 2 does not have a Board Policy on prejudice or bias, which is applicable to administrative hearings. She mentioned racial prejudice, religious prejudice, gender-based prejudice for matters of prejudice and bias.
Prejudice and bias are reasons for a board member to recuse himself or herself.
Her comment caused me to wonder whether at least three board members might have to recuse themselves from certain votes in the future, because they have spoken so extensively, persuasively and often on behalf of the District's black students. Could their attention to this one segment of the District's student body be considered prejudice or bias?
Ms. McFadden will be invited back to present a second part of her overall presentation. Hopefully, the District will give the public more than the 24 hours' notice of this special meeting that she mentioned earlier in her presentation, when she addressed the requirements of South Carolina state law.
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
Dec. 3, 2019 - NOTE: Change of Location
The Special Called Board Meeting for Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2019 will be held at Jackson Creek Elementary School, not at R2i2. Jackson Creek Elementary is located at 7150 Trenholm Road Extension.
Please note this change in location for a School Board meeting.
The starting time (from the November 19 District announcement) will be 5:30PM. This may be the starting time of an Executive Session, followed by the open, public session.
Check the Agenda, which will be available on the District's website on about November 27, for the starting time of the public session and also to confirm the location. Agendas are normally published on the Thursday before a Tuesday Board meeting. Since that Thursday is Thanksgiving Day, the Agenda may be available one day early.
Typically, Special Called Board Meetings do not allow Public Participation.
Perhaps the District would be willing to explain to parents of the students to be affected by this change -
Please note this change in location for a School Board meeting.
The starting time (from the November 19 District announcement) will be 5:30PM. This may be the starting time of an Executive Session, followed by the open, public session.
Check the Agenda, which will be available on the District's website on about November 27, for the starting time of the public session and also to confirm the location. Agendas are normally published on the Thursday before a Tuesday Board meeting. Since that Thursday is Thanksgiving Day, the Agenda may be available one day early.
Typically, Special Called Board Meetings do not allow Public Participation.
Perhaps the District would be willing to explain to parents of the students to be affected by this change -
- why this board meeting is a Special Called Meeting, rather than a Regular Meeting
- why it is at Jackson Creek, instead of at R2i2 or a closer school
- why it is scheduled for 5:30PM, which likely eliminates attendance by many parents, who might be commuting home from work, caring for children, or feeding them dinner
- why this is being rushed through
Discipline Update
The Discipline Update at last night's Special-Called Board Meeting was fascinating. This portion of the November 19, 2019 meeting begins at 1:10:40 on the YouTube recording's counter.
Why wasn't the room packed with parents, especially parents concerned about a perceived disparity in discipline among one portion of the student body.
One reason that parents weren't there is they may not have known about the meeting. At the end of last week's Regular Meeting, Supt. Davis announced that there would be a Special Called Board Meeting on December 3, 2019. He did not mention any Special Called Board Meeting for November 19.
Surely, the November 19 meeting was in the works and planned. And scheduled. I learned of it yesterday morning from a Facebook announcement.
What does Mr. Robert have to say about Special Meetings?
"The reason for special meetings is to deal with important matters that may arise between regular meetings and that urgently require action by the society before the next regular meeting." (Robert, Henry. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th Edition. New York. Perseus Publishing, HarperCollins Publishers. 2000. p.89)
There was an analyst present who explained the first set of statistics. Unfortunately, he was not clearly introduced by name. Staff then presented some slides.
Hopefully, those slides will be included in the video-recording of the meeting. I recommend that you view and study them.
For example, a comparison was made of disciplinary hearings scheduled during the first quarter of this school year and last.
Q1 2018-2019 99 Hearings
Q1 2019-2020 157 Hearings
This is a 159% increase.
And this slide:
Number of Instances of Expulsions, first quarter last year compared to this year.
Q1 2018-2019 5
Q1 2019-2020 3
Trustee Shadd noticed this and asked how there could be so many more hearings and, yet, fewer expulsions. Part of the answer, in my opinion, is that Q1 2019-2020 is not over yet.
But does the number of Hearings shock you?
