At 0:27:55 on the January 28 Board Meeting video-recording, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott was introduced to report on school resource officers (SROs).
The RCSD point-of-contact with the Richland 2 School District is Cleveland Smith. Chief Administrative Services Officer.
Twenty-seven SROs cover 22 schools, including four schools added to the SRO program last month. RCSD has a total of 90 SROs which, Sheriff Lott mentioned, is more deputies than many departments in the state have in their whole department. He mentioned that SROs teach (some) classes, including the DARE Program.
Five weapons have been confiscated in Richland 2 schools this year, including one gun.
Trustee Agostini asked Sheriff Lott how can the seriousness of "kidding-type" threats be gotten across to students; i.e., that a threat is not a joke. He said that Lexington 5 produced a video that was distributed to students.
Note to Teresa Holmes and Board members; Mute your microphones when there is a speaker at the podium.
Holmes made a gushing expression of appreciation to Sheriff Lott.
It should be remembered that Holmes went to the Sheriff's Department in March 2019 and filed a frivolous report of harassment against me. The Sheriff's Department quickly determined that her report had no merit. RCSD should have filed charges against her for false reporting, because the report contained numerous lies. You can read all about that right here.
It seems to me that Trustee Elkins-Johnson requested information from the Administration about the costs of having deputies at the school board meetings. I wonder if she ever got the details.
Sunday, February 9, 2020
1/28/2020 Board Meeting - one public speaker
At the January 28, 2020 Regular Meeting of the school board, the Minutes for this meeting indicate that "One person spoke during public participation. "
It is the practice of the District not to identify the person who spoke in the Minutes and not to provide information about the topic addressed. There is no written record of the name of the person and no mention of the topic. That detail is lost forever - except in the video-recording of the meeting.
In this way the Minutes of every Board meeting are incomplete.
Who spoke during Public Participation on January 28?
At 0:03:59 on the YouTube video-recording the Board Chair introduced (sounded like) Latasha Talton to speak during the Public Participation segment of the meeting. When she introduced herself, her name sounded to me like Ratasha Talton. She told the board that she is an Activities bus driver (for the District).
Ms. Talton spoke to the board about the money ($1,000 bonus) that is set aside for the permanent, full-time employees. There are 30 drivers in the Activities (bus) section who are part-time employees. They fill in when needed and work without benefits. She mentioned "medical" (which may depend on how many hours a part-time employee can get in). They get no time off. She asked that the board remember them (when money is being passed out).
Her words were prophetic, because she referred to inclement weather and not getting paid when, for example, activities are canceled. Isn't that exactly what happened two days later?
In fairness to all employees, should not the board have made some disbursement to part-time employees, instead of just doling out $1,000 to all full-time, permanent salaried employees?
That is one brave lady.
I wonder how long she'll be employed by the District. Will she suffer the same fate as Lt. Col. Vindman and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Yovanovitch?
Thank you, Ms. Talton, for being brave enough to step up and address the board! I hope they didn't just listen to you; I hope they heard you.
It is the practice of the District not to identify the person who spoke in the Minutes and not to provide information about the topic addressed. There is no written record of the name of the person and no mention of the topic. That detail is lost forever - except in the video-recording of the meeting.
In this way the Minutes of every Board meeting are incomplete.
Who spoke during Public Participation on January 28?
At 0:03:59 on the YouTube video-recording the Board Chair introduced (sounded like) Latasha Talton to speak during the Public Participation segment of the meeting. When she introduced herself, her name sounded to me like Ratasha Talton. She told the board that she is an Activities bus driver (for the District).
Ms. Talton spoke to the board about the money ($1,000 bonus) that is set aside for the permanent, full-time employees. There are 30 drivers in the Activities (bus) section who are part-time employees. They fill in when needed and work without benefits. She mentioned "medical" (which may depend on how many hours a part-time employee can get in). They get no time off. She asked that the board remember them (when money is being passed out).
Her words were prophetic, because she referred to inclement weather and not getting paid when, for example, activities are canceled. Isn't that exactly what happened two days later?
In fairness to all employees, should not the board have made some disbursement to part-time employees, instead of just doling out $1,000 to all full-time, permanent salaried employees?
That is one brave lady.
