Is this a motion?

When a school board member says, "I would like to make a motion that ...", is that a motion?

It is not. 

The board member is expressing her desire to make a motion. That doesn't not call for a Second. No action can be taken by the board on a member's expression of a desire for something. Are they going to vote on allowing the member to make a motion?

What should the Chair say? "Thank you. Will you make the motion?"

The board member should say: "I move that ...[announcing what he proposes in a wording intended to become the assembly's official statement of the action taken]." Robert's Rules of Order §4:4.

Far too much time is wasted by the Board when voting on student matters and district personnel matters. There are long lapses while the staffer types up the Motion. The Chair should tell the superintendent to place someone with high, accurate typing speed at the keyboard for typing motions.

This board desperately needs parliamentary training. And it needs an independent Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian must be independent and not an employee. Correcting the Chair and the superintendent often would not be good for employment security.

Board Chair Wrong to Deny Agostini Request

Remember at the Special-Called board meeting of August 16 when Trustee Agostini asked for more information about Manning's motion to get legal advice about Proviso 1.108?

If you don't remember or missed it, listen to the recording of the August 16, 2021 meeting. Re-read my article about the rude manner in which Teresa Holmes shut down Mrs. Agostini. Holmes said they (the board) couldn't talk about what had been discussed in executive meeting.

I understand that Holmes didn't want to allow discussion, but she was wrong when she claimed that the board "could not" discuss it.

Robert's Rules of Order addresses this at §9:26 Rules Relating to the Secrecy of an Executive Session. This Section reads, in part, "The general rule is that anything that occurs in executive session may not be divulged to nonmembers (except any entitled to attend). However, action taken, as distinct from that which was said in debate, may be divulged to the extend - and only to the extent - necessary to carry it out. ... If the assembly wishes to further lift the secrecy of action taken in an executive session, it may adopt a motion to do so, which is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted ..."

The superintendent must have been authorized in the Executive Session to file the lawsuit in the S.C. Supreme Court. There had to be discussion about moving ahead. I cannot imagine that the superintendent would have stuck his neck out so far and filed the lawsuit without the permission, approval and authorization of the board. And THAT is what should have been divulged when Mrs. Agostini asked for more information for the public.

Important News Article not on The State.com

Is it "convenient" that The State newspaper has not published its August 25th article about Richland Two's lawsuit on TheState.com and only (so far) in the print edition?

It's the article about opposition to Richland Two's lawsuit in the S.C. Supreme Court over masking. The article by John Monk was only considered important enough for Page 34 in Section 1. 

The article is about a response to the lawsuit by State Senator Harvey Peeler (R-Cherokee) and State Representative (and House Speaker) Jay Lucas (R-Darlington).

Did you know the lawsuit was filed by Richland Two and a parent? Funny how Richland Two's announcements have not mentioned the parent. 

Remember Richland Two's lawsuit next time you get stopped for speeding. Just tell the trooper that your tax dollars pay for the highways and that speed limits are unconstitutional, so he can't give you a ticket. Let us know how that works out for you.

I also learned something good from Monk's article. He wrote, "Ordinarily, it can take years for the (South Carolina)  Supreme Court to hear appeals and issue opinions. But in matters of high public opinion, especially involving the interpretation of a state law, the court can take up a case directly.

This is reflected in the State law about usurping of public office. Teresa Holmes and Amelia McKie might want to sit up and pay attention to this. The Justices of the S.C. Supreme Court might need to hear answers from them to only three questions to decide that they have been usurping public office since November 13, 2018.

SECTION 15-63-60. Action against usurpers, for forfeiture of office or against persons acting as corporation.

An action may be brought by the Attorney General in the name of the State upon his own information or upon the complaint of any private party or by a private party interested on leave granted by a circuit judge against the parties offending in the following cases:

(1) When any person shall usurp, intrude into, or unlawfully hold or exercise any public office, civil or military, or any franchise within this State or any office in a corporation, created by the authority of this State;

Regarding this State law 

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.

What are those questions?

Q 1. On what date did you take the oath of office? A. November 13, 2018

Q 2. On what date did you file your Statement of Economic Interests? A. December 4, 2018

Q 3. Had you filed your Statement of Economic Interests before you took the oath of office? A. No

Decision: You are guilty of usurping public office. You are hereby removed from office. You are fined $2,000. You shall pay back all monies received for school board member services and for expenses paid for your benefit.

What I Would Have Said

I intended to address the school board tonight. Manning created a new Policy on-the-spot to deny a speaker who wished to yield her three minutes to me.

The following are my prepared remarks for tonight's meeting.

Members of the Board and trustees-elect Holmes and McKie,

My name is Gus Philpott.

At the August 16^th Special-Called Board meeting, Trustee Manning made this 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." 

As worded, the Motion did not authorize the superintendent to begin legal action. It directed him to get legal advice. He should have brought the best option and legal strategy back to the board for consideration and action. Unless …..  UNLESS … there was a backroom deal in executive session, undisclosed to the public, that it was the board’s intention for the superintendent to proceed with a lawsuit.

Was there?

Is that what the Chair refused to talk about last Monday? Is that why the board chair stiff-armed Trustee Agostini when she asked for clarification? Had the board already given the superintendent the green light to trot off to court? State law forbids decisions in Executive Session.

Was either of the two personal-injury law firms that filed the case last Friday primed and ready to file? How did the superintendent learn the best option and legal strategy and confer with the Richland County Council so quickly? Did he engage the existing legal counsel for the District at all? He covered an amazing amount of ground in just three days.

Carl Solomon handles Wrongful Death, Tractor Trailer Collisions, Personal Injury, Civil Litigation, Products Liability, and Medical Malpractice matters.

Skyler Hutto is a part-time public defender and his legal work includes Civil Litigation, Contract Disputes, Criminal Defense, DUI Defense, Automobile Accidents, Traffic Violations, and General Litigation.

The website of neither firm contains any reference to experience, skill or expertise in handling school business.

How did a case get filed in the Supreme Court without Motion, Second, discussion and vote of this board – in public?

I urge you to direct Attorneys Solomon and Hutto to withdraw the filing. Explain to them that the superintendent was not authorized to engage them to file.

The board chair issued a public statement on Friday that was not completely truthful. The chair should be sanctioned by the board for violating Board Policy BBAA.

Replace McKie as organizer of inspirational moment

Did anyone at tonight's meeting have any hearing left after the inspiration moment?

First of all, Amelia McKie, dutifully wearing her mask, mumbled into her microphone in a soft voice that was not amplified adequately in the meeting room. She introduced someone, as students waited with band instruments to enter.

And enter they did. The first to enter carried cymbals. And then came drummers. How many? I counted them: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7. SEVEN. Oh-oh. 

Within a minute I decided not to risk what's left of my hearing and I walked out to the atrium. Even out there, it was LOUD. Apparently, I was the only one seriously concerned about hearing loss. Maybe everyone else was just too polite to walk out. How many sat there and thought, "I am going to lose my hearing!"

Why in the world would McKie ever invite a percussion group into a small board room? And it wasn't for just the inspirational "moment". It went on for 5-6 minutes.

I was in the atrium and thought about asking the two deputies to go in and rescue people!

McKie won't be replaced. She is a full-fledged member of Team Holmes and The Squad. And not even a legitimate board member.

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?