During the bond update at the February 25, 2020 school board meeting staff member Will Anderson mentioned that "specially-formatted glass - ballistic glass" is yet to be delivered to three schools.
Bulletproof glass?
He didn't mention where it will be installed. Isn't that a good question? Will it be at the front entrance, where the gatekeeper sits and admits visitors?
Do you know what the risk is for a student to be killed by a gun in a U.S. school?
That number is 1 in 614,000,000. In other words, infinitesimal. There is a better chance that a kid will choke to death on a PB&J sandwich. And, no, I don't have a statistic for that.
Somebody intending harm in a school is not going to waltz in the front door, show his driver's license, get his name badge, wish everyone a good day, and stroll on down the hallway to wreak havoc. He'll get in a back door, where some kid will hold the door for him or open it to a knock.
So, where is the bulletproof glass to be installed?
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Public cautioned not to name board members
When the public participation segment of the February 25, 2020 board meeting was introduced, Chairman Manning reminded the speaker, as she approached, not to mention the names of any staff members or board members.
I can appreciate that he might not want the public to criticize any staff members, because staff is not going to get an opportunity to respond.
But to limit the public from mentioning elected board members is an incorrect instruction.
How else can members of the public call attention to wrong-doing by a board member?
A letter or email or phone call to someone (board member) will not gain any public attention.
The only place to do it is at a board meeting.
For example, there are two women on the board who have never taken the oath of office legally. They did take the oath of office on November 13, 2018, but that was before they became eligible to do so. They had not filed their Statements of Economic Interest (SEI) with the S.C. Ethics Commission.
State law is clear. First you file the SEI; then you take the oath of office.
Each filed her SEI on December 4, 2018. Neither Amelia McKie nor Teresa Holmes has taken the oath of office since filing her SEI. To become a full-fledged, bonafide, legitimate member of the board, each needs now to take the oath of office.
And then there is the question of Amelia McKie's $51,750 debt to the S.C. Ethics Commission. A judgment was filed in Richland County Common Pleas Court in July 2019.
Should this "premier" School Board have a person on it who 1) has never legally taken the oath of office and 2) owes $51,750 to the S.C. Ethics Commission?
Where will the public bring that up, if not at a board meeting?
I can appreciate that he might not want the public to criticize any staff members, because staff is not going to get an opportunity to respond.
But to limit the public from mentioning elected board members is an incorrect instruction.
How else can members of the public call attention to wrong-doing by a board member?
A letter or email or phone call to someone (board member) will not gain any public attention.
The only place to do it is at a board meeting.
For example, there are two women on the board who have never taken the oath of office legally. They did take the oath of office on November 13, 2018, but that was before they became eligible to do so. They had not filed their Statements of Economic Interest (SEI) with the S.C. Ethics Commission.
State law is clear. First you file the SEI; then you take the oath of office.
Each filed her SEI on December 4, 2018. Neither Amelia McKie nor Teresa Holmes has taken the oath of office since filing her SEI. To become a full-fledged, bonafide, legitimate member of the board, each needs now to take the oath of office.
And then there is the question of Amelia McKie's $51,750 debt to the S.C. Ethics Commission. A judgment was filed in Richland County Common Pleas Court in July 2019.
Should this "premier" School Board have a person on it who 1) has never legally taken the oath of office and 2) owes $51,750 to the S.C. Ethics Commission?
Where will the public bring that up, if not at a board meeting?
Two trustees missing on 2/25/2020
Why would two trustees on the Richland 2 School Board miss the February 25, 2020 Regular Meeting due to "prior engagements"?
Teresa Holmes (actually, "trustee-elect", because she has never legally taken the oath of office since December 4, 2018) and James Shadd missed the February 25th meeting.
Isn't it their obligation as elected officials to be present? They have known about the date for this scheduled meeting for months. It should have been on their calendars first. Did they miss the meeting because of an engagement scheduled prior to the announcement of the 2019-2020 School Year Meeting Schedule?
If the possible conflict arose after the Calendar was published, then wasn't it their obligation to decline the conflicting event?
And isn't the public entitled to know what the "prior engagement" was? They were elected to be in their seats and ready to address school district business.
Do absent trustees still receive $450 (one-half of the monthly compensation) for the missing meeting? Or do they forfeit the $450 for the meeting they missed?