I wonder how long she'll be employed by the District. Will she suffer the same fate as Lt. Col. Vindman and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Yovanovitch?
Thank you, Ms. Talton, for being brave enough to step up and address the board! I hope they didn't just listen to you; I hope they heard you.
Saturday, February 8, 2020
How should Board vote? Yea or Nay?
The following email is being sent to the five legal Trustees on the Richland 2 School Board and the two Trustees-Elect, who have been serving illegally on the Board since November 13, 2018.
If you agree, please contact the board members now to express your opinions.
Members of the Board and Trustees-Elect McKie and Holmes,
If you agree, please contact the board members now to express your opinions.
Members of the Board and Trustees-Elect McKie and Holmes,
The published agenda for the February 11 Regular Meeting includes this request.
"Administration is requesting changes to dates of two upcoming board meetings:
"March 24 to March 31: This change is needed to accommodate a request from the Digital League of Innovative Schools and Compton Unified School District. These organizations have asked Dr. Davis to present on the equity initiatives underway in Richland Two at the League of Innovative Schools Spring Meeting."
I urge you to vote "No", if/when a Motion is made to agree to the "Administration's" request (the superintendent's request) to change the date of the second meeting in March.
You can do this by just not making the Motion.
If someone does make the motion, you can refuse to second it.
If someone seconds it, you can vote No. Four No votes will defeat it. If a board member is absent on February 11, three No votes will defeat it.
Supt. Davis earns almost $20,000 per MONTH (including nearly $1,250/month car allowance!) and belongs at his desk and on his feet in the Richland 2 School District. He owes his time solely to Richland 2. His going to a California conference to speak provides no benefit or value to Richland 2.
Why should seven Board members change their schedules and the public's schedule to accommodate his wish to go Los Angeles? He is likely to earn a substantial honorarium and expense reimbursement, even as he draws his Richland 2 salary. Richland 2 pays him approximately an average of $952 per DAY, and he should be here to earn it! Every day.
Why should 20 staff members change their schedules so the superintendent can hop off to L.A.? Will he fly there on Tuesday and fly back Tuesday night, or will he "vacation" there for the three-day meeting? Will you pay him nearly $3,000 to go to L.A. for his own enjoyment?
If he wishes to go somewhere on his own time, without interfering with his responsibilities to Richland 2 School District, that's his business. He got a $12,000 raise last year, beyond the standard pay increase, plus a $1,000 bonus this year.
We certainly do not need more liberal, California-based philosophies and ideas in Richland 2 schools.
Supt. Davis reported unknown private-source personal income from both Carolina Educational Services & Consulting and the University of the Cumberlands on his SEI filed last month. Why isn't he required to devote his full time to Richland 2 responsibilities?
The Board Trustees should approve, in advance, any absence from official Richland 2 duties by the superintendent, just as Administration would insist on approving any absence from duties of an employee or teacher. Imagine if a teacher said he had a side-hustle during the work week and wanted time off to handle it. Would the superintendent tell him not to bother to come back?
Did the Digital Promise League Of Innovative Schools approach him, or did the superintendent express an interest in speaking and compete for a slot on its program? Did he already accept the speaking gig?
I urge you to hold the Regular Meeting as scheduled. If the superintendent is absent, direct the Asst. Superintendent to appear in his place. For the small contribution that the superintendent makes at bi-monthly meetings, certainly the Asst. Sup't. can fill in. And dock the superintendent for the days of work he misses.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Do Not Enter!
If you are going to an early morning meeting at the Sandhills public library at R2i2 (the Richland 2 Institute of Innovation), do NOT expect to enter the building before 9:00AM (on the dot) to use the restroom after driving an hour to get there.
No matter how far your drove or how little coffee you drank before you set out. No matter if it is raining, snowing, or under a tornado threat or watch. No matter what!
If your meeting is scheduled to start at 9:00AM, you will be late.
The public is not to be admitted before 9:00AM. This is by order of the Richland 2 School District Superintendent, Baron Davis.
The sign on the door reads 9:00AM, and a building security officer will unlock the door AT 9:00AM.
However, if you are an applicant for Richland 2 employment, then you'll be allowed to enter early and sit in the lobby out of the wind and rain and cold, with access to restrooms.
But if you are a member of the tax-paying public and there for a meeting in the public-access building, then you will NOT be admitted. If you do happen to enter, you will be asked to leave.
