The Rules for the Senate's impeachment trial of President Trump have been published.
If they are good enough for the U.S. Senate, are they good enough for the Richland 2 School Board?
Take a look at the rules as published by Business Insider.
Keep quiet.
Stay off iPhones. Check electronic devices outside the room.
Remain seated.
No side-conversations.
Attend all proceedings.
No outside reading materials.
Some of these would be good rules for Board meetings.
Friday, January 17, 2020
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Adjournment Enthusiasm
It was nice to see the School Board happy and excited at the end of the January 14, 2020 Regular Meeting.
When Board Chair Manning called for the vote to adjourn, there was a reason he asked for the members to vote by holding their hands high.
Were they just happy that the meeting was ending at 2:13:00?
Did they get a sudden surge of energy, when they realized the meeting was not going to last three hours?
Look at the enthusiasm of Trustee Caution-Parker. What made her come to life in such a manner?
I know the answer to that question.
When Board Chair Manning called for the vote to adjourn, there was a reason he asked for the members to vote by holding their hands high.
Were they just happy that the meeting was ending at 2:13:00?
Did they get a sudden surge of energy, when they realized the meeting was not going to last three hours?
Look at the enthusiasm of Trustee Caution-Parker. What made her come to life in such a manner?
I know the answer to that question.
Bond Resolution approved by Board
At the January 14, 2020 Regular Meeting of the School Board there was a Resolution presented to the Board for approval.
Several procedural errors occurred on the way to the vote.
The Resolution was not attached to the original Agenda for the meeting. Because it was not, the public was kept in the dark as to its contents.
At the January 14th Meeting I addressed the board during the Public Participation segment. You can view that portion of the board's meeting on the video-recording of the meeting on YouTube at 0:51:07 on the counter.
After I completed my remarks, Board Chair James Manning stated that the Resolution had been placed on the website at the beginning of the meeting.
At least one Trustee read carefully the eight-page Resolution. In addition pointing out a couple of errors in construction of the Resolution, she made a motion to strike this sentence from Section 22: "Burr Forman is authorized to associate co-counsel at the direction of the Superintendent."
You have to know the background of that sentence to understand the motion to strike it.
One year ago the Board considered and passed a long Resolution presented by the Administration that included a sweetheart deal for a small, two-woman, black-owned law firm in Columbia. That Resolution gave the Superintendent the authority to order the huge, experienced, professional law firm of Burr Forman to give a chunk of bond business to Jabber & Isaac, PA as co-counsel. The special deal for co-counsel was at the very end of the lengthy Resolution last year.
Is there a special friendship between one of the principals at Jabber & Isaac and one of the Richland 2 board members?
Last year I examined the website of Jabber & Isaac, PA. At that time the website listed numerous areas of practice for that firm. School bond work was not one of them. Today, school bond work is still not listed.
I have no doubt that Burr Forman provides the inclusivity and diversity sought by the District. Frannie Heizer is a female. I suspect Burr Forman hires many black professionals and staff.
The District must spend its money on professionals with the skills and expertise to do the job right the first time. The District should not tell its legal experts to take on apprentices (and pay them), based on race or gender.
Superintendent Davis gave the board fair warning (1:45:30) that he's not giving up on the co-counsel plans, when he made his remarks during the Board and Superintendent Comments. He stated his intention to include "co-counsel" in future Bond Resolutions.
The Board was wise to vote 7-0 to strike that deal from the Resolution. They will have to be their toes for every Bond Resolution in the future.
Frankly, the vote surprised me. I figured that 4-5 of the Board members would vote No on the Resolution but, this time, they came through on behalf of the taxpayers.
Several procedural errors occurred on the way to the vote.
The Resolution was not attached to the original Agenda for the meeting. Because it was not, the public was kept in the dark as to its contents.
At the January 14th Meeting I addressed the board during the Public Participation segment. You can view that portion of the board's meeting on the video-recording of the meeting on YouTube at 0:51:07 on the counter.
After I completed my remarks, Board Chair James Manning stated that the Resolution had been placed on the website at the beginning of the meeting.
At least one Trustee read carefully the eight-page Resolution. In addition pointing out a couple of errors in construction of the Resolution, she made a motion to strike this sentence from Section 22: "Burr Forman is authorized to associate co-counsel at the direction of the Superintendent."
You have to know the background of that sentence to understand the motion to strike it.
One year ago the Board considered and passed a long Resolution presented by the Administration that included a sweetheart deal for a small, two-woman, black-owned law firm in Columbia. That Resolution gave the Superintendent the authority to order the huge, experienced, professional law firm of Burr Forman to give a chunk of bond business to Jabber & Isaac, PA as co-counsel. The special deal for co-counsel was at the very end of the lengthy Resolution last year.
