Here is the solution to the Proviso 1.108 problem

Soon the whining, blaming and gnashing of teeth over Proviso 1.108 will exceed the clamor over immigration, Afghanistan, Hurricane Ida, climate change, and all the other horrors of 2021.

So here's the solution. One of the lawyers mentioned it during the S.C. Supreme Court hearing.

The Supreme Court didn't tell the City of Columbia it can't mandate masks. It hit Columbia over the head and told it that State law is superior to Columbia (City) law.

If the Court rules the same way for Richland 2, a simple bookkeeping fix is all that is needed.

Decide that 1% of teachers' and administrators' time is used to announce and enforce masks. Then deal with the teachers' union (or collective bargaining or Red4Ed or whatever the group is) and tell them that their pay will be reduced 1% and then a separate check from a fund that does not contain State dollars this year will be issued for that 1%.

Re-program the computers and it's done.

Now fire the lawyers and get back to work.

S.C.S.C. shoots down City of Columbia

The South Carolina Supreme Court shot down the City of Columbia over Proviso 1.108. It made the right decision. At the beginning of the hearing, a justice said the case was not about masks, mandates or politics. It was about the Law.

Some reporters don't understand what the case was about.

The Court should announce its decision about Richland 2.

Richland 1 in court over Executive Session

FitsNews.com reported on September 1, 2021 that a Richland One parent is suing Richland School District One for, among other things, conducting a discussion in a closed meeting that should have been held in the open.

Richland One parent Flynn Bowie, Jr. has filed the suit. As of this morning, the case is not yet listed on the courts' Public Index. When it is, I'll report which court it is in.

Public bodies, such as school boards, can conduct certain discussions in private, secret Executive Sessions. Richland Two does this at almost every school board meeting. However, it is legal to discuss only certain topics as listed among Exclusions in the FOI Act of the State.

The only recourse a citizen has in South Carolina is to file a lawsuit, as Mr. Bowie has done.

In Illinois the Office of the Attorney General includes the Public Access Counselor (PAC). The PAC acts as a buffer zone between the public and a public body. I appealed often to the PAC, as did others. When a public body denied a FOIA request, it could be appealed to the PAC. The PAC would investigate. Often it sided with the citizen and directed the public body to reply more fully, or in full, to a FOIA request.

But if the public body still refusesd the PAC in Illinois had no teeth to sink into the public body. The further recourse of the person whose FOIA request was denied was to go to court. I knew a reporter who did just that. His attorney took the case pro bono, but with the condition she'd get paid if the lawsuit was successful. It was, and it cost the sheriff's department there $80,000 for being so bull-headed. 

South Carolina gives a citizen no such help from the Attorney General. If a parent or citizen is stiff-armed by a public body, the only recourse is court.

Which brings to me ... Richland 2.

Should Richland 2 be forced to reveal any decisions made on August 16, 2021 Executive Session about authorizing the superintendent to go ahead with a lawsuit without further discussion or authorization by the full school board?

Board Should Demand Answers

I believe that Mr. Manning's Motion on August 16 did not allow the superintendent to start a lawsuit. The board authorized seeking the "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".

That was on a Monday. On the following Friday a lawsuit was filed on behalf of Richland 2 in the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Questions that should be addressed to Supt. Davis in public on September 14, 2021:

Did you confer with the attorney for the school district, Kathryn Mahoney?

What was her advice re "best option and legal strategy"?

How did you select Carl Solomon?

How did you select Skyler Hutto?

How did you decide to include an Orangeburg parent in the lawsuit? 

How did you "vet" that parent?

How did you get the board's approval to start a lawsuit?

How did you decide on the parameters for the lawsuit without board input?

Do you understand that it is the board's prerogative, not yours, to initiate a lawsuit in the name of the District?

S.C.S.C. to decide

Did you watch the S.C. Supreme Court hearing that was held yesterday (August 31)?

If you missed it, watch it here. (If you don't like clicking on links, copy and paste this: https://media.sccourts.org/videos/2021-000892.mp4)

Richland 2 is trying to figure out how to dance around a mask mandate and not have it cost them State funds.

See this article in The State newspaper by reporter Lucas Daprile.

This is a case that never should have wasted the time of the five Justices of the State Supreme Court.

1. The Richland 2 school board never authorized the lawsuit.

2. The board told the superintendent to gather information. Manning's motion, approved 6-0, did not authorize him to start legal action.

