An important court decision involving FOIA is reported in The Independent Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County. Read their article here.
The issue involved an agenda change by a public body. The Voice's story explains it.
How does this apply to Richland 2?
Remember when, recently, Richland 2 failed to post an attachment regarding a Resolution on a bond matter to its agenda?
This meant the public had no idea what the Board was going to consider and be asked to approve. Did the Board even have trouble getting the Resolution in advance?
The public was deprived of the opportunity to read and study the Resolution before the board considered it. At the meeting that night the Board Chair remarked, after my three-minute comment on that issue, that the Resolution had been posted to the website. Actually, it hadn't been; but the Resolution was attached to the Agenda just before the public session started at 6:30PM.
This constituted an illegal change to the agenda within 24 hours. That was a violation of South Carolina Code of Laws Section 30-4-80.
At least one Trustee did read the entire Resolution carefully. That trustee made a motion to delete the sentence allowing the superintendent to direct the District's bond counsel (Burr Forman) to "associate" co-counsel (Jabber & Isaac). In other words, to add an unnecessary component to the bond work. Either the District would cough up the money to pay Jabber & Isaac, or Burr Forman would have to pay Jabber out of the money it is paid by Richland 2.
The Board voted 7-0 to delete that sentence, smacking down the superintendent. But he got in the last word during the Board and Superintendent Comments. He said he'll be asking for Jabber & Isaac to get work in the future.
Jabber & Isaac P.A. lists no bond issue experience whatsoever on its website.
Why does the superintendent like Jabber & Isaac? For diversity? Because the two lawyers there are black, as is he? Because at least one (black) board member may be a good buddy of one of the lawyers there?
The Post and Courier published a lengthy article on February 9, 2020 about the cozy relationship between Richland One School District's President with his lawyer wife on bond issue work. That wife is Tameika Isaac Devine, a Columbia City Councilwoman. Is anyone's nose twitching yet?
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Chaos at Board Meeting
Last night's Richland 2 School Board meeting disintegrated into chaos during the discussion of Item 13.1, the plan (by some) to change the date of the second Regular Meeting in March. The superintendent wants to hop off to Los Angeles, and the board needed to approve the change, if it wanted to accommodate his absence.
I had written a email to the board members (and to the the two illegal Trustees-elect), suggesting a few questions and wondering why they didn't hold to the schedule and just have an Assistant Superintendent fill in. Separate articles will follow and will describe the superintendent's snide and demeaning accusation toward one of the trustees and the personal attacks on me by several board members. As soon as the video-recording is published on YouTube by the District, I'll identify the locations of these remarks by the timer on the recording.
You won't want to waste your time listening to the whole two-hour meeting. Frankly, the entire board shouldn't have wasted its time conducting the whole meeting.
All in all, it was a great way to spend the evening of my 81st birthday. I thought about using my three minutes during Public Participation to sing Happy Birthday to me, but I figured that my presence was enough torture for them.
Several thoughts came to mind last night, and I'll expand on them in the following articles. One was "There is no such thing as a short answer". Another was the need for a new honorary degree of M.B.S. The name of the first honoree is ... (I'll delay the surprise.)
The disrespect for the Board Chair is amazing. Most board members are either ignorant of meeting rules and just blatantly disregard them. I'll go with the latter. This board would do well to invite the Robert's Rules of Order expert back for a thorough training and ask her to explain the Rules to them in a way they can understand. Kindergarten-level might be needed for many of the board members.
McKie, Shadd and Caution-Parker really ought to think about choosing to bash the man who writes a blog. Their ugliest warts will be exposed - over and over.
The Board Chair should exert his proper and allowable authority over the Board for the conduct of a meeting. James Manning is a nice guy and doesn't want to rule with a heavy hand. The result? Same as in a classroom. A bunch of unruly colleagues just walk all over him. When a board member wants to go on a tear off-topic, he should interrupt them and bring everyone back on topic.
I had written a email to the board members (and to the the two illegal Trustees-elect), suggesting a few questions and wondering why they didn't hold to the schedule and just have an Assistant Superintendent fill in. Separate articles will follow and will describe the superintendent's snide and demeaning accusation toward one of the trustees and the personal attacks on me by several board members. As soon as the video-recording is published on YouTube by the District, I'll identify the locations of these remarks by the timer on the recording.
You won't want to waste your time listening to the whole two-hour meeting. Frankly, the entire board shouldn't have wasted its time conducting the whole meeting.
All in all, it was a great way to spend the evening of my 81st birthday. I thought about using my three minutes during Public Participation to sing Happy Birthday to me, but I figured that my presence was enough torture for them.
