A racially-oriented program of Richland 2 School District is the superintendent's pet project, Premier 100. He wants to hire 100 "premier" men of color. A very brief report was presented by a staff person from the District's HR Dept., as part of the June 20, 2020 board retreat.
Frankly, the superintendent's pet project ought to be to hire the best 100 teachers he can - men or women, whatever color. When Richland 2 students graduate, they will enter a world where they are not 82% of the population, and they will need the talents and skills to navigate in the real world.
The HR person's comments start at 42:25 on the June 20, 2020 board meeting video.
At the board retreat Trustee Shadd, one of five black members of the seven-member board, asked (43:22) the superintendent and his staff person from HR how many had been hired as part of that program.
The staff person did not know. She said she didn't have the numbers right there in front of her. WHY NOT? This is not the first time that a staff person has not been prepared with the most basic information to answer a softball question from a Board member.
The responsibility for her lack of preparation falls entirely on the superintendent. He must have reviewed her preparation for the board retreat, and he should have been sure that she could answer anticipated questions. I cannot think of a simpler question that could have been asked. Blowing it off with a "We'll get back to you on that" should not be accepted by the board.
This board should direct the superintendent to make sure that his staff members are prepared. Otherwise, the board's time is wasted! The answer to Shadd's question is Zero.
The superintendent said he would provide information. Again he took over 200-300-400 words to say what could have been said in 10 words.
How can it be that the answer to Shadd's question was not right on her lips or known to the superintendent?
At 46:20 Teresa Holmes finally showed up - sort of. Her first words were heard after the start of the meeting. It was really impossible to know whether she had even attended all of the previous portion of the meeting, because she kept her video off. Was she sitting there in her jammies? The Board Chair should have instructed her to make herself presentable and turn on her video. The public is entitled to see in what state of readiness an elected member shows up at a meeting of the public body!
And all Holmes had to say were words of praise for the woman staffer from the HR Dept. The Board Chair should take care of that.
Wednesday, June 24, 2020
Tuesday, June 23, 2020
Who Runs Richland 2 School District?
The School Board held a retreat on Saturday, June 20, 2020. After a lengthy executive session to discuss the superintendent's annual evaluation, which was not broadcast, the Board reconvened in open session.
Attorney Kathryn Mahoney was present for the executive session but not for the open session. The Board failed to acknowledge her presence before the executive session. Caution-Parker was not present for the beginning of the executive session, and no mention was made later of her presence or absence during the executive session.
The first item of business in the open session was a discussion about board requests of Administration for information. Manning said that a(n unnamed) Board member had brought up "fairness" and how the board gets information from the Administration, and so he (Manning) had worked with the superintendent and the attorney for the school district to look at policies and how things are done in other districts and when the board or the superintendent can ask for information and "how that works".
Manning then referred to a policy "in front of" the board, except he realized it wasn't attached. The proposed policy had not been distributed to the board or to the public. Manning's comments were muddled and almost incoherent, as he stumbled through the explanation. Manning and the superintendent had (I would call it "conspired") to come up with a policy to be presented to the board, without any prior discussion by the board or direction from the board to do so.
Then Manning tossed to ball into the superintendent's court to discuss how the (proposed) policy is structured.
Let me stop right here - before I even listened to the rest of the discussion.
Trustees Agostini and Elkins-Johnson have often asked for information and reports from the superintendent; i.e., from Administration. They haven't always gotten them. Maybe they have never gotten them.
Who runs the School District? The BOARD is responsible for directing the District. The Board tells the superintendent what to do. It might "ask" him, but he should understand that it is telling him, not asking. He doesn't have a choice. And if he doesn't do what they tell him to do, then they ought to mark him down when it comes time for his evaluation and any recommendation as to a change in compensation and benefits.
The superintendent started off with, "It is structured in such a way that, if the Administration feels that the request is outside of what is ordinarily requested by the board, umm, that that would require the majority of the board to ask me for that information."
You'll want to listen for yourself as the superintendent stumbles through his explanation.
Basically, Manning and the superintendent are contriving to blindfold the board members and to keep them from getting information from Administration.
Admittedly, the board members should not be micro-managing operations. That is not their job. That is the superintendent's job.
