R2 Board - ignorant of voting procedures

As I arrived tonight, a screenshot remained on display of the vote to enter executive session. Can you spot what's wrong?

The Richland 2 school board counts seven trustees, including the two trustees-elect who are illegitimately allowed to serve on the board.

Notice that there are only six names. Who's missing? Holmes. (Manning explained her absense when the regular session re-convened.)

Notice how the vote is recorded: 6 Yes; 0 No; 0 Abstain; 0 Not Present at Vote. Total = 6

That's six; not seven. How is the seventh board member accounted for? She is not. And she should be. 

Why isn't any board member paying attention? Why isn't the superintendent paying attention? Why isn't any staff member speaking up? (Well, the answer to that is obvious. Keeping silent is called Job Security.)

The correct vote is 6 Yes; 0 No; 0 Abstain; 1 Not Present at Vote.  Total = 7.

You Can't Make This (fill-in-the-blank) Up!

Tonight's public session of the Richland 2 school board meeting was due to re-convene at 6:30PM. I arrived at R2i2 about 5:50PM and the guard at the door asked politely if I would be speaking tonight and then directed me toward the sign-up table. After visiting briefly with the three RCSD deputies, I thanked them for being there to protect me from the board members. Then I headed over to the sign-up table.

The sign-up sheets had already been collected for the board, even though they were in executive session. The R2 staff person explained that sign-up time ended at 5:45PM. WHY SHOULD THE PUBLIC HAVE TO SIGN UP MORE THAN 45 MINUTES BEFORE THE START OF THE MEETING?

I was polite to the staff person. She's not the one who makes stupid rules. She apologized more than once that I couldn't sign up, and I finally suggested she didn't need to continue apologizing, It wasn't her fault.

I had looked at the district's homepage for the sign-up times. It seems to me the times used to be in the middle of the paragraph. When I didn't see them, I failed to read to the end. Then I learned that four people had arrived and had signed in, and I went to join them.

One of the women very kindly offered to yield her time to me. I didn't want to accept it, because she had planned to speak.

When the Public Participation portion began, that woman was the second speaker. She stated that she wished to yield her time to me.  (1:25:30)

Vice Chair Manning was running the meeting tonight, and I couldn't hear whatever flimsy excuse he made, but I could tell that it amounted to "No". 

NUMBER ONE - Having to arrive more than 45 minutes before the beginning of the meeting is flat stupid! Who is the idiot in the school district who came up with that plan? Did not anyone on the staff say, "Wait just a damned minute! Why should someone have to show up 50 minutes before the start of the meeting to sign up to speak?" Of course, all staff know they'd better not say anything about being helpful to the public! 

NUMBER TWO - Why shouldn't someone be able to yield their time? Manning just made up a new "Policy" on the spot.

NUMBER THREE - If six people sign up to speak, #6 is going to have to wait until the second Public Participation segment. That could be 2-2½ hours after the first segment. Why doesn't the board hear all public speakers for 30 minutes and give more consideration to the public???

The board meeting has concluded and now I'm able to play the recording and hear why Manning denied the second speaker's request to yield her time to me.

Listen to Manning's excuse to Speaker #2, as he denied her request to yield her time. (1:25:30) Manning said, "We're not allowing time to be transferred." The second speaker objected. Manning said, "That's the policy I'm putting in place. We're not doing that right now."

So where did Manning get the authority to create a new Policy on-the-spot? And why didn't any board member object and call "Point of Order". If I hadn't been the one who was waiting to speak, would Manning have allowed the speaker to yield her time? What would the board have lost by allowing that?

Manning was wrong to arbitrarily put a new policy is place. Did he infringe on my right to speak, since speaker #2 was yielding to me? Does this become a Constitutional issue?

Open Letter to the School Board re S.C.S.C. Lawsuit

The following has been sent by email to the five legal members of the Richland 2 School Board and the two trustees-elect.

Good morning, Board Members and trustees-elect Holmes and McKie,

Please review Mr. Manning's motion on Monday evening, August 16.

This was his motion:  "I make a motion that the board authorizes the District to engage legal counsel to provide best option and legal strategy to address Appropriations Budget Proviso 1.108, including consulting with Richland County Council with regards [sic] to protecting the health, safety and well-being of our students and employees." 

When you voted last Monday night, did you intend for the superintendent to gather information (only) and bring it back to you?

Or did you know or expect that he would proceed with legal action - without further authorization of the Board?

Please amend the agenda for tomorrow night's meeting to include discussion and action to direct the attorney for the school district to withdraw the case from the S.C. Supreme Court.

Each of you has an individual and distinct fiduciary responsibility and obligation. You must cast aside friendships and carry out your duty.

The superintendent was wrong, and the acting board chair was not truthful in her public statement on behalf of the District Friday afternoon.

Holmes and McKie will be addressed as "trustees-elect" until they take the oath of office legally and become legitimate members of the school board. They have been usurping public office since November 13, 2018.