Is there a special friendship between one of the principals at Jabber & Isaac and one of the Richland 2 board members?
Last year I examined the website of Jabber & Isaac, PA. At that time the website listed numerous areas of practice for that firm. School bond work was not one of them. Today, school bond work is still not listed.
I have no doubt that Burr Forman provides the inclusivity and diversity sought by the District. Frannie Heizer is a female. I suspect Burr Forman hires many black professionals and staff.
The District must spend its money on professionals with the skills and expertise to do the job right the first time. The District should not tell its legal experts to take on apprentices (and pay them), based on race or gender.
Superintendent Davis gave the board fair warning (1:45:30) that he's not giving up on the co-counsel plans, when he made his remarks during the Board and Superintendent Comments. He stated his intention to include "co-counsel" in future Bond Resolutions.
The Board was wise to vote 7-0 to strike that deal from the Resolution. They will have to be their toes for every Bond Resolution in the future.
Frankly, the vote surprised me. I figured that 4-5 of the Board members would vote No on the Resolution but, this time, they came through on behalf of the taxpayers.
Monday, January 13, 2020
Board Meetings Review
Would it be worthwhile for Board members to watch the January 7, 2020 Special-Called Board Meeting and learn how they could improve meetings?
Should the Board Chair and the Superintendent conduct a training session for the other members of the Board? A public-meetings coach should be hired to coach and train them.
Should the desks be re-arranged in a partial semi-circle, so that Board Chair could see when members had lost interest or were distracted by their purses, cell phones or side conversations? Also, so that he could clearly see hands when there is a hand-vote. He declared that the motion to adjourn the January 7th meeting was unanimous, but Dr. Elkins-Johnson did not vote. So the correct vote was 5-0-1 (Five Yeses; no No votes; one Abstain. (And one Absence.)
Should Board members turn off their cell phones and place them in purses or pockets, so they are not distracted by incoming text messages and do not feel a compulsion to type out replies?
When a member leaves her chair and the room, should the Secretary (or another member) call that to the attention of the Board Chair, so that he can be sure a quorum is still present?
Should any Board member call a Point-of-Order when side conversations are occurring or texting begins?
Should Board members not vote, if they were distracted or engaged in side conversations and missed the discussion? Shouldn't they know what they are voting on?
Should the Board Chair and the Superintendent conduct a training session for the other members of the Board? A public-meetings coach should be hired to coach and train them.
Should the desks be re-arranged in a partial semi-circle, so that Board Chair could see when members had lost interest or were distracted by their purses, cell phones or side conversations? Also, so that he could clearly see hands when there is a hand-vote. He declared that the motion to adjourn the January 7th meeting was unanimous, but Dr. Elkins-Johnson did not vote. So the correct vote was 5-0-1 (Five Yeses; no No votes; one Abstain. (And one Absence.)
Should Board members turn off their cell phones and place them in purses or pockets, so they are not distracted by incoming text messages and do not feel a compulsion to type out replies?
When a member leaves her chair and the room, should the Secretary (or another member) call that to the attention of the Board Chair, so that he can be sure a quorum is still present?
Should any Board member call a Point-of-Order when side conversations are occurring or texting begins?
Should Board members not vote, if they were distracted or engaged in side conversations and missed the discussion? Shouldn't they know what they are voting on?
Sunday, January 12, 2020
1/7/20 Board Vote w/o Quorum Present
During Tuesday's meeting the Board went through many policy revisions.
After 1 hour 37 minutes, Trustee Caution-Parker had left her chair, leaving five Board members seated. McKie was absent for the entire meeting. With Caution-Parker's having stepped away from the Board area, there was no longer a quorum present (legally). She stepped away while the camera was on staff member Mr. Smith, who was requesting that one Policy revision be pulled for further work.
When it was time to vote on a minor revision to Policy JLCDC Food Allergies, the vote was called to be by show of hands. The Chair announced that the vote was unanimous/ But there was a problem.
Caution-Parker was no longer present, which meant a quorum was no longer present. No acknowledgement was made of her having stepped away. The (four) legal board members remaining at the tables were Manning, Agostini, Elkins-Johnson and Shadd.
Teresa Holmes was still there, but she is not a legal member of the board, having never taken the oath of office legally after filing the required Statement of Economic Interests Report with the South Carolina Ethics Commission on December 4, 2018.
So a majority of the board was present, but a quorum was not. When a quorum (five) is not present, the board cannot conduct business; i.e., it cannot vote.
This further emphasizes the importance of correcting this serious defect in board composition.
