Oath of Office - Important? (or not)

In this interesting article published by Yahoo!news seven years ago on January 20, 2013, the reporter highlights the importance on the oath of office being administered correctly.

It's important. At least, when the Supreme Court Chief Justice is involved.

Not so important way down the line at Richland 2 School District. But shouldn't it be?

In March 2019, when it was pointed out to the School Board that Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes were ineligible to take the oath of office on November 13, 2018, the Board should have quickly scheduled a legal administration of the oath.

But, to this day, Inauguration Day 2021, Richland 2 has not done so. Why not?

First, the Board and the District are unwilling to admit that South Carolina Code of Laws 8-13-1110(A) was, in fact, violated on November 13, 2018.

What's that old saying? "Pride goeth before a fall."

The law is clear, simple and short. First you file the Statement of Economic Interests Report and then you take the oath of office. After you take the oath of office, you enter upon official responsibilities.

McKie and Holmes have been usurping public office since November 13, 2018.

Secondly, the School District has been disbursing public monies improperly and illegally to and for them since November 13, 2018. A school board trustee gets paid $800/month plus expenses.

To become legitimate Trustees, all McKie and Holmes need to do is take the oath of office now. They filed the SEIs on December 4, 2018 and, on that date, first became eligible to take the oath of office and begin serving.

The District should recover the monies paid out to and for McKie and Holmes, probably somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000 now. Each.

Thirdly, the School Board must realize that it is going to have to review all the board decisions (votes) since November 13, 2018 and correctly state the decisions, if the result is different after the votes of McKie and Holmes are removed. Some students will not have been expelled or suspended. Other votes will change when 4-3 decisions become 2-3 (failing) decisions.

It's only a matter of time until the Board realizes and admits that, instead of operating with seven trustees, it has actually been operating with five trustees. And, when one of those five wasn't present, then the Board could not even meet, because no quorum (five) was present!

Where has legal counsel for the school district been all this time???

Jan. 13 special board meeting

Have you been searching for the recorded Board meeting of January 13, 2021? Wondering what the discussion was all about last Wednesday night?

Here is where you will find it: https://livestream.com/richland2/events/9483840  NOTE: There is no sound for the first four minutes. The recording starts after 4:00 minutes  You can skip the silence by clicking at 4:00.

Tune in now to see/hear who said what about the re-opening of schools. 

When the Board Chair and the superintendent scheduled the meeting and planned the agenda, they set it up so that there would be a discussion (only) and no vote or decision by the board. Two things happen when they do it that way.

1. The Board can say it didn't decide, if the forward direction of the District blows up.

2. All responsibility falls on the superintendent. And then he'll say, "But the board said..."

A logical question to the District is, "Why isn't it posted on YouTube or on the District's website under Board Meetings?" Maybe everybody had checked out and had their minds on the the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday (today).

Should Ethics debt keep person out of office?

Many bills proposed by lawmakers aren't worth the paper on which they are written. However, check out H.3520 (sponsored by S.C. Rep. Bruce Bryant (R - Lake Wylie)) and S. 188 (sponsored by S.C. Sen. Greg Hembree (R - Myrtle Beach)). 

According to the Post and Courier these bills "would bar people from running for office if they have outstanding ethics fines, which seems like a reasonable way to either get all those ethics deadbeats to pay their fines or else get them out of office."

Contact your State Representative and State Senator this week. Ask them to co-sponsor these bills. Ask them to support them. ASK them if they will support these bills. Pin them down. Ask them for a commitment on these bills. (Did you ever try to nail Jello to a wall? It might feel like that.)

Each time I have contacted Rep. Ivory Thigpen and Sen. Mia McLeod about Amelia McKie's outstanding $51,750 ethics fines, neither Thigpen nor McLeod has responded to me. 

I'm pretty sure I can tell you why they haven't responded./

Thanks to the reader who alerted me to the article in the Post and Courier. You know who you are. I don't mention your name because I don't want you to be doxed and canceled.

Disgusting Display or Dubious Promotion

Richland 2 School District published a disgusting display of promotion and aggrandisement of Amelia McKie on January 4, 2021. A two-page announcement was made of McKie's election by the South Carolina School Boards Association as Region 8 Director. That followed her controversial appointment by the Richland 2 School Board.

The District failed to mention that McKie has made zero payments toward her $51,750 fine levied by the S.C. Ethics Commission and enforced by a judgment filed on July 10, 2019 in the Richland County Common Pleas Court.

The District also failed to mention that McKie's legitimacy to serve as a School Board has been questioned since March 2019. McKie violated South Carolina Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A) on November 13, 2018 by taking the oath of office before she filed her Statement of Economic Interests. She got "caught" by The Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County.

Because McKie has not been a legal member of the School Board since November 13, 2018, she was ineligible to serve as Board Chair. Her claim of the title of Board Chair and signature on bond documents resulted in the resignation of the Board Secretary in April 2019. The Secretary was unwilling to risk personal liability by attesting to potentially false claims in the documents.

Because McKie is not a legal member of the Richland 2 School Board, she cannot be a Region 8 Director for the SCSBA. Apparently, that is just a minor inconvenience to the SCSBA.

