Did the Board Authorize This?

At the Special-Called Board meeting on August 16, the Board voted to have the attorney for the school district look into Proviso 1.108. I did not hear them vote to join any legal action being stirred up. Did you?

Who decided to do this? The superintendent? The board chair? Read it carefully. Contact your board members now!!!

In an email to Media just now, this came:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 20, 2021

RICHLAND TWO PETITIONS SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT

FOR AN ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 

COLUMBIA, S.C. — On August 20, 2021, Carl L. Solomon, Esq., with the Solomon Law Group, and Skyler B. Hutto, Esq., with Williams & Williams, Attorneys at Law, filed a Petition for Original Jurisdiction, Expedited Disposition, and Emergency Declaration, and Motion for a Temporary Injunction with the South Carolina Supreme Court regarding Appropriations Budget Proviso 1.108 (SDE: Mask Mandate Prohibition) on behalf of Richland School District Two.

 

The motion requests the South Carolina Supreme Court to issue a temporary injunction to Respondents named in the motion directing them not to enforce the challenged portions of the Appropriations Act of 2021-22 until a final order is issued concerning the constitutionality of the mask mandate prohibition.

 

Richland Two leaders pursued this action following a special called board meeting on Monday, August 16, 2021, during which the Richland Two Board of Trustees authorized the district to engage legal counsel to provide the best option and legal strategy to address Appropriations Budget Proviso 1.108 with regard to protecting the health, safety and well-being of the district’s students and employees.

 

Dr. Baron R. Davis, superintendent, said, “We are hopeful that the S.C. Supreme Court will grant our request for declaratory and injunctive relief, enabling our district to fulfill our most important obligation to our families — providing a safe and healthy learning environment for all students. The Richland School District Two Board of Trustees, Superintendent and district leaders remain steadfast in our commitment to doing all we can to keep our students and employees safe and our schools open so that our students can receive the highest quality education from face-to-face instruction. We believe masks keep our students and employees safe by reducing the spread of COVID-19. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and S.C. DHEC continue to identify this as a critical strategy in preventing the spread of COVID-19.”

 

The Solomon Law Group and Williams and Williams are assisting Richland Two with this life-saving legal action pro-bono.

Lunch period at Blythewood H.S.

Posted on NextDoor.com by a parent of a Blythewood High School student:

"First day of school miserable.

It’s unacceptable that my kids and other kids juniors in high school sat on the floor during lunch in a hallway because they didn’t have room in the cafeteria and then the food was cold... I have to find a better way... my kids are miserable at school smh.. this can not be good for their mental health :( "

How does something like this happen in the Richland 2 School District?

Other comments on NextDoor.com:

"My daughter said she’s having the same issue at Ridge View"

"Really? I heard about the crowded classes, but I figured since a lot of teachers are leaving the profession"

Parents: any similar stories?

Richland 2 - Same Problem as Loudoun County?

Check out this story about a Loudoun County (Va.) School Board member Beth Barts. There is a vicious fight going on between the school board and parents who oppose Critical Race Theory (CRT).

That crisis needs to come to Richland 2. 

The article is about comments allegedly posted by Barts to a social media group and then deleted when an investigation began.

But here's the part that brings Richland 2 school board to mind. Toward the end of the story is this sentence:

He (Ian Prior) pointed to a Virginia law that makes it illegal for a public official to “destroy any record… in his keeping and belonging to his office” under punishment of being “forever incapable of holding any office of honor, profit or trust under the Constitution of Virginia.”

Two members of the Richland 2 school board (actually one member and one usurper) use email addresses that are off the school district's server. Teresa Holmes (illegitimate board president) continues to use "docholmesschoolboard2@gmail.com" for her email address, and Trustee Monica (formerly, Elkins) Scott uses "puttingstudentsfirst2012@gmail.com"

Each should be required to use only a District email address for all official email communications. Why?

One of these days both Holmes and Scott will be former school board members. At that time, or even sooner, either could delete her gmail account or any message in it. It is under her control, not the school district's.

Why is this important? Official school district-related emails are to be a permanent record. They are subject to the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act. This means that, at any time - now or in the future - they might be needed for the District to respond to a FOIA Request.

If Holmes or Scott deleted her account or decided to delete certain messages in that account, the District would be unable to respond honestly to a request for public information.

I've raised this issue with the Board previously. The first time I raised it, I learned that the District may be relying on advice from the South Carolina School Boards Association that a school board member can use a private email account. Supposedly, that allowance was made for the smallest school districts in the state that couldn't afford their own email server. That certainly doesn't apply to Richland 2, which is one of wealthiest districts in the State.

Thereafter, my request fell on deaf ears. 

I shall request the Board once again to create a new Board Policy that requires all current and future board members to use only a District-based email account for all official communications. Will you join me by contacting board members and supporting this very simple request?