Several thoughts came to mind last night, and I'll expand on them in the following articles. One was "There is no such thing as a short answer". Another was the need for a new honorary degree of M.B.S. The name of the first honoree is ... (I'll delay the surprise.)
The disrespect for the Board Chair is amazing. Most board members are either ignorant of meeting rules and just blatantly disregard them. I'll go with the latter. This board would do well to invite the Robert's Rules of Order expert back for a thorough training and ask her to explain the Rules to them in a way they can understand. Kindergarten-level might be needed for many of the board members.
McKie, Shadd and Caution-Parker really ought to think about choosing to bash the man who writes a blog. Their ugliest warts will be exposed - over and over.
The Board Chair should exert his proper and allowable authority over the Board for the conduct of a meeting. James Manning is a nice guy and doesn't want to rule with a heavy hand. The result? Same as in a classroom. A bunch of unruly colleagues just walk all over him. When a board member wants to go on a tear off-topic, he should interrupt them and bring everyone back on topic.
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
McKie Fails to File - Again!
Every quarter, political candidates and office-holders in South Carolina are required to file Campaign Disclosure Reports with the South Carolina Ethics Commission.
Yet again, Richland 2 School Board Trustee (-Elect) Amelia McKie has failed to file!!!
The latest report was due January 10, 2020. As of today, February 11, 2020, at 11:20AM that report has not been filed. Reports are filed electronically.
While I have never filed one, I suspect it might required 90 seconds of a busy person's time to file it.
After McKie was fined $51,750 by the S.C. Ethics Commission, a Judgment was filed last July in the Richland County Common Pleas Court. The S.C. Department of Revenue should be taking action to collect it. Steps can include garnishment of wages, attachment of income tax refunds and, I suspect, seizure of property, including bank accounts, vehicles and real estate.
After McKie found herself in hot water in 2018, she filed many late quarterly and annual returns with the Ethics Commission. She was quite busy on January 9, 2019, according to public records.
She even filed the report due January 10, 2019, on time; on January 9, 2019, as a matter of fact.
The next report was due April 10, 2019, and she didn't file that one until May 8, 2019. What part of $51,750 for filing late does she not understand?
The next report was due July 10, 2019, and she filed that one late, on July 18, 2019.
The next one was due October 10, 2019, and she managed to file that one on-time, on October 10, 2019.
And, just like clockwork, the next one was due January 10, 2020. And that one has not been filed yet.
Filing this one after 30 days will cost her $100.
How can Richland 2 School Board be a "premier school board" with a second-term trustee who won't even file required Ethics forms on time?
Yet again, Richland 2 School Board Trustee (-Elect) Amelia McKie has failed to file!!!
The latest report was due January 10, 2020. As of today, February 11, 2020, at 11:20AM that report has not been filed. Reports are filed electronically.
While I have never filed one, I suspect it might required 90 seconds of a busy person's time to file it.
After McKie was fined $51,750 by the S.C. Ethics Commission, a Judgment was filed last July in the Richland County Common Pleas Court. The S.C. Department of Revenue should be taking action to collect it. Steps can include garnishment of wages, attachment of income tax refunds and, I suspect, seizure of property, including bank accounts, vehicles and real estate.
After McKie found herself in hot water in 2018, she filed many late quarterly and annual returns with the Ethics Commission. She was quite busy on January 9, 2019, according to public records.
She even filed the report due January 10, 2019, on time; on January 9, 2019, as a matter of fact.
The next report was due April 10, 2019, and she didn't file that one until May 8, 2019. What part of $51,750 for filing late does she not understand?
The next report was due July 10, 2019, and she filed that one late, on July 18, 2019.
The next one was due October 10, 2019, and she managed to file that one on-time, on October 10, 2019.
And, just like clockwork, the next one was due January 10, 2020. And that one has not been filed yet.
Filing this one after 30 days will cost her $100.
How can Richland 2 School Board be a "premier school board" with a second-term trustee who won't even file required Ethics forms on time?
Monday, February 10, 2020
Who works for whom?
In the Richland 2 School District -
Does the superintendent work for the School District? Is he directed by the School Board?
Or does the school board work for him?
The correct answer is easy and very clear.
The superintendent works for the District. The Board tells him what to do (and what not to).
How does it work? If the District directs the superintendent to do something, it will be by Board direction. Somebody on the Board will make a Motion (or there will be a long silence); somebody else will second the Motion. There may or may not be discussion, and then there will be a vote.
The vote is where you find out who works for whom.
There are seven trustees (well, that's questionable). Four "Yes" votes are needed to approve a Motion.