In watching the video-recording of the board meeting I wondered whether Caution-Parker was ill. She had contributed nothing to the meeting and merely sat in her chair with her outer garment pulled up around her. An opinion from one skilled in body language might explain Caution-Parker's degree of interest in this meeting. As Secretary of the Board, she should be paying sharp attention to the entire proceedings. She receives a sizable sum of money for attending board meetings.
At a recent meeting Mrs. Agostini asked for the Board to recognize late arrivals and early exits of board members. When Caution-Parker left her chair, that should have been noted. Since Caution-Parker is the Secretary, will she see that the appropriate notation in made in the Minutes for the meeting?
After 1 hour 37 minutes, Trustee Caution-Parker had left her chair, leaving five Board members seated. McKie was absent for the entire meeting. With Caution-Parker's having stepped away from the Board area, there was no longer a quorum present (legally). She stepped away while the camera was on staff member Mr. Smith, who was requesting that one Policy revision be pulled for further work.
When it was time to vote on a minor revision to Policy JLCDC Food Allergies, the vote was called to be by show of hands. The Chair announced that the vote was unanimous/ But there was a problem.
Caution-Parker was no longer present, which meant a quorum was no longer present. No acknowledgement was made of her having stepped away. The (four) legal board members remaining at the tables were Manning, Agostini, Elkins-Johnson and Shadd.
Teresa Holmes was still there, but she is not a legal member of the board, having never taken the oath of office legally after filing the required Statement of Economic Interests Report with the South Carolina Ethics Commission on December 4, 2018.
So a majority of the board was present, but a quorum was not. When a quorum (five) is not present, the board cannot conduct business; i.e., it cannot vote.
This further emphasizes the importance of correcting this serious defect in board composition.
In watching the video-recording of the board meeting I wondered whether Caution-Parker was ill. She had contributed nothing to the meeting and merely sat in her chair with her outer garment pulled up around her. An opinion from one skilled in body language might explain Caution-Parker's degree of interest in this meeting. As Secretary of the Board, she should be paying sharp attention to the entire proceedings. She receives a sizable sum of money for attending board meetings.
At a recent meeting Mrs. Agostini asked for the Board to recognize late arrivals and early exits of board members. When Caution-Parker left her chair, that should have been noted. Since Caution-Parker is the Secretary, will she see that the appropriate notation in made in the Minutes for the meeting?
Saturday, January 11, 2020
Board Fails Teachers on Self-Defense
At the January 7, 2020 Special-Called Board Meeting the school board utterly failed teachers and staff, when Item 4.19 (Board Policy) JKA Corporal Punishment/ Physical Force came up on the Agenda. The Administration recommended deletion of "to defend one's self" from this Board Policy.
You can view this part of the meeting on the YouTube recording. It starts at 1:14:50.
Dr. Elkins-Johnson started off discussion but then couldn't find her place on her tablet. She deferred to James Shadd. Shadd asked the superintendent if the "yellow" meant that the Administration wanted to strike the phrase "to defend one's self" from the Policy.
Supt. Davis admitted that there had been a lot of conversation around that bullet-point.
The "reasoning" of the Administration was presented; i.e., that self-defense can be read into those examples when force can be used.
But the proposed revision is a CYA effort. You know that one; right? In other words, hang the teachers out to dry.
Trustee-elect Teresa Holmes commented during discussion (1:18:53) that she was "a little on the fence". She wanted to be sure that, if that bullet-point were taken out, she wanted it understood that (teachers could still defend themselves). She acknowledged what the superintendent was saying about the other "bulletses". (That's not a typo; that's what she said.)
What she doesn't get is that the Policy is the Policy. If it's not in written Policy, it's not going to count when a teacher is threatened with discipline or termination for defending herself. An "understanding" will have little weight in a disciplinary hearing or the termination process. (Recall the teacher who "got into it" with a student at Ridge View High School. I'm sure he didn't feel any support from the Administration.)
Board members need to get OFF the fence and stand up and be counted. Be firm and direct. When you don't agree with something, stop playing nice and say so. The Administration is running all over you. It's the duty of the Board to direct the Administration, not the other way around.
The Board should have left "to defend one's self" in Policy JKA.
Since they didn't, they should put it back in.
Teachers, you'd better get to a board meeting and speak up about this. Or forever hold your peace. You can kiss your income and pension away, if you ever have to defend yourself.
Teachers, tell your cohorts about this blogpost. Ask them to read it. Read it and comment on it.
If you fear retaliation or retribution for commenting on this blog, contact me privately and express your viewpoints. I can publish them in a way that will not be traced back to you.