Teresa Holmes (actually, "trustee-elect", because she has never legally taken the oath of office since December 4, 2018) and James Shadd missed the February 25th meeting.
Isn't it their obligation as elected officials to be present? They have known about the date for this scheduled meeting for months. It should have been on their calendars first. Did they miss the meeting because of an engagement scheduled prior to the announcement of the 2019-2020 School Year Meeting Schedule?
If the possible conflict arose after the Calendar was published, then wasn't it their obligation to decline the conflicting event?
And isn't the public entitled to know what the "prior engagement" was? They were elected to be in their seats and ready to address school district business.
Do absent trustees still receive $450 (one-half of the monthly compensation) for the missing meeting? Or do they forfeit the $450 for the meeting they missed?
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
McKie Still Owes $51,750
Why does Amelia McKie still owe $51,750 to the South Carolina Ethics Commission?
Decision & Order No. C-2017-023 was announced on July 3, 2018 by the S.C. Ethics Commission in resolution to a complaint filed by the Commission itself on September 1, 2016 against McKie on numerous grounds. The Decision & Order specified a fine and terms of payment.
When no payment was made by December 31, 2018, a penalty was added and the total amount owed by her reached $51,750.
When no payment was made by her by June 30, 2019, the Commission filed for a Judgment in Richland County Common Pleas Court. Court Case No. 2019CP4003809. You can see the court record here.
What happens next?
The South Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR) is the collection arm for debts owed to the State. The DOR will rake off 22% as its collection fee under its Setoff or GEAR collection procedures.
Is this a big deal? Is there any reason that it shouldn't be a big deal?
McKie, who claims to be a legitimate member of the Richland 2 School Board, should have stepped down a long time ago. Instead, she shows up and - worst - is allowed to sit at the Board, even though there is a remaining question about whether it is actually a legal member of the Board. She did not follow state law after being re-elected on November 6, 2018.
State law says you must (first) file your Statement of Economic Interests Report (SEI) with the S.C. Ethics Commission and then take the oath of office. Instead, she did it her way; she took the oath of office and began serving. After the Independent Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County (newspaper) called her on it, she filed her SEI.
Being re-elected meant she was "qualified" to serve, but she was not yet eligible to serve. She became eligible to serve on December 4, 2018, after filing her SEI. But she has never taken the oath of office since December 4, 2018.
All she has to do is raise her right hand and take the oath of office. Why won't she do this?
Until she does take the oath legally, she is not a legitimate board member. And the School District should not be paying her $900 per month to be a Trustee.
To me, this looks like an illegal expenditure of public funds by the School District. Does it look this way to you, too? Please comment below.
Decision & Order No. C-2017-023 was announced on July 3, 2018 by the S.C. Ethics Commission in resolution to a complaint filed by the Commission itself on September 1, 2016 against McKie on numerous grounds. The Decision & Order specified a fine and terms of payment.
When no payment was made by December 31, 2018, a penalty was added and the total amount owed by her reached $51,750.
When no payment was made by her by June 30, 2019, the Commission filed for a Judgment in Richland County Common Pleas Court. Court Case No. 2019CP4003809. You can see the court record here.
What happens next?
The South Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR) is the collection arm for debts owed to the State. The DOR will rake off 22% as its collection fee under its Setoff or GEAR collection procedures.
Is this a big deal? Is there any reason that it shouldn't be a big deal?
McKie, who claims to be a legitimate member of the Richland 2 School Board, should have stepped down a long time ago. Instead, she shows up and - worst - is allowed to sit at the Board, even though there is a remaining question about whether it is actually a legal member of the Board. She did not follow state law after being re-elected on November 6, 2018.
State law says you must (first) file your Statement of Economic Interests Report (SEI) with the S.C. Ethics Commission and then take the oath of office. Instead, she did it her way; she took the oath of office and began serving. After the Independent Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County (newspaper) called her on it, she filed her SEI.
Being re-elected meant she was "qualified" to serve, but she was not yet eligible to serve. She became eligible to serve on December 4, 2018, after filing her SEI. But she has never taken the oath of office since December 4, 2018.
All she has to do is raise her right hand and take the oath of office. Why won't she do this?
Until she does take the oath legally, she is not a legitimate board member. And the School District should not be paying her $900 per month to be a Trustee.