But to create a policy like this that slaps handcuffs on the board members is Wrong.
During a meeting, when a board member makes a request, if the Chair feels that the member's request is excessive, then the Chair can say so at the time. And then he can ask the full board to consider the request. A nit-picky Policy for this is not needed.
The next question is, WHO authorized the Board Chair to initiate such a discussion with the superintendent and to authorize expenditure of staff time and resources (the expense of the attorney for the School District). No one did, because it was never discussed at a board meeting. The correct procedure would have been a motion at a meeting and, if approved, then the Board Chair would sit with the superintendent and begin to come up with a proposed policy.
Manning made a statement that was incorrect, when he said that such a policy would put in writing the way he feels the board should operate or the way they have all discussed the way they would operate. ONLY they haven't discussed it!!! Why didn't anyone challenge him?
There is nothing within the operations of the District that can be withheld from the board.
Trustee Agostini mentioned that the Board did not have the proposed policy in front of it. Why wasn't it attached to the agenda??? Later that was explained.
Manning moved into the territory of defending the superintendent, rather than of leading the board. He is one of the seven equal board members (except there aren't even legally seven, but that's for another day (again)).
Finally, the superintendent and Manning clarified that this was not a First Reading of a proposed policy. They clearly did not have their ducks lined up about how this was going to be presented.
Caution-Parker virtually accused Agostini and Elkins-Johnson of being on a "power trip" of thinking the superintendent answered to them. That has never been the case, and any reasonable person would wonder why Caution-Parker woke up and became so angry about this.
Why did Shadd replace his live-feed with his blank ID without briefly excusing himself from the meeting? Did he take a bathroom break? Why did Caution-Parker vanish during the discussion? Does she need to buy a more-reliable internet signal for her home?
Elkins-Johnson made an impassioned plea for respect and cooperation between board members. She said it very nicely, unlike the previous combative comment made by Caution-Parker.
The superintendent then provided the example that triggered the proposed policy. A Trustee had requested a specific email from him to staff. The Trustee's request was absolutely appropriate, and then he launched into a smoke-and-mirrors dodge.
The problem is that this board is abdicating its responsibility of Leadership, Authority and Responsibility. And they should not let the superintendent get away with using 500 words to say something that could be said in 15 words.
He asked what the "line" is for asking for information, Well, the Board will tell him what the line is; he doesn't get to draw the line. Not even for $230,000/year he doesn't get to draw the line. The Board employs the superintendent; not the other way around.
Manning then asked if any board member would be against preparation of the proposed policy that was under discussion.
Wait just one minute! That is not how the Board makes decisions!!!
Unfortunately, everybody clammed up. And with that silence, the Chair decided to go forward.
And that took up the first 23½ minutes of the retreat. What a waste of time!!!
Why wasn't Teresa Holmes live on this video-conference? Was she really there, or did she just sign on and go back to sleep? Her video-feed needed to be on, or the Board Chair should have asked the board for approval for her to attend without showing her face. She didn't say a word. Was she really there?
If anything of interest to the public was addressed in the remaining hour and 14 minutes of the retreat, I'll write about it in a subsequent article.
Attorney Kathryn Mahoney was present for the executive session but not for the open session. The Board failed to acknowledge her presence before the executive session. Caution-Parker was not present for the beginning of the executive session, and no mention was made later of her presence or absence during the executive session.
The first item of business in the open session was a discussion about board requests of Administration for information. Manning said that a(n unnamed) Board member had brought up "fairness" and how the board gets information from the Administration, and so he (Manning) had worked with the superintendent and the attorney for the school district to look at policies and how things are done in other districts and when the board or the superintendent can ask for information and "how that works".
Manning then referred to a policy "in front of" the board, except he realized it wasn't attached. The proposed policy had not been distributed to the board or to the public. Manning's comments were muddled and almost incoherent, as he stumbled through the explanation. Manning and the superintendent had (I would call it "conspired") to come up with a policy to be presented to the board, without any prior discussion by the board or direction from the board to do so.
Then Manning tossed to ball into the superintendent's court to discuss how the (proposed) policy is structured.