The security guards are polite, and they are only following (dumb) orders. If they don't do as they are told, they'll be looking for work elsewhere. So don't give them a hard time. They might want to let you in. They don't dare do it.
If you think this policy is wrong, show up at a Richland 2 School Board meeting and tell the Trustees what you think. Ask for an explanation why members of the public are not allowed to enter the building. Assk why they cannot enter and wait just inside the door, out of the weather.
R2i2 is not Fort Knox. It's not a bank. It's not a Post Office (even there you can wait in an enclosed space until the opening minute).
You'd better believe that Richland 2 employees will obey the rules and the orders of the superintendent. If not, look for them at the Unemployment Office.
Why is it that an order comes from the superintendent to keep the public out. Wouldn't you think that the facility manager could be authorized to make such a decision?
It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that I was with a group of 20 waiting to enter on Monday morning and, when we were rebuffed, that I called the superintendent's office to ask admittance?
Don't you have to wonder, if Jesse Jackson or Jim Clyburn or Barack or Michelle Obama or Marlon Kimpson or Mia McLeod showed at 8:30AM, would they be told to wait in the rain or cold? Thoughts, anyone?
No matter how far your drove or how little coffee you drank before you set out. No matter if it is raining, snowing, or under a tornado threat or watch. No matter what!
If your meeting is scheduled to start at 9:00AM, you will be late.
The public is not to be admitted before 9:00AM. This is by order of the Richland 2 School District Superintendent, Baron Davis.
The sign on the door reads 9:00AM, and a building security officer will unlock the door AT 9:00AM.
However, if you are an applicant for Richland 2 employment, then you'll be allowed to enter early and sit in the lobby out of the wind and rain and cold, with access to restrooms.
But if you are a member of the tax-paying public and there for a meeting in the public-access building, then you will NOT be admitted. If you do happen to enter, you will be asked to leave.
The security guards are polite, and they are only following (dumb) orders. If they don't do as they are told, they'll be looking for work elsewhere. So don't give them a hard time. They might want to let you in. They don't dare do it.
If you think this policy is wrong, show up at a Richland 2 School Board meeting and tell the Trustees what you think. Ask for an explanation why members of the public are not allowed to enter the building. Assk why they cannot enter and wait just inside the door, out of the weather.
R2i2 is not Fort Knox. It's not a bank. It's not a Post Office (even there you can wait in an enclosed space until the opening minute).
You'd better believe that Richland 2 employees will obey the rules and the orders of the superintendent. If not, look for them at the Unemployment Office.
Why is it that an order comes from the superintendent to keep the public out. Wouldn't you think that the facility manager could be authorized to make such a decision?
It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that I was with a group of 20 waiting to enter on Monday morning and, when we were rebuffed, that I called the superintendent's office to ask admittance?
Don't you have to wonder, if Jesse Jackson or Jim Clyburn or Barack or Michelle Obama or Marlon Kimpson or Mia McLeod showed at 8:30AM, would they be told to wait in the rain or cold? Thoughts, anyone?
Friday, January 31, 2020
Sugar-coating by Richland 2
In a story date-lined today, January 31, The State newspaper reports on crimes committed at Ridge View High School on Monday and Tuesday. Charges included assault and battery by mob, second-degree assault and battery, and first degree criminal sexual conduct.
OK, this is Friday. Why did this not appear in the local newspaper on Wednesday???
You can read the article here.
The four criminals are male; two are 14 years old, and two are 15 years old.
Laws in South Carolina need to be changed, so that criminal acts by these punks, who are not to be confused with "children", can be described with their names, races, grade levels in school, and previous run-ins with the law.
What's the "sugar-coating"? The State's article read, in part,
"Richland District 2 spokesperson Libby Roof sent to The State a statement the school sent to parents: “We became aware of an incident that occurred earlier this week that was a violation of our district’s Student Code of Conduct. ..."
"Incident"? "violation of Student Code of Conduct"?
The miscreants were arrested on criminal charges! The District has to be careful, of course, or parents will retain a hungry lawyer and sue the District. Then the news will be all about a lawsuit by the miscreants and not about their criminal activity.
You'd better believe that the District's lawyers get a chance to approve statements like these, either in each case or as a general format. All politically correct,, of course.