Sincerely,

Gus Philpott

www.Richland2.info 

847.971.7083

Richland 2 Lies to the Public

Click on www.Richland2.org and read the bald-faced lie about Friday's filing in the South Carolina Supreme Court.

A screen-print of the beginning of the article on the homepage of the District's website is below. I suspect they will quickly change it, when they realize the public isn't buying it.

The lies start with the very first sentence of Teresa Holmes' attempt to sell the filing of the case in the S.C. Supreme Court to the public.

- No "great sense of urgency" was ever expressed at the August 16th Special-Called Board Meeting.

- The Board did not authorize anything to be "put into action".

- No "desire" of Richland 2 to seek legal relief was discussed or approved by the Board in public.

- "truly nothing more important" may be her opinion (only)

- Holmes is not even a legitimate leader in the District. While she was elected on November 6, 2018, she has never taken the oath of office legally. She should not be sitting on the board, and she should not be board chair.

- Holmes violated Board Policy BBAA Board Member Authority and Responsibilities. ¶2 "Board members acting as individuals have no authority over personnel or school affairs except when such authority is specifically delegated to a member by the board."

- Did the Board ever specify the Solomon Law Group or Williams and Williams for legal work?

- What kind of deal was made that they would provide services pro bono?

At the Regular Board Meeting on August 24, the Board should vote to withdraw the case from the S.C. Supreme Court, and the Board should censure Holmes and the superintendent.

Next School Board Election - Nov. 2022

The next Richland 2 school board election will be November 1, 2022. NOW is the time to start thinking about candidates.

Whose terms are up? Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker, Manning.

Whose terms run to November 2024? Agostini, Scott (Elkins), McFadden.

Imagine a school board without Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker and Manning. Imagine a school board of leaders. Leaders, LEADERS. With intellect. With wisdom. With business experience. With integrity.

Manning had done a pretty good job until recently. Now he seems to be rolling right along with The Squad.

Holmes and McKie aren't even legitimate members of the school board. They were elected on November 6, 2018 and became eligible to take the oath of office on December 4, 2018. They have never taken the oath after becoming eligible to take it. The S.C. Supreme Court should kick them out as usurpers and forbid their holding public office in the future.

McKie shouldn't hold office until she pays off her $57,000 debt to the S.C. Ethics Commission.

Today we are seeing the "Holmes' Rules of Order" for running the school board. Or perhaps Rules of Disorder. Last Monday night's (August 16, 2021) crass shutdown by Holmes of Agostini's legitimate question about informing the public about a legal opinion to be sought was a clear example of "Holmes' Rules".

Mrs. Agostini is strong. She can take the disrespect that Holmes' dishes out. And she is professional enough not to argue, although in many cases she should. No one else will stand up to Holmes when she is wrong. And Holmes is often wrong. That's Wrong, with a capital W.

With the current make-up of the board, Agostini will lose the argument every time. She knows that Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker and Manning will vote against her. Sometimes, Scott and McFadden will, too.

In November 2022 taxpayers should elect strong, independent-thinking, business-oriented, competent candidates to the next Board. Board members have a fiduciary responsibility, and the current majority on the board is acting too much like the Congress in Washington.

Fight in stands delays 1st game in new stadium

Last night's opening game in the new Ridge View High School football stadium was marred by up to three fights in the stands.

Richland 2 built a new multi-million dollar stadium and punks spoil it for all? What the heck?

Let's hope that Richland 2 is completely transparent about who was involved and who was responsible for the fights. Were they Ridge View students or Westwood? Prosecution should be demanded, and instigators and aggessors should be kicked out of school, if they are Richland 2 students. 

Let's have some clear pictures of the punks. How did those security camera work out? Did they capture everything and everybody?

If it happens again, the stadium should be closed and sit empty for a year.

The Trustees and the Administration need to put their feet down hard and say, "No more!!!"

And what's up with everybody running away? Why didn't those around swarm the miscreants and pound them to the ground and hold them for the deputies?

Who Will Challenge Supreme Court filing?

Who will challenge the case about Proviso 1.108 that has been filed in the S.C. Supreme Court on behalf of Richland 2?

The Board did not authorize that legal action. Who grabbed the ball and ran? Who will admit to the Board at the Regular Meeting on August 24 that he authorized the filing without Board approval?

Who searched diligently and found the law firms of Solomon Law Group and Williams and Williams? Did the attorney for the school board say, "Here are two personal-injury law firms who will do it for free?" 

Why would you give that type of legal work to law firms whose websites reflect no experience in school board matters? (There is a precedent for that.)

Which board members will be outraged on Tuesday night? 

Will Manning? Scott? McFadden? Agostini? Holmes? McKie? Caution-Parker?

I guess I ought to leave Holmes and McKie out of that question, since they are not legitimate board members.