Let me stop right here - before I even listened to the rest of the discussion.
Trustees Agostini and Elkins-Johnson have often asked for information and reports from the superintendent; i.e., from Administration. They haven't always gotten them. Maybe they have never gotten them.
Who runs the School District? The BOARD is responsible for directing the District. The Board tells the superintendent what to do. It might "ask" him, but he should understand that it is telling him, not asking. He doesn't have a choice. And if he doesn't do what they tell him to do, then they ought to mark him down when it comes time for his evaluation and any recommendation as to a change in compensation and benefits.
The superintendent started off with, "It is structured in such a way that, if the Administration feels that the request is outside of what is ordinarily requested by the board, umm, that that would require the majority of the board to ask me for that information."
You'll want to listen for yourself as the superintendent stumbles through his explanation.
Basically, Manning and the superintendent are contriving to blindfold the board members and to keep them from getting information from Administration.
Admittedly, the board members should not be micro-managing operations. That is not their job. That is the superintendent's job.
But to create a policy like this that slaps handcuffs on the board members is Wrong.
During a meeting, when a board member makes a request, if the Chair feels that the member's request is excessive, then the Chair can say so at the time. And then he can ask the full board to consider the request. A nit-picky Policy for this is not needed.
The next question is, WHO authorized the Board Chair to initiate such a discussion with the superintendent and to authorize expenditure of staff time and resources (the expense of the attorney for the School District). No one did, because it was never discussed at a board meeting. The correct procedure would have been a motion at a meeting and, if approved, then the Board Chair would sit with the superintendent and begin to come up with a proposed policy.
Manning made a statement that was incorrect, when he said that such a policy would put in writing the way he feels the board should operate or the way they have all discussed the way they would operate. ONLY they haven't discussed it!!! Why didn't anyone challenge him?
There is nothing within the operations of the District that can be withheld from the board.
Trustee Agostini mentioned that the Board did not have the proposed policy in front of it. Why wasn't it attached to the agenda??? Later that was explained.
Manning moved into the territory of defending the superintendent, rather than of leading the board. He is one of the seven equal board members (except there aren't even legally seven, but that's for another day (again)).
Finally, the superintendent and Manning clarified that this was not a First Reading of a proposed policy. They clearly did not have their ducks lined up about how this was going to be presented.
Caution-Parker virtually accused Agostini and Elkins-Johnson of being on a "power trip" of thinking the superintendent answered to them. That has never been the case, and any reasonable person would wonder why Caution-Parker woke up and became so angry about this.
Why did Shadd replace his live-feed with his blank ID without briefly excusing himself from the meeting? Did he take a bathroom break? Why did Caution-Parker vanish during the discussion? Does she need to buy a more-reliable internet signal for her home?
Elkins-Johnson made an impassioned plea for respect and cooperation between board members. She said it very nicely, unlike the previous combative comment made by Caution-Parker.
The superintendent then provided the example that triggered the proposed policy. A Trustee had requested a specific email from him to staff. The Trustee's request was absolutely appropriate, and then he launched into a smoke-and-mirrors dodge.
The problem is that this board is abdicating its responsibility of Leadership, Authority and Responsibility. And they should not let the superintendent get away with using 500 words to say something that could be said in 15 words.
He asked what the "line" is for asking for information, Well, the Board will tell him what the line is; he doesn't get to draw the line. Not even for $230,000/year he doesn't get to draw the line. The Board employs the superintendent; not the other way around.
Manning then asked if any board member would be against preparation of the proposed policy that was under discussion.
Wait just one minute! That is not how the Board makes decisions!!!
Unfortunately, everybody clammed up. And with that silence, the Chair decided to go forward.
And that took up the first 23½ minutes of the retreat. What a waste of time!!!
Why wasn't Teresa Holmes live on this video-conference? Was she really there, or did she just sign on and go back to sleep? Her video-feed needed to be on, or the Board Chair should have asked the board for approval for her to attend without showing her face. She didn't say a word. Was she really there?
If anything of interest to the public was addressed in the remaining hour and 14 minutes of the retreat, I'll write about it in a subsequent article.
Monday, June 22, 2020
What Happened in Ferguson, Mo. on 8/9/2014?