To me, this looks like an illegal expenditure of public funds by the School District. Does it look this way to you, too? Please comment below.
Monday, February 24, 2020
Any "-gates" at Richland 2?
You've got to read the February 21st article on FitsNews.com about Richland 1 and a letter sent by its superintendent to teachers about the bad press that Richland 1 has been getting.
Titled "What Can We Do About That?" the article digs into a letter emailed to teachers by Richland One superintendent Craig Witherspoon. He is apparently feeling unfairly attacked on these topics:
* No-bid contracts of $500,000 in science programming;
* An advertising budget increase of 5,500% in five years;
* Hiring of Tameika Isaac Devine (Jabber & Devine P.A.) "for 'complex' legal work outside her primary field";
* Jacketgate
It took an investigative effort by FitsNews.com, The State and The Post and Courier to dig out this news.
"Bad press"? Oh, how the truth stings...
But you'll remember who wrote about the sweetheart deal involving Tameika Isaac Devine and Richland Two that sprang into existence in January 2019. Isaac Devine is the wife of Richland One School Board Chairman Jamie L. Devine. She is also a Columbia City Councilwoman. She is with a small law firm (two attorneys; both black) that lists absolutely no relevant (bond) experience on its own website. That tiny law firm benefits from Richland 2, because the Richland 2 School Board gave its own superintendent (Baron Davis) the authority to direct its bond counsel, Burr Forman, to associate co-counsel on the bonds for the purpose of diversity. In other words, pass out some of the dough to Jabber & Isaac.
Richland Two does not need to be paying indirectly to train a small law firm. Presumably, the bond work cost to Richland 2 did not increase. Did Superintendent Davis tell Burr Forman to give some work to Jabber & Isaac and pay them out of their fees?
Burr Forman is a huge regional law firm with specialization in school and public bond work. A female lawyer handles Richland 2 bond work. (That's diversity.) No doubt Burr Forman has many black professional employees. (That's diversity.)
How that permission ever slipped in a January 2019 Bond Resolution and got past the Richland 2 Board is anyone's guess. Well, maybe not. It was at the very end of a long, complex legal document. Reading it probably put a number of Richland Two board members to sleep. By the time they got to the end of the document, if most of them even read it that far, they must have missed the give-away at the end. Just a few bland words gave away the store.
Titled "What Can We Do About That?" the article digs into a letter emailed to teachers by Richland One superintendent Craig Witherspoon. He is apparently feeling unfairly attacked on these topics:
* No-bid contracts of $500,000 in science programming;
* An advertising budget increase of 5,500% in five years;
* Hiring of Tameika Isaac Devine (Jabber & Devine P.A.) "for 'complex' legal work outside her primary field";
* Jacketgate
It took an investigative effort by FitsNews.com, The State and The Post and Courier to dig out this news.
"Bad press"? Oh, how the truth stings...
But you'll remember who wrote about the sweetheart deal involving Tameika Isaac Devine and Richland Two that sprang into existence in January 2019. Isaac Devine is the wife of Richland One School Board Chairman Jamie L. Devine. She is also a Columbia City Councilwoman. She is with a small law firm (two attorneys; both black) that lists absolutely no relevant (bond) experience on its own website. That tiny law firm benefits from Richland 2, because the Richland 2 School Board gave its own superintendent (Baron Davis) the authority to direct its bond counsel, Burr Forman, to associate co-counsel on the bonds for the purpose of diversity. In other words, pass out some of the dough to Jabber & Isaac.
Richland Two does not need to be paying indirectly to train a small law firm. Presumably, the bond work cost to Richland 2 did not increase. Did Superintendent Davis tell Burr Forman to give some work to Jabber & Isaac and pay them out of their fees?
Burr Forman is a huge regional law firm with specialization in school and public bond work. A female lawyer handles Richland 2 bond work. (That's diversity.) No doubt Burr Forman has many black professional employees. (That's diversity.)
How that permission ever slipped in a January 2019 Bond Resolution and got past the Richland 2 Board is anyone's guess. Well, maybe not. It was at the very end of a long, complex legal document. Reading it probably put a number of Richland Two board members to sleep. By the time they got to the end of the document, if most of them even read it that far, they must have missed the give-away at the end. Just a few bland words gave away the store.
Friday, February 21, 2020
2/11/2020 Minutes M.I.A.