If anyone would like to send me the names of these criminals, I'll publish them. Parents in the District should want to know who is in this kind of trouble.
Staying alive
An article in this morning's The State describes the grief being experienced in Saluda after a single-vehicle crash that killed two high school students and injured one.
Read the article by Sarah Ellis here.
How do we keep kids alive today?
As a former deputy sheriff and motorcycle patrol officer, I would like to see an article in The State that dissects the crash. But it'll never be there, because newspapers don't print analytical articles about fatal crashes. They should.
Readers could learn from such analyses. Parents could sit their children down and explain how they can stay alive.
Maybe the crash in Saluda was "just" an accident. I tend to think not.
Was the driver speeding? Distracted? Impaired? Were the passengers concerned about his driving before the accident?
Or, if he was speeding or driving recklessly, did they think that was "cool"?
Parents, when you see articles about fatal crashes, discuss them with the children in your home. You might just be saving their lives.
Tell them to get out of the car, if the driver is endangering them. Tell them that you will pick them up - anywhere and at any time, no questions asked - if their safety is at risk. And then do it.
Students, get out of the car, even if you are going to get wet or cold or have to walk home.
YOU are responsible for your life.
Read the article by Sarah Ellis here.
How do we keep kids alive today?
As a former deputy sheriff and motorcycle patrol officer, I would like to see an article in The State that dissects the crash. But it'll never be there, because newspapers don't print analytical articles about fatal crashes. They should.
Readers could learn from such analyses. Parents could sit their children down and explain how they can stay alive.
Maybe the crash in Saluda was "just" an accident. I tend to think not.
Was the driver speeding? Distracted? Impaired? Were the passengers concerned about his driving before the accident?
Or, if he was speeding or driving recklessly, did they think that was "cool"?
Parents, when you see articles about fatal crashes, discuss them with the children in your home. You might just be saving their lives.
Tell them to get out of the car, if the driver is endangering them. Tell them that you will pick them up - anywhere and at any time, no questions asked - if their safety is at risk. And then do it.
Students, get out of the car, even if you are going to get wet or cold or have to walk home.
YOU are responsible for your life.
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Girl punches teacher at Westwood HS
WIS-TV reported last night that a female student at Westwood High School punched a teacher in the face at school yesterday.
What kind of little punks are attending Richland 2 schools?
The girl is reported to be 17 years old. Isn't that an adult in South Carolina for this type of crime? What's her name? Where is her booking photo? Height? Weight? Race? Previous disciplinary problems?
I suppose it would be politically (and legally) correct to say the student "allegedly" battered the teacher. And perhaps that the teacher "allegedly" suffered redness and swelling to the eye and jaw. And that the student was "allegedly" arrested before being released to her parents.
At least WIS-TV didn't dodge the gender issue, when it reported that the student was released to her parents. I guess the station could have written "to its parents", but this was a female student punching a teacher.
The District's Board Policies would label this a Level 3 offense, subject to expulsion. Is there any doubt that that kid should be expelled? And prosecuted and jailed after conviction, too?
Make a clear and convincing example out of her that this type of behavior will be dealt with in the harshest manner. Allow no "deals" by prosecution. No "diversion". No opportunity to clear her record. She just destroyed her future.
Tough cookies!
What kind of little punks are attending Richland 2 schools?
The girl is reported to be 17 years old. Isn't that an adult in South Carolina for this type of crime? What's her name? Where is her booking photo? Height? Weight? Race? Previous disciplinary problems?
I suppose it would be politically (and legally) correct to say the student "allegedly" battered the teacher. And perhaps that the teacher "allegedly" suffered redness and swelling to the eye and jaw. And that the student was "allegedly" arrested before being released to her parents.
At least WIS-TV didn't dodge the gender issue, when it reported that the student was released to her parents. I guess the station could have written "to its parents", but this was a female student punching a teacher.
The District's Board Policies would label this a Level 3 offense, subject to expulsion. Is there any doubt that that kid should be expelled? And prosecuted and jailed after conviction, too?
Make a clear and convincing example out of her that this type of behavior will be dealt with in the harshest manner. Allow no "deals" by prosecution. No "diversion". No opportunity to clear her record. She just destroyed her future.
Tough cookies!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)