Do you know what really happened in Ferguson, Mo. on August 9, 2014? Really?
I grew up in University City, Mo., which is about seven miles south of Ferguson. So I can say that I know a little about Ferguson. But the Ferguson I knew then is not the Ferguson of today or the Ferguson of 2014.
Because of my law-enforcement background I started asking myself questions right away. I wanted to learn as much as I could about what happened. I was immediately skeptical of the stories I heard. I was not surprised to hear to the burning and looting in Ferguson or the wild claims of police brutality or racial injustice. I just didn't believe them then. Or since.
As more information came out, I believed even more strongly that Michael Brown was a thug and a criminal. Nothing has changed my mind.
Today PragerU released a five-minute video, titled "The Ferguson Lie". Larry Elder, a 68-year-old American libertarian talk show host, author, attorney, and documentary filmmaker. Oh, and he's black.
Watch this video and think about all the lies you have heard for more than five years. Lies that still fuel the Black Lives Matter movement and wrongfully influence people, young and old.
A cop's life and career were destroyed by BLM and the media. Much like the destruction of a cop's life right here in Columbia after the incident at Spring Valley High School, even though no one died.
Sunday, June 21, 2020
Public Participation at online board meetings?
The Richland 2 School District decided to throw out public participation at board meetings, blindly swallowing the suggestion of the South Carolina School Boards Association.
Rather than considering what was good for Richland 2 and its constituents, the board took the easy, and wrong, path. It just suspended Board Policy BEDH. Not temporarily, as it did in March. It suspended it. Period. As in completely. Permanently? Only time will tell.
And then the District didn't even bother to notate on the Board Policy that it had been suspended or to remove the 3-page Public Participation Guidelines still found on the page that leads to the agenda for its semi-monthly meetings.
What could the Board have done?
It could have adopted an organized online public participation segment, allowing speakers to address the board for up to three minutes via Zoom or telephone.
The City of Arlington, Virginia held a long public participation session yesterday during a Saturday City Council meeting. Speakers had three minutes to voice their opinions. Speakers were well-organized and tight with the prepared comments.
Mayor Wilson did a great job controlling the public participation segment. He announced the name of the next speaker and the names of the next three speakers, so they could be ready. Most speakers confirmed that their voices could be heard. The moderator kept all muted except the announced speaker. There were no delay and no fluff between speakers.
It got out of control at one point in the afternoon, when a Councilwoman asked questions of one speaker. That speaker, a member of the House of Delegates, then monopolized the platform with his point of view and without regard to the three-minute limit. Then he was asked successive questions. The Mayor erred when he allowed the continued Q&A by the Councilwoman and that participant.
The Richland 2 School Board could allow public participation. If enough voters and parents ask for public participation to be restored, the Board will do it. Sending emails into the black hole of District Administration won't work, because there is no pressure of big public numbers.
Has anyone received replies to emails sent to the Board?
Rather than considering what was good for Richland 2 and its constituents, the board took the easy, and wrong, path. It just suspended Board Policy BEDH. Not temporarily, as it did in March. It suspended it. Period. As in completely. Permanently? Only time will tell.
And then the District didn't even bother to notate on the Board Policy that it had been suspended or to remove the 3-page Public Participation Guidelines still found on the page that leads to the agenda for its semi-monthly meetings.
What could the Board have done?
It could have adopted an organized online public participation segment, allowing speakers to address the board for up to three minutes via Zoom or telephone.
The City of Arlington, Virginia held a long public participation session yesterday during a Saturday City Council meeting. Speakers had three minutes to voice their opinions. Speakers were well-organized and tight with the prepared comments.
Mayor Wilson did a great job controlling the public participation segment. He announced the name of the next speaker and the names of the next three speakers, so they could be ready. Most speakers confirmed that their voices could be heard. The moderator kept all muted except the announced speaker. There were no delay and no fluff between speakers.
It got out of control at one point in the afternoon, when a Councilwoman asked questions of one speaker. That speaker, a member of the House of Delegates, then monopolized the platform with his point of view and without regard to the three-minute limit. Then he was asked successive questions. The Mayor erred when he allowed the continued Q&A by the Councilwoman and that participant.