When the agenda for the February 25th board meeting was published today, Item 6.2 lists "Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting. That would be the February 11, 2020 Regular Meeting.
The problem is that the Minutes are not attached to the agenda.
This means that the public is in the dark about what happened at the February 11th meeting. Of course, you could wade through the video-recording of the two-hour, two-minute meeting.
It would be simpler to see the Minutes which, no doubt, the Board members will receive. The Minutes report the Motions and the votes.
They also omit the names and topics of the speakers during Public Participation, so that information is lost in written form forever.
Was it an over-sight? Was hitting "Publish" for the agenda at the end of the day rushed because 5 o'clock was looming?
Will the agenda be revised before 5:30PM on Monday, February 24th? If the agenda is revised, will it be notated as Revised?
Gender-choice Education coming to Richland 2?
Earlier today I was wondering to what extent the wave of gender-choice and choice of identity might be headed toward Richland 2. Or is it already here?
Parents in Madison, Wisconsin are on the warpath and are "... asking a state court to halt a public school district’s policy that they say instructs teachers to assist and encourage children in adopting transgender identities without notifying—and possibly while deceiving—parents."
What is the status of gender-identity rules in Richland 2? If a 5-year-old biological male "identifies" as a girl, must the teacher call that child by the girl's preferred name? Does a 17-year-old male who identifies as female get to shower with the girls?
The agenda for the February 25th Regular Meeting of the school board was posted shortly before 5:00PM (the end of the business day and business week).
Item 11.1 on the Agenda is a proposed revision to Board Policy IMB - Teaching About Controversial/Sensitive Issues. Read the proposed revision, because it'll be your last chance to read the old policy with the suggested revisions. After the revisions are approved, only the new, revised policy will exist on the District's website.
New language to be added to Policy IMB is: "A controversial or sensitive issue is a point or matter about which significant opposing viewpoints and/or multiple perspectives exist. Controversial/sensitive issues may be found as a natural part of the curriculum or they may occur in local, national or international situations. These topics may arise across a range of political, social, economic or cultural aspects such as religion, language, customs or values."
You can find it by clicking on the attachment with the Agenda, or you save read it by clicking here.
It looks like all that a Richland 2 teacher ("instructional staff", in "2020-speak") needs to do is get the approval of his/her principal, who might then run to "district personnel" and "appropriate content specialists" for guidance. That phrase "appropriate content specialists" might worry you. Who are they, if they are not "district personnel".
In the entire Board Policy IMB the words parents or guardians do not appear!
Come to Tuesday's board meeting and sign up to ask the board your questions. You must fill out two sheets before the meeting to claim your three minutes of speaking time.
Parents in Madison, Wisconsin are on the warpath and are "... asking a state court to halt a public school district’s policy that they say instructs teachers to assist and encourage children in adopting transgender identities without notifying—and possibly while deceiving—parents."
What is the status of gender-identity rules in Richland 2? If a 5-year-old biological male "identifies" as a girl, must the teacher call that child by the girl's preferred name? Does a 17-year-old male who identifies as female get to shower with the girls?
The agenda for the February 25th Regular Meeting of the school board was posted shortly before 5:00PM (the end of the business day and business week).
Item 11.1 on the Agenda is a proposed revision to Board Policy IMB - Teaching About Controversial/Sensitive Issues. Read the proposed revision, because it'll be your last chance to read the old policy with the suggested revisions. After the revisions are approved, only the new, revised policy will exist on the District's website.
New language to be added to Policy IMB is: "A controversial or sensitive issue is a point or matter about which significant opposing viewpoints and/or multiple perspectives exist. Controversial/sensitive issues may be found as a natural part of the curriculum or they may occur in local, national or international situations. These topics may arise across a range of political, social, economic or cultural aspects such as religion, language, customs or values."
You can find it by clicking on the attachment with the Agenda, or you save read it by clicking here.
It looks like all that a Richland 2 teacher ("instructional staff", in "2020-speak") needs to do is get the approval of his/her principal, who might then run to "district personnel" and "appropriate content specialists" for guidance. That phrase "appropriate content specialists" might worry you. Who are they, if they are not "district personnel".
In the entire Board Policy IMB the words parents or guardians do not appear!
Come to Tuesday's board meeting and sign up to ask the board your questions. You must fill out two sheets before the meeting to claim your three minutes of speaking time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)