The Richland 2 School Board has been requested numerous times to hold a public discusssion at a board meeting of the questions surrounding McKie's serving on the board. The Board has refused to do this.

Late in 2020 SLED and the FBI were requested to investigate Richland 2 School District for disbursing public monies to the two women (McKie and Teresa Holmes) who are not legally on the board. McKie and Holmes are usurping public office. One of the penalties is to pay back all of the money they have improperly received.

Richland 2 states (proudly) that McKie is a graduate of FastTrac, 

What is FastTrac? According to the City of Columbia's webpage, "FastTrac is a course designed to support the entrepreneur seeking to take their existing business to a higher level. This program assists entrepreneurs in analyzing their current business condition to identify the best opportunities for growth. Budgeting, sales strategies, management team roles, operational systems and business plan implementation are key areas of emphasis. The course also facilitates networking between entrepreneurs and experienced professionals."

Perhaps McKie could put some of that training to real use and pay off her debt to the S.C. Ethics Commission. You think?

Should McKie and Holmes be removed from the school board?

Should Teresa Holmes and Amelia McKie be removed from the Richland 2 school board?

Why do the Board Chair, James Manning, and the other trustees treat her as one of their own, even appointing her to a position on the South Carolina School Boards Association?

Holmes and McKie have never taken the oath of office legally; therefore, they are not legitimate members of the school board.

Should the recent action by the S.C. State's Attorney's Office against County Councilwoman Dahli Myers worry them? Are they next, now that the Myers' matter is almost out of the way?

Steps are underway to learn how to file an injunction against the Richland School District Two to prevent the District from continuing to use public monies for compensation payments to McKie (and to Holmes), dues payments to the S.C. School Boards Association, and other expenses associated with duties of a trustee. 

Last year SLED and the FBI were asked to investigate Richland Two's payments of public funds to persons not entitled to receive them. Will agents swoop in this year and arrest the parties involved?

A local attorney asked me in December what it would take to put my complaints to rest.

It's simple. The first thing is McKie and Holmes must raise their right hands and take the oath of office legally. Only then will they become legitimate members of the Board.

The next step will be to square up on the moneis they have received from Richland Two for monthly compensation and benefits.

What about that oath that they took on November 13, 2018? It is invalid, because they had not filed their Statements of Economic Interests with the S.C. Ethics Commission.

S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A) reads, in part: 

ARTICLE 11

Disclosure of Economic Interests

SECTION 8-13-1110. Persons required to file statement of economic interests.

(A) No public official, regardless of compensation, and no public member or public employee as designated in subsection (B) may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests in accordance with the provisions of this chapter with the appropriate supervisory office.

To simplify the law for those on the board who struggle with long sentences.

"No public official ... may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests ..."

McKie and Holmes took the oath on November 13, 2018.

McKie and Holmes filed their Statements of Economic Interests on December 4, 2018.

Is November 13, 2018 before December 4, 2018? (Ask a second-grader in one of Richland 2's elementary schools.)

Because they are not legitimate board members, the District should not be paying them or paying for any benefits for them!!!

Why no court action???

On July 10, 2019, the South Carolina Ethics Commission filed a $51,750 Judgment in Richland County Common Pleas Court against Amelia McKie. This Judgment followed an Ethics Commission Decision & Order of July 2018, which had gone unpaid for an entire year.

According to court records for Case No. 2019CP4003809, absolutely nothing is happening with this case.

Why do the judge in the Common Pleas Court and the Chief Judge allow cases to just sit with no action? Why isn't the Ethics Commission's attorney in court every 60-90 days, asking the court to take action, such as ordering the S.C. Department of Revenue to take effective collection action?

Last time I checked with the Ethics Commission, McKie had not paid one penny toward this judgment. 

Is she broke? Facing bankruptcy? Yet still sitting at the Board of Trustees of the Richland 2 School Board?

Notice that I don't write "on" the Board, because she, like Teresa Holmes, is not a legal board member. McKie and Holmes have never taken the oath of office legally.

Is Anti-White Racism Occurring in Richland 2?

This headline in The Daily Wire causes me to wonder what might be happening in Richland 2 School District.

School Wouldn’t Let Her Son Opt Out Of Class That Promotes Anti-White Racism. 

Now She’s Suing.

Is this coming to a school near you? Read the article. Be on the alert. What are your children telling you about their school experience?

Why would I ask such a question? How could I think such would happen right here in Richland County?

Well, I look at the composition of the school board. The composition of the administration. The racial make-up of appointments as Principals. The effort to put a teacher at the front of the class who "looks like the students." The superintendent's pet project - hiring 100 Premier Men of Color. (This is apparently his personal project and never approved by the School Board, because he reminded the board one evening that he is not evaluated on it.)

What happened to hiring the best available personnel for the money you have in the budget?

And my thought is, "Just wait until the students get in the real world, where they will make up 13% of the population, not 80%."

Last year I was asked, "Did you hear her (a school board member) call you a racist?"

And this year, when a different school board member wrote to me, "It's unfortunate that your motives are seemingly racially motivated with,  a poor attempt to hide behind pretending that you are not a racist by using a beard / beards to cover your true intentions and hateful nature." 

What does that even mean?

Wouldn't any proper beard feel insulted and highly indignant?