Be sure to look at the pie-charts that were part of the presentation. They showed, by percentage, the number of offenses by Disciplinary Level (there are three Levels: I, II and III.) Pay particular attention to the Levels of Disciplinary Offenses between Elementary, Middle and High School students. These should be on the YouTube and District recordings of the November 19, 2019 Special Meeting.
Read here soon for a discussion of the Disciplinary Levels, as found the Board Policies.
Why wasn't the room packed with parents, especially parents concerned about a perceived disparity in discipline among one portion of the student body.
One reason that parents weren't there is they may not have known about the meeting. At the end of last week's Regular Meeting, Supt. Davis announced that there would be a Special Called Board Meeting on December 3, 2019. He did not mention any Special Called Board Meeting for November 19.
Surely, the November 19 meeting was in the works and planned. And scheduled. I learned of it yesterday morning from a Facebook announcement.
What does Mr. Robert have to say about Special Meetings?
"The reason for special meetings is to deal with important matters that may arise between regular meetings and that urgently require action by the society before the next regular meeting." (Robert, Henry. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th Edition. New York. Perseus Publishing, HarperCollins Publishers. 2000. p.89)
There was an analyst present who explained the first set of statistics. Unfortunately, he was not clearly introduced by name. Staff then presented some slides.
Hopefully, those slides will be included in the video-recording of the meeting. I recommend that you view and study them.
For example, a comparison was made of disciplinary hearings scheduled during the first quarter of this school year and last.
Q1 2018-2019 99 Hearings
Q1 2019-2020 157 Hearings
This is a 159% increase.
And this slide:
Number of Instances of Expulsions, first quarter last year compared to this year.
Q1 2018-2019 5
Q1 2019-2020 3
Trustee Shadd noticed this and asked how there could be so many more hearings and, yet, fewer expulsions. Part of the answer, in my opinion, is that Q1 2019-2020 is not over yet.
But does the number of Hearings shock you?
Be sure to look at the pie-charts that were part of the presentation. They showed, by percentage, the number of offenses by Disciplinary Level (there are three Levels: I, II and III.) Pay particular attention to the Levels of Disciplinary Offenses between Elementary, Middle and High School students. These should be on the YouTube and District recordings of the November 19, 2019 Special Meeting.
Read here soon for a discussion of the Disciplinary Levels, as found the Board Policies.
Robert's Rules rule
Last night's special-called board meeting included two excellent presentations. One was on Robert's Rules of Order and the other was an update on Discipline. I'll separate my comments.
The invited speaker on Robert's Rules of Order was Helen McFadden. She is a retired attorney with years of experience in the world of Robert's Rules.
As it happened, my library Hold on Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), 10th edition, became available, and I picked it up on the way into the meeting.
Hopefully, Ms. McFadden's remarks were recorded and will be available on YouTube and on the District's website later this week.
Toward the end of her presentation, on a slide titled "Other Issues" was a bullet-point that read, "Ability to hear and be heard". That point was not discussed, and I wondered whether it applied to each board member (or member of a public body) or if it meant the audience.
Beginning remarks by Board Chair Manning and Supt. Davis were loud and clear. They got up close to their microphones and spoke into them, causing their voices to be amplified and audible throughout the room. They forgot to ask Ms. McFadden to do likewise at her microphone, and the few in the audience (four, plus a second speaker) seated behind her could be seen on the laptops and phones during portions of her remarks. Was that because they could not hear her?
One topic she did cover was the Quorum for a meeting.
When the meeting started, there were six at the head table, plus Supt. Davis. Trustee Elkins-Johnson was absent. But you wouldn't have known it, because no roll call was taken.
Before the meeting began, I had looked up Roll Call in RONR to learn what Mr. Robert had to say about it. It's found under Optional Headings, and it apparently is not required. If Roll Call is taken, its place in the Agenda would be at the end of opening ceremonies. The board could place it elsewhere. The logical place, in my opinion, would be right after the meeting is called to order.
Why would it have been important last night?
There are seven positions as Board members. With the ongoing controversy about the legitimacy of two elected persons, this could mean that, to have a quorum, all five of the legal members would have to be in attendance. Without Trustee Elkins-Johnson last night, there was not a quorum. Trustees-elect McKie and Holmes are not yet legal, official members of the Board, because they have not taken the oath of office since filing their Statements of Economic Interest with the South Carolina Ethics Commission since December 4, 2018. As soon as they do take the oath of office, they will be legal school board members.