The Richland 2 School Board could allow public participation. If enough voters and parents ask for public participation to be restored, the Board will do it. Sending emails into the black hole of District Administration won't work, because there is no pressure of big public numbers.
Has anyone received replies to emails sent to the Board?
Friday, June 19, 2020
True State of Ethics in State
In an article in the June 18, 2020 online edition of The State newspaper, a well-known expert on ethics had this to say: “I think a lot of (elected officials) just don’t give a s***,” said Crangle. “Ethics is not a priority in South Carolina. It never has been.”
John Crangle was Executive Director of South Carolina Common Cause for many years and published Operation Lost Cause in 2015. It's about South Carolina legislators who violated the trust of those who elected them and about some who went to jail for it. A copy of Crangle's 600-page book is available at each Richland County Library. When I checked it out last year, it appeared I was the first to open it.
When I read Crangle's comment, I could not help but think of two people on the Richland 2 School Board.
One has owed $51,750 in fines and fees to the S.C. Ethics Commission and hasn't paid a penny in two years. She has a judgment against her in that amount, filed in July 2019 in the Richland County Common Pleas Court. Why isn't she paying it off?
The other is an attorney with multiple tax liens for numerous business and personal taxes.
Are these people who should be serving on a school board and responsible for managing millions of dollars in assets and revenues?
John Crangle was Executive Director of South Carolina Common Cause for many years and published Operation Lost Cause in 2015. It's about South Carolina legislators who violated the trust of those who elected them and about some who went to jail for it. A copy of Crangle's 600-page book is available at each Richland County Library. When I checked it out last year, it appeared I was the first to open it.
When I read Crangle's comment, I could not help but think of two people on the Richland 2 School Board.
One has owed $51,750 in fines and fees to the S.C. Ethics Commission and hasn't paid a penny in two years. She has a judgment against her in that amount, filed in July 2019 in the Richland County Common Pleas Court. Why isn't she paying it off?
The other is an attorney with multiple tax liens for numerous business and personal taxes.
Are these people who should be serving on a school board and responsible for managing millions of dollars in assets and revenues?
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
Election of Officers - June 30
One of the most important meetings of the Richland 2 School Board will be held on Tuesday, June 30.
At that meeting the final action of the Board will be to elect the Officers for the 2020-2021 School Year. The officers to be elected are Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary.
Each is an important and responsible role. An officer of the school board must be a member of the Board. The unstated requirement is that an officer must be a legal member of the school board.
Since November 13, 2018 the Richland 2 School Board has done business with two women sitting as if they are board members. The fact is that neither is a legal member of the board.
Both Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes took the oath of office on November 13, 2018, before they were eligible to do so. They became eligible to take the oath upon filing their Statements of Economic Interests with the South Carolina Ethics Commission on December 4, 2018. Neither has legally taken the oath of office on or since December 4, 2018.
In spite of this irregularity, District 2 has allowed them to serve and has paid them monthly remuneration for doing so. The District 2 has also paid expenses for functions as if they were board members. By doing so, the District has expended public funds not in accordance with policies and laws.
Holmes served, improperly, as Vice Chair during the 2019-2020 school year; that term of office ends June 30, 2020.
Neither McKie nor Holmes is eligible to serve as an officer of the school board for the 2020-2021 school year.
Shadd should be ineligible to serve as an officer because of his numerous tax liens and unpaid tax indebtedness.
That leaves four possible Trustees for the three officer positions: Manning, Agostini, Elkins-Johnson, and Caution-Parker.
Watch carefully to see how the board acts on June 30.
At that meeting the final action of the Board will be to elect the Officers for the 2020-2021 School Year. The officers to be elected are Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary.
Each is an important and responsible role. An officer of the school board must be a member of the Board. The unstated requirement is that an officer must be a legal member of the school board.
Since November 13, 2018 the Richland 2 School Board has done business with two women sitting as if they are board members. The fact is that neither is a legal member of the board.
Both Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes took the oath of office on November 13, 2018, before they were eligible to do so. They became eligible to take the oath upon filing their Statements of Economic Interests with the South Carolina Ethics Commission on December 4, 2018. Neither has legally taken the oath of office on or since December 4, 2018.