Former VP Pence on Biden and Afghanistan

Every high school student, college student, young adult and adult should read this Opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, published August 17, 2021.

Former Vice-President Mike Pence hits the nail on the head.

Read it here or copy/paste this link: 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-pence-biden-broke-our-deal-with-the-taliban-11629238764?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR35hI5F4vWVi_ohypPjrN3HxFRTZQQOBm3s5LOQ7FN6U0iV2eTrf66L504

This is what America got, when it elected Joe Biden as President.

Charleston SC Masks-in-Schools Hits National News

Check out this FoxNews article about the uproar in Charleston yesterday, when parents unloaded on the Charleston City Council about a mask mandate for schools.

Key words in the FoxNews article: "...all children over the age of 2 to wear masks at all public facilities, 'including public schools, private schools and daycares.'" 

Parents demand a say in issues that affect their children. Do you?

The YouTube video of the 8/17/2021 City Council meeting is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcXh3XepoWs  The meeting appears to have been 5 hours 32 minutes in length! Whew!!!

The City Council also declined to accept a 500+-page report from the city’s Special Commission on Equity, Inclusion and Racial Conciliation. 

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/charleston-city-council-meeting-on-school-mask-mandates-gets-heated

On Your Toes, Folks - What's Up with "Naming"

There's something up someone's sleeve for the August 24th Regular Board Meeting. Start paying attention now.

At the August 10th Regular Meeting the draft agenda was proposed. At 1:56:20 in the recording of the second (Length, 2:15:50) of the three recordings of the meeting, the superintendent read the draft agenda. The draft agenda is normally developed by the board chair and the superintendent at the end of the week preceding a meeting. What he read was what should have been agreed to at that planning meeting. 

The board chair then (1:57:59) stumbled over her words, trying to ask for a motion to approve the draft agenda. At that point the superintendent interrupted. He asked the board to consider adding to the draft agenda a review of Board Policy FF Naming New Facilities. The superintendent had had a discussion with Trustee Scott who had a suggestion, and he said her suggestion required a discussion.

That constitutes a change in the process. Trustee Scott should have proposed her suggestion for consideration by the chair and the superintendent when the two of them were creating the agenda for the August 24th Regular Meeting.

Otherwise, during Discussion after the Motion, Trustee Scott should have made a motion to amend the draft agenda. If her motion was seconded (although Robert's Rules of Order §49:21, 2)) says no second is necessary), there would have been discussion and she could have explained what was up her sleeve.

After the superintendent spoke, a Motion was still on the floor. However, Holmes ignored the motion that had been made and then asked for a motion to approve the draft agenda with the addition offered by the superintendent. He does not have the authority to make such an addition unilaterally.

McKie jumped right in line to move it forward, with the addition of "Dr. Davis' suggestion." It wasn't his suggestion; it was Trustee Scott's suggestion, offered by the superintendent. Trustee Caution-Parker, a faithful member of Team Holmes, seconded it.

There was no discussion, and the draft agenda, as amended, was approved 6-1.

Why didn't any board member ask Trustee Scott what was on her mind? Is there a new facility coming that will need a name? What is it? Since staff will have to know more information, so that it can come up with the wording of a proposed change to Board Policy FF before August 24, it would be nice for the public to know, too.

Read Board Policy FF Naming New Facilities. Somehow, I doubt the District will build a new mediations center and want to name it Philpott Arbitration and Mediation Center.

Blank Check to R2 attorney? Proviso 1.108

Last night the school board decided (6-1) to toss a problem in the lap of the attorney for the District, rather than making the decision they are elected to make.

The S.C. Dept. of Education issued Proviso 1.108. Richland 2 apparently doens't like it.

Trustee Agostini was correct last night to ask, when it was time for the board to vote on the executive session topic, just what the board was asking the attorney for. The board should have disclosed more to the public. It could have, but Teresa Holmes shut down Mrs. Agostini.

Holmes was wrong. More information could have been disclosed to the public about the nature of the request to the attorney. Just what is it that the board wants to know.

Perhaps Agostini should have made a Motion to more information, rather than asking a question. Then her motion would have needed action. Her motion would not have needed a second (Robert's Rules of Order §49:21, 2)) in order to move to Discussion.

Unfortunately, the board is composed of too many followers and too few free-thinking, independent members). They should be more curious about what is Right, instead of just going along with the crowd.

My guess is that the board doesn't like Proviso 1.108 and wants to oppose it. What is Proviso 1.108? Passed in June by the S.C. legislature, in summary it is: "No school district, or any of its schools, may use any funds appropriated or authorized pursuant to this act to require that its students and/or employees wear a facemask at any of its education facilities."

How much will the District spend to get the opinion from the attorney? Did they just write a blank check? Should the board have put a cap on legal fees, such as $10,000?