I went to Federal Court in Illinois to stop a County Sheriff who wanted to know my sources. Deputies were leaking inside information to me. Had the Federal Magistrate Judge not granted my motion to quash the sheriff's subpoena, I would have gone to jail, rather than divulge sources.
You can view this part of the meeting on the YouTube recording. It starts at 1:14:50.
Dr. Elkins-Johnson started off discussion but then couldn't find her place on her tablet. She deferred to James Shadd. Shadd asked the superintendent if the "yellow" meant that the Administration wanted to strike the phrase "to defend one's self" from the Policy.
Supt. Davis admitted that there had been a lot of conversation around that bullet-point.
The "reasoning" of the Administration was presented; i.e., that self-defense can be read into those examples when force can be used.
But the proposed revision is a CYA effort. You know that one; right? In other words, hang the teachers out to dry.
Trustee-elect Teresa Holmes commented during discussion (1:18:53) that she was "a little on the fence". She wanted to be sure that, if that bullet-point were taken out, she wanted it understood that (teachers could still defend themselves). She acknowledged what the superintendent was saying about the other "bulletses". (That's not a typo; that's what she said.)
What she doesn't get is that the Policy is the Policy. If it's not in written Policy, it's not going to count when a teacher is threatened with discipline or termination for defending herself. An "understanding" will have little weight in a disciplinary hearing or the termination process. (Recall the teacher who "got into it" with a student at Ridge View High School. I'm sure he didn't feel any support from the Administration.)
Board members need to get OFF the fence and stand up and be counted. Be firm and direct. When you don't agree with something, stop playing nice and say so. The Administration is running all over you. It's the duty of the Board to direct the Administration, not the other way around.
The Board should have left "to defend one's self" in Policy JKA.
Since they didn't, they should put it back in.
Teachers, you'd better get to a board meeting and speak up about this. Or forever hold your peace. You can kiss your income and pension away, if you ever have to defend yourself.
Teachers, tell your cohorts about this blogpost. Ask them to read it. Read it and comment on it.
If you fear retaliation or retribution for commenting on this blog, contact me privately and express your viewpoints. I can publish them in a way that will not be traced back to you.
I went to Federal Court in Illinois to stop a County Sheriff who wanted to know my sources. Deputies were leaking inside information to me. Had the Federal Magistrate Judge not granted my motion to quash the sheriff's subpoena, I would have gone to jail, rather than divulge sources.
Friday, January 10, 2020
McKie's $51,750 Judgment - no payment!
On July 10, 2019, the South Carolina Ethics Commission filed a Judgment for $51,750 against Amelia McKie, Richland 2 School Board Trustee-Elect.
The Judgment resulted from a public Decision and Order that pertained to unfiled Statements of Economic Interests Reports and Campaign Disclosure Reports over several years, including 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
The Judgment appears to be languishing in the Richland County Common Pleas Court, where Case Number 2019CP4003809 shows no activity other than the filing six months ago.
In a case such as this, the South Carolina Department of Revenue should be working on collecting the Judgment. As a debt to the State of South Carolina, the DOR could be utilizing the Setoff Debt and GEAR provisions to collect the full amount.
These provisions include "... garnishment of wages and state individual income tax refunds, use of tax liens, and levy of bank accounts". School Board Trustee income is W-2 income (wages).
Is the State proceeding with collection? Will the State garnish McKie's wages?
Has McKie made any payment? According to the S.C. Ethics Commission, no payment has been made.
Why not?
Richland 2 often refers to its being a "premier" school district with a "premier" school board. How can the board be a "premier" board, when a member (and former Board Chair) and now trustee-elect continues to owe $51,750 for violations of ethics laws?
The Judgment resulted from a public Decision and Order that pertained to unfiled Statements of Economic Interests Reports and Campaign Disclosure Reports over several years, including 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
The Judgment appears to be languishing in the Richland County Common Pleas Court, where Case Number 2019CP4003809 shows no activity other than the filing six months ago.
In a case such as this, the South Carolina Department of Revenue should be working on collecting the Judgment. As a debt to the State of South Carolina, the DOR could be utilizing the Setoff Debt and GEAR provisions to collect the full amount.
These provisions include "... garnishment of wages and state individual income tax refunds, use of tax liens, and levy of bank accounts". School Board Trustee income is W-2 income (wages).
Is the State proceeding with collection? Will the State garnish McKie's wages?
Has McKie made any payment? According to the S.C. Ethics Commission, no payment has been made.
Why not?
Richland 2 often refers to its being a "premier" school district with a "premier" school board. How can the board be a "premier" board, when a member (and former Board Chair) and now trustee-elect continues to owe $51,750 for violations of ethics laws?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)