The way things are happening right now, if the superintendent wants something, he can count on votes from McKie, Holmes, Shadd, and Caution-Parker. Those four control the board.
It won't matter what Manning, Agostini and Elkins-Johnson say or want.
If the Board wants to send the superintendent down the road, it takes five (5) votes. He'd have to shoot someone in New York City, and there probably wouldn't be five votes to fire him even then.
The only allegiance the Board should have is to the taxpayers and voters in the voting boundaries of the Richland 2 School District. Those are the "bosses" the Trustees should have to keep happy.
There is an election coming up on November 3, 2020 for three School Board members. Start doing your homework now.
A more critical election will be in November 2022, when voters have a chance to decide on McKie, Holmes and Caution-Parker. Will McKie have paid her $51,750 fine to the S.C. Ethics Commission by then?
Does the superintendent work for the School District? Is he directed by the School Board?
Or does the school board work for him?
The correct answer is easy and very clear.
The superintendent works for the District. The Board tells him what to do (and what not to).
How does it work? If the District directs the superintendent to do something, it will be by Board direction. Somebody on the Board will make a Motion (or there will be a long silence); somebody else will second the Motion. There may or may not be discussion, and then there will be a vote.
The vote is where you find out who works for whom.
There are seven trustees (well, that's questionable). Four "Yes" votes are needed to approve a Motion.
The way things are happening right now, if the superintendent wants something, he can count on votes from McKie, Holmes, Shadd, and Caution-Parker. Those four control the board.
It won't matter what Manning, Agostini and Elkins-Johnson say or want.
If the Board wants to send the superintendent down the road, it takes five (5) votes. He'd have to shoot someone in New York City, and there probably wouldn't be five votes to fire him even then.
The only allegiance the Board should have is to the taxpayers and voters in the voting boundaries of the Richland 2 School District. Those are the "bosses" the Trustees should have to keep happy.
There is an election coming up on November 3, 2020 for three School Board members. Start doing your homework now.
A more critical election will be in November 2022, when voters have a chance to decide on McKie, Holmes and Caution-Parker. Will McKie have paid her $51,750 fine to the S.C. Ethics Commission by then?
Post & Courier mentions Richland 2
Take a good look at this Post & Courier article about sweetheart deals cooked up in Richland One School District. See the reference to Richland Two at the end of the article.
Then think about the "deal" put in place in January 2019, when the Richland Two School Board approved a 10-page Resolution foisted on them by Administration.
Most of it was bond document boilerplate. Did every one of the Richland Two board members wade through every line in that Resolution? And did they understand what they were approving?
Everything was kosher until you got to the last two sentences in Section 21 on Page 9.
That's where the Board jumped off the coachbox and tossed the reins to the superintendent, giving him authority to direct Burr Forman to associate co-counsel for the purposes of diversity and to have control over bond issues. Control that properly belongs in the hands of the entire Board.
In other words, hire Tameika Isaac Devine, a black female lawyer in a two-person firm in Columbia, whose husband just happens to be on the Richland One school board. With a small firm that lists absolutely NO bond experience on its website.
Bond work is incredibly complex. Burr Forman is competent. It has a large staff to deal with complicated issues. It has diversity. The lead attorney on the Richland 2 bond work is female. No doubt it employs many black attorneys and staff.
The Richland 2 Board should go back and scrap that authority. There is no reason to tell Burr Forman to cough up part of its fees on the superintendent's say-so.
Then think about the "deal" put in place in January 2019, when the Richland Two School Board approved a 10-page Resolution foisted on them by Administration.
Most of it was bond document boilerplate. Did every one of the Richland Two board members wade through every line in that Resolution? And did they understand what they were approving?
Everything was kosher until you got to the last two sentences in Section 21 on Page 9.
That's where the Board jumped off the coachbox and tossed the reins to the superintendent, giving him authority to direct Burr Forman to associate co-counsel for the purposes of diversity and to have control over bond issues. Control that properly belongs in the hands of the entire Board.
In other words, hire Tameika Isaac Devine, a black female lawyer in a two-person firm in Columbia, whose husband just happens to be on the Richland One school board. With a small firm that lists absolutely NO bond experience on its website.
Bond work is incredibly complex. Burr Forman is competent. It has a large staff to deal with complicated issues. It has diversity. The lead attorney on the Richland 2 bond work is female. No doubt it employs many black attorneys and staff.
The Richland 2 Board should go back and scrap that authority. There is no reason to tell Burr Forman to cough up part of its fees on the superintendent's say-so.
Sunday, February 9, 2020
SRO Report by Sheriff Lott
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)