3. Where did they get that Orangeburg mother to be part of the Richland 2 lawsuit?

4. Why did the superintendent get to pick Carl Solomon and Skyler Hutto to carry the flag for Richland 2?

5. Why wasn't the attorney for the school district, Kathryn Mahoney, involved?

6. Did the school board approve the choice of lawyers? (Hint: the answer is No.)

7. Why did Teresa Holmes issue a public statement to the media last Friday? 

8. Isn't the board supposed to authorize any statements before they are made to the public?

If the State Supreme Court rules against Richland 2, what's the next step? Or will there be a next step?

It is the school board that is supposed to be directing this District. It is the school board that authorizes legal action. The school board abdicates its fiduciary responsibility when it allows the superintendent to make decisions that it ought to be making.

The public should fill the meeting room at future board meetings. And don't just sit there? Stand up and speak out. Where are the parents of 28,000 students? When only four-to-six parents show up at a board meeting, isn't this an embarrassing failure of the parents who don't show up?

Remember how Teresa Holmes stiff-armed Lindsay Agostini on August 16, when she tried to find out more about Manning's Motion. Holmes was untruthful with Agostini and with the public when she said "they" (the board) could not discuss what was said in executive session. 

There is a parliamentary procedure (found in Robert's Rules of Order) that allows certain discussion. The board absolutely should have revealed any decision that would have allowed the superintendent to proceed with legal action, not just gather information for the board's later consideration. The decision to sue was absolutely a motion that should have been voted on in public session!

Or did the superintendent knowingly proceed with legal action without authorization from the board?

Solomon Reveals $80,000,000 in R2 bank account

Richland 2 taxpayers will be happy to learn that Richland School District Two has $80,000,000 just sitting around unused in a bank account. They can use it to pay teachers and administrators for the time it takes to admonish some little kiddo about not wearing his mask.

Attorney Carl Solomon revealed that during oral arguments on behalf of Richland 2 before the South Carolina Supreme Court. Did he try to lead the five justices to think that money was just sitting around, unneeded, undesignated, just waiting to be spent? Did he think, "Oh, they're just judges; they won't understand finances"?

Obviously, Richland 2 doesn't have an $80,000,000 slush fund. Or does it?

Where did the superintendent find Solomon? And Hutto? Why wasn't the attorney for the school district, Kathryn Mahoney, in on this lawsuit? How did the superintendent sign up Solomon and Hutto without the board's approval? The board got its money's worth with Hutto on the pro bono deal. I learned a long time ago that legal advice is what you pay for it.

Why did the superintendent even start the lawsuit without the board's specific approval?

Or did the board give him a wink and a nod in the executive session? If so, that's called "taking an action", which is prohibited in executive session.

And for that, every board member, including the two trustees-elect who have been allowed to act as board members, who approved Manning's Motion should be held accountable and tossed off the board. You'll remember that Trustee Agostini voted No on Manning's most-carefully crafted Motion. 

At the next board meeting the board should be quizzed in detail about that $80,000,000. Did Carl Solomon misrepresent that money in Richland 2's bank account?

I hope you didn't miss Solomon's statement to the five justices of the S.C. Supreme Court, when he said, "It ain't [sic] about the money." He wasn't using slang. As soon as he said it, he probably thought, "Oops!"

S.C. Supreme Court - LIVE

Watch the action in the S.C. Supreme Court LIVE today at www.scetv.org/live/supreme-court-south-carolina

First up was the case by the City of Columia. It started at 10:15AM.

You would think the courtroom would have been packed. There were only about eight in the courtoom, in addition to the attorneys.

The Court recessed at 11:05AM for a 15-minute break.

The Court should toss the case by Richland 2, because it was never authorized by the Board of Trustees. Read the Motion made by Trustee Manning. It does not mention filing a lawsuit. I wonder if the A.G. will ask for it to be dismissed.

But that didn't happen. Maybe getting the case tossed is something that was motioned before the hearing?

EDITED:

The Richland 2 case got started at about 11:20AM. Attorney Solomon kicked things off for Richland 2. He and Attorney Hutto split their 20 minutes. It was nap-time right after Hutto started. Was that his first show before the S.C. Supreme Court? Why in the world did Supt. Davis pick him?

It was interesting to observe the five S.C. Supreme Court justices. They had great questions.

And they gave me some great ideas for a possible upcoming case.