In spite of this irregularity, District 2 has allowed them to serve and has paid them monthly remuneration for doing so. The District 2 has also paid expenses for functions as if they were board members. By doing so, the District has expended public funds not in accordance with policies and laws.
Holmes served, improperly, as Vice Chair during the 2019-2020 school year; that term of office ends June 30, 2020.
Neither McKie nor Holmes is eligible to serve as an officer of the school board for the 2020-2021 school year.
Shadd should be ineligible to serve as an officer because of his numerous tax liens and unpaid tax indebtedness.
That leaves four possible Trustees for the three officer positions: Manning, Agostini, Elkins-Johnson, and Caution-Parker.
Watch carefully to see how the board acts on June 30.
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
R2 Students Can Learn from the Death of Rayshard Brooks
Rayshard Brooks, 27, died in Atlanta on June 12, 2020. He didn't have to die.
Richland 2 students of all ages and races can learn from his death. And should learn from it. And they should learn to separate the "wheat from the chaff". Instead of making an immediate emotional decision about what you think happened, take it apart. Understand exactly what did happen.
And understand exactly what is wrong with the media reporting non-stop about it. And understand what the exact cause of the resulting violence is.
Why did Brooks die?
He resisted arrest.
He fought with two officers.
He disarmed one officer of his taser.
He fled with the officer's taser.
He fired the stolen taser at the officers who were chasing him.
Brooks' actions resulted in his death.
Watch the 20-minute video, not the 2-min. one on CNN.
The officer was polite to Brooks. Brooks was calm, until he realized he was being arrested. Are reports correct that he was on probation or bail and had been court-ordered to stay out of trouble?
Is DUI (a BAC of .108) staying out of trouble? Was he headed to jail for violating the terms of his release, not just for the DUI?
Don't be influenced by the Brooks' family mouthpiece. He is just doing what lawyers do. They plead their case in the media. He'll sue for $20,000,000 (40% contingency fee (commission)) and the City of Atlanta will roll over and pay.
Now, do you, students, need to worry about getting shot by police?
If you don't do stupid stuff, the answer is No. If you do stupid stuff but straighten up when the cops grab you, the answer is No. If you do dumb stuff, like fight with cops, disarm them, run, shoot at them? Yep, you'll probably die.
Use your education. Use your brains. Just be as smart as you can, and you'll live to a ripe, old age.
NOTE: At 6:30PM, hours after I wrote the above, I read this newspaper article in The Augusta Chronicle. I suggest you read it.
Richland 2 students of all ages and races can learn from his death. And should learn from it. And they should learn to separate the "wheat from the chaff". Instead of making an immediate emotional decision about what you think happened, take it apart. Understand exactly what did happen.
And understand exactly what is wrong with the media reporting non-stop about it. And understand what the exact cause of the resulting violence is.
Why did Brooks die?
He resisted arrest.
He fought with two officers.
He disarmed one officer of his taser.
He fled with the officer's taser.
He fired the stolen taser at the officers who were chasing him.
Brooks' actions resulted in his death.
Watch the 20-minute video, not the 2-min. one on CNN.
The officer was polite to Brooks. Brooks was calm, until he realized he was being arrested. Are reports correct that he was on probation or bail and had been court-ordered to stay out of trouble?
Is DUI (a BAC of .108) staying out of trouble? Was he headed to jail for violating the terms of his release, not just for the DUI?
Don't be influenced by the Brooks' family mouthpiece. He is just doing what lawyers do. They plead their case in the media. He'll sue for $20,000,000 (40% contingency fee (commission)) and the City of Atlanta will roll over and pay.
Now, do you, students, need to worry about getting shot by police?
If you don't do stupid stuff, the answer is No. If you do stupid stuff but straighten up when the cops grab you, the answer is No. If you do dumb stuff, like fight with cops, disarm them, run, shoot at them? Yep, you'll probably die.
Use your education. Use your brains. Just be as smart as you can, and you'll live to a ripe, old age.
NOTE: At 6:30PM, hours after I wrote the above, I read this newspaper article in The Augusta Chronicle. I suggest you read it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)