But they were there and seated, and the District considers them as members. So six were present; a quorum is five.
At 6:43PM Amelia McKie quietly left the meeting. This left five present - exactly a quorum.
Then, at 7:41PM Teresa Holmes left the meeting. This left four members attending - less than a quorum.
What would Ms. McFadden have counseled the Board to do at that time? Should there have been a statement by the Board Chair that the official Special-Called Board Meeting was over, because a quorum was no longer present? Should that change in quorum-status have been recognized? No votes were scheduled. Can the Board receive information in unofficial session?
This is where a Roll Call is important. A formal acknowledgement of official members coming and going. It can be done with a simple statement to the public.
When it was time to close the meeting after the Discipline Update, a Motion to Adjourn was made, seconded and voted upon. Except the Board's vote is ineffective, because there was no quorum.
If Ms. McFadden returns for further discussion of Robert's Rules of Order, perhaps she will clarify what to do when a quorum is no longer present. Does the Board have to sit there for a week until the next meeting?
The invited speaker on Robert's Rules of Order was Helen McFadden. She is a retired attorney with years of experience in the world of Robert's Rules.
As it happened, my library Hold on Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), 10th edition, became available, and I picked it up on the way into the meeting.
Hopefully, Ms. McFadden's remarks were recorded and will be available on YouTube and on the District's website later this week.
Toward the end of her presentation, on a slide titled "Other Issues" was a bullet-point that read, "Ability to hear and be heard". That point was not discussed, and I wondered whether it applied to each board member (or member of a public body) or if it meant the audience.
Beginning remarks by Board Chair Manning and Supt. Davis were loud and clear. They got up close to their microphones and spoke into them, causing their voices to be amplified and audible throughout the room. They forgot to ask Ms. McFadden to do likewise at her microphone, and the few in the audience (four, plus a second speaker) seated behind her could be seen on the laptops and phones during portions of her remarks. Was that because they could not hear her?
One topic she did cover was the Quorum for a meeting.
When the meeting started, there were six at the head table, plus Supt. Davis. Trustee Elkins-Johnson was absent. But you wouldn't have known it, because no roll call was taken.
Before the meeting began, I had looked up Roll Call in RONR to learn what Mr. Robert had to say about it. It's found under Optional Headings, and it apparently is not required. If Roll Call is taken, its place in the Agenda would be at the end of opening ceremonies. The board could place it elsewhere. The logical place, in my opinion, would be right after the meeting is called to order.
Why would it have been important last night?
There are seven positions as Board members. With the ongoing controversy about the legitimacy of two elected persons, this could mean that, to have a quorum, all five of the legal members would have to be in attendance. Without Trustee Elkins-Johnson last night, there was not a quorum. Trustees-elect McKie and Holmes are not yet legal, official members of the Board, because they have not taken the oath of office since filing their Statements of Economic Interest with the South Carolina Ethics Commission since December 4, 2018. As soon as they do take the oath of office, they will be legal school board members.
But they were there and seated, and the District considers them as members. So six were present; a quorum is five.
At 6:43PM Amelia McKie quietly left the meeting. This left five present - exactly a quorum.
Then, at 7:41PM Teresa Holmes left the meeting. This left four members attending - less than a quorum.
What would Ms. McFadden have counseled the Board to do at that time? Should there have been a statement by the Board Chair that the official Special-Called Board Meeting was over, because a quorum was no longer present? Should that change in quorum-status have been recognized? No votes were scheduled. Can the Board receive information in unofficial session?
This is where a Roll Call is important. A formal acknowledgement of official members coming and going. It can be done with a simple statement to the public.
When it was time to close the meeting after the Discipline Update, a Motion to Adjourn was made, seconded and voted upon. Except the Board's vote is ineffective, because there was no quorum.
If Ms. McFadden returns for further discussion of Robert's Rules of Order, perhaps she will clarify what to do when a quorum is no longer present. Does the Board have to sit there for a week until the next meeting?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)