Keep debtors out of public office

The following email is being sent to S.C. State Representative Ivory Thigpen (District 79) and State Senator Mia McLeod (District 22).

"As a constituent in your district, I am writing to request that you propose legislation in your chamber to prohibit a person who owes a debt to any division of the S.C. State Government, including the S.C. Ethics Commission, from holding public office. If that person holds office, the person must pay the debt within 90 days of the effective date of the legislation or resign from office.

"Will you please let me know if you will sponsor such legislation? I shall appreciate an individual reply, not just your standard auto-response without any follow-up."

Richland 2 School Board Trustee-elect Amelia McKie owes $51,750 to settle a judgment in favor of the South Carolina Ethics Commission. She hasn't paid even one penny toward this debt in more than two years.

The S.C. Department of Revenue (DOR) is charged with collecting the judgment. There is no sign of any activity on their part. The DOR should be attaching her wages from Richland 2 School District, filing a lien against any income tax refunds and against her home and automobile, and attaching her bank accounts. 

According to the Ethics Commission on November 30, 2020, she still owes $51,750!

Mark Twain banned. What about here?

According to a recent email from Hillsdale College (Hillsdale, Michigan), Mark Twain's book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn "has been banned in thousands of public schools across America."

The book, published in 1884, has been a staple in many households. What's wrong with it?

I have a boxed set of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, illustrated by Norman Rockwell. No, not first edition (darn it), but they are as old as I am.

I guess it's time to re-read them and find out how warped my upbringing was, just by having them in the same house.

What about in Richland 2 schools? Is it read? Is it ever mentioned? Has it been banned here?

Legal action against public body? Ex., SCSBA

Should legal action be taken against a public body or a non-profit corporation, when it knowingly violates South Carolina statutes or its own By-Laws? 

Should a private citizen have to pursue such legal action at personal expense or should there be a public agent, such as the Attorney General or the Solicitor of the S.C. Secretary of State, who would take on the investigation and prosecution of these violations.

One of three organizations that come to mind is the South Carolina School Boards Association (SCSBA), which is being presented with the nomination of Amelia McKie as its Region 8 Director (representing Richland 1 and Richland 2 School Districts). The SCSBA is a South Carolina non-profit corporation.

It's my understanding that a Regional Director must be a member of a school board in the district being represented. If McKie were a legal member of the Richland 2 School District, she would be eligible to be nominated and to serve the SCSBA.

BUT, she is not legal school board member, because she has never taken the oath of office legally.

At a Richland 2 school board meeting in February or March 2019 I proposed an easy remedy. Just administer the oath of office to her. She became eligible to take the oath of office on December 4, 2018, when she filed her Statement of Economic Interests with the South Carolina Ethics Commission.

The oath that she took on November 13, 2018 was invalid and meaningless, because she was not eligible to take the oath on that date. (S.C. Code of Laws 8-13-1110(A))

McKie has been nominated by Richland 2 to the SCSBA. The Richland 2 Board never should have nominated her.

The SCSBA should refuse to appoint her to the Region 8 District Director position.

If it does so, then legal action against the SCSBA should begin.

Every single person in the Richland 2 School District should ask Amelia McKie to explain why she will not take the oath of office legally.

While you are at tit, ask the Richland 2 School District to explain why they allow her (and Teresa Holmes, who also has never taken the oath of office legally) to serve on the school board.

The 1619 Project? - Teach THIS to Students

Do you know what The 1619 Project is?

Watch this new PragerU video.

Why did a group of historians, almost all on the Left according to the speaker in this video, call The 1619 Project a "distortion of historical understanding by ideology"?

Watch this PragerU video presented by Wilfred Reilly, Associate Professor of Political Science at Kentucky State University.

Richland 2 - going, going, gone Woke

This article by Charles Fain Lehman in the November 30, 2020 Washington Free Beacon is a must-read! Titled "America's High Schools Go Woke", it contains many very familiar words - words often heard at Richland 2 school board meetings.

What words?

Racism. Injustice. Diversity. mandatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training  systemic racism. Racial bias. Insensitivity. Director of Diversity. 

Other words in the article got my attention and caused me to think of Richland 2 School District.

Critical Race Theory. Diversity consultancies (think Gloria Boutte). Racial discontent. The 1619 Project (still waiting for the District to reply to my question at the board meeting about the extent this is being taught in schools).

Robin DiAngelo's book White Fragility is mentioned. I checked that out of the Richland Library, read a few pages and returned it. It has one good use - wrap the fish in it.

What's the REAL problem at Richland 2? There isn't any actual racism, except for all the talk about racism. They are creating a problem, so they can impose an expensive solution for it. This is the problem. The progressive influence on education. 

Get back to the basics.

Is Racism Dead?

Larry Elder SHUTS DOWN Racism. Really? Take time right now to listen and watch.

He opens with "Have you ever noticed some people search for racism, even when the alleged victim of racism doesn't believe he or she is a victim of racism?"

Toward the end of his show, he quotes Thomas Sowell.

"Racism is not dead, but it is on life support - kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as 'racists.'" 

Why was I reminded of a Richland County person who is insinuating that my complaints about her almost-official position on a school board are racially motivated?

Maybe she is viewing the world through race-tinted glasses. Thanks, Larry.

The Problem with the Nov. 17 Special Meeting

The Special-Called Board Meeting on November 17 had three important items on the agenda.

1. Elect a Board Chair;

2. Nominate a board member to the South Carolina School Boards Association; and

3. Discuss the SCSBA Resolutions on which the SCSBA Nominee would be expected to vote.

Success on No. 1. Failure on Numbers 2 and 3.

#1 James Manning was elected by the board to serve for a "couple of months" (as described multiple times by Acting Chair Teresa Holmes), but actually for more than seven months until June 30, 2021.

Let's take #3 next.

Richland 2 "staff" and the superintendent looked at all the (36?) SCSBA Resolutions, at least to some extent, and recommended them. If you listen carefully to the superintendent's wording, at times he was close to saying that "he" reviewed all of them, but what he really said was that his staff and he had reviewed them. And he called out 11 of them for special attention.

To me that meant that 11 of them needed discussion by the board and a decision made whether to support them or not.

 Mrs. Agostini brought up at the beginning of the meeting that, because of the wording of the agenda, no vote could be taken on the Resolutions. The board could have amended the agenda to allow a vote. Did Holmes know that?

And that's exactly what happened. Mrs. Agostini brought up several of the Resolutions and commented on them.

Why didn't any of the other Trustees (or Trustees-elect) bring up questions? Mrs. McFadden gets a pass. She has since said she read all the Resolutions and took notes. Much of it may have been Greek to her, because November 17 was her first Richland 2 board meeting. But what about Holmes? McKie? Manning? Caution-Parker? Had they read and studied all the Resolutions?

What about the "special attention" brought to 11 of the Resolutions by the superintendent? How will McKie know what the will of the Richland 2 Board is, since the board did not vote one way or the other on the superintendent's stated support of all of them? What she knows is that staff supports them (or most of them), but she won't really know whether the board does!

Without guidance from the board, the FACT is that the board has not voted to support ANY of the Resolutions.

Why is #2 a Failure? Amelia McKie can't serve as the District's representative to the SCSBA, because she is not a legal Richland 2 board member.

And, if she were, she would have no guidance from Richland 2 on any discussion or vote on them.

What did Board Chair Manning mean when he briefly commented that Trustee Caution-Parker will be the representative at "that" meeting (the meeting at which the Resolutions would be voted on?)?

There are supposed to be seven wise people on the Richland 2 elected board. Right now there are only five legal trustees. The jury is out on the level of wisdom with which some of them direct Richland 2.