Sue Richland 2 Board over the lawsuit?

Should the Richland 2 School Board be sued over the lawsuit filed in the S.C. Supreme Court?

The Board never authoirzed the lawsuit in open session by a board vote - in public.

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." 

Read that carefully. Nowhere does it authorize "the District" (meaning, the superintendent") to commence legal action. It authorizes the superintendent to learn the "best option and legal strategy" which, of course, might be not to do anything.

Did the Board, in Executive Session on August 16th, actually give the superintendent the green light to go ahead?

That is, did the Board make a decision to allow the superintendent to proceed? State law does not permit decisions in executive session. Decisions can only be made in public, by vote.

If not (and they should not have done so), did the superintendent act on his own?

If he did, that ought to have a bearing on his evaluation and his revised contract.

So, sue the Board or not?

The State's editorial board is wrong! No "shenanigans"

 At 8:58AM today (9/17/21) The State's editorial board published a follow-up article and used the word "shenanigans" in the headline of its online paper. The State's board is wrong. 

There were NO shenanigans, contrary to the board chair's use of talso he word. Or, if there were, they were pulled by the board's chair and vice-chair. 

Manning supposedly explained "The board’s designee, the superintendent and their respective legal counsel have input and come up with a contract that is then taken to the board." 

What he should have said is "proposed revised contract".

The FACT is that the board never designated a board member to represent the board in negotiations. Did anyone ever hear the board vote on that in public? I didn't. So, an unauthorized representative of the board met with the supt. and counsels of each and played "Let's Make a Deal". Those are the "shenanigans".

Since the chair can call a Special Meeting and the superintendent and the board chair set the agenda for the Special-Calling Board Meeting on September 22, the superintendent is trying to get his way with the end-run at last week's abortion of a meeting. He forgets that he works at Richland 2. He doesn't run Richland 2. He follows directives.

Yet you'd think that he owns Richland 2. And maybe he does, since "the four" (a/k/a (to me) "The Squad" (and that does include McKie, although she'd like to deny it)) fall all over themselves to give him anything he wants. Now he wants more money. 

And exactly why should he get it? Oh, you say, he might leave and go somewhere else. Well, fine; let him. Richland 2 should not be held hostage!

As of 9:48AM today the District has not updated its website to disclose the Special-Called Meeting on September 22. Yesterday that meeting was posted on ww.livestream.com/richland 2, where video space is reserved. No agenda has yet been published. But, if you remember from Tuesday night, the superintendent asked for a Special-Called Meeting with the only item as his contract. 

Some gall, eh? He didn't even wait for one of his worshippers to suggest it.

There is no need for a Special-Called Meeting on September 22. Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden should stay away.

The superintendent's desire for more money (and perks?) can wait until the next Regular Meeting on September 28. Approval is guaranteed, if there is a quorum. There is no doubt whatsoever that Holmes, Manning, McKie and Caution-Parker will just sign a blank check. No need to even discuss the revised contract.

Special-Called Board Meeting 9/22/21 - (No) surprise

Remember that song, "Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets?" It's from the 1958 movie, Damn Yankees.

Well, Whatever Baron wants, Baron gets. Or does he?

Richland 2 has called a Special Meeting for September 22, 2021 at 5:00PM. It's not on the District's website yet, but it is scheduled on www.livestream.com/richland2

Who calls Special Meetings? The chair (that's with a small -c-). Who plans the agenda? That would be the chair and the superintendent.

Now just exactly what is the rush for the superintendent to dip further into the Richland 2 money pot?

I wonder whether Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden might just happen to have other commitments for that afternoon.

This is an absurd disregard for the time commitment of trustees. Why should they interrupt their lives for something that could just as easily be handled on September 28?

If the superintendent had any respect for the seven board members, he would just ask them to put it on the agenda for September 28.

The State's Editorial about 9/14 board meeting

Be sure to read the editorial published by The State newspaper late this afternoon. Read it here.

The editorial board got it right.

I'm happy to see that support for Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden.

Who authorized Holmes, Manning to negotiate with supt?

Who authorized Holmes and Manning to begin re-negotiating Supt. Davis' employment contract and compensation?

Before any board members run off half-cocked and do something on behalf of the board, they are to be authorized to do so. This means there should have been an item on the agenda of a previous board meeting to begin such negotiations.

After a motion, second, discussion and approval by the majority (guaranteed because of the cabal of "the Four"), only then should Holmes and Manning have entered into negotiations with the District's attorney and the superintendent's attorney. And a better choice would have been Holmes OR Manning, paired with one of Agostini, Scott or McFadden.

The deck shouldn't have been stacked in favor of the supt.

Was General Counsel Karla McLawhorn Hawkins used as the District's lawyer? If so, then the superintendent had two attorneys in the room on his own side. Hawkins works for Davis. 

Full disclosure to the public will include the names of the attorneys. On both sides.

Worse than I first thought

I just listened to the re-play of the September 14, 2021 board meeting. It was worse than I thought.

Listen to it. Go to www.livestream.com/richland2 and select the September 14, 2021 meeting. Advance to 13:45 on the timer for the beginning of the meeting at 5:30PM. The board then goes into executive session, which is not broadcast. Advance to 1:14:08, where the public meeting re-convenes.

Skip the first part and advance to 1:16:54 for the fireworks. This is the point where approval of the agenda for the tonight's meeting begins. This is where the meeting begins to disintegrate.

I could analyze for you all the mistakes that were made. The responsibility for the disaster rests squarely on Teresa Holmes' shoulders. If she knew parliamentary procedure, the entire fiasco would have been avoided. And the meeting would have been much shorter. If you want the analysis, let me know. I have detailed notes from the video-recording.

Look particularly at the deer-in-the-headlights expression on Holmes' face after Trustee Agostini makes her secondary motion to remove the superintendent's contract from the agenda. Holmes was lost. She didn't know what to do. 

When Holmes asked the new General Counsel (employee of the District) whether Agostini's motion was germane, the staffer's answer could not be heard. Holmes should have asked Karla Hawkins to step to a microphone. Holmes then asked, "It could go either way?" Apparently, Hawkins indicated yes.

Then Holmes struggled with wording to shoot down Agostini's motion. Holmes asked the attorney if it is in her purview to make a decision about whether Agostini's motion was germane. That was not the original question of the attorney. Of course, Agostini's motion was germane. Holmes didn't want it to be, and she struggled to find a way to boot it.

Holmes made a huge error by not recognizing Trustee McFadden, after Agostini and Scott left the meeting. Holmes said, "Just a minute, Ms. McFadden. I'm sure you are going to join the rest." Meaning to leave the meeting. And then Holmes called on Manning to speak. Again, Holmes demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of parliamentary procedure.

McFadden did speak. She was clear, concise and powerful. Then, while the camera was on McKie, McFadden walked out.

Right then is where the meeting should have adjourned!

It would be in the best interest of Richland Two to remove Holmes from the position of Board Chair and to elect a board member who knows parliamentary procedure. 

Question of the Day: widow or widower

How is a woman whose husband died referred to?

A. Widow

B. Widower

(There is a reason for asking.) Watch for a follow-up article. Put your answer in a Comment below or, for privacy, email it to gusphilpott@gmail.com  Your name or email address will never be made public.

How can you be sure of confidentiality?

I wrote a blog in Illinois, frequently sinking my teeth into the county sheriff's department. The sheriff had his attorney subpoena 27 months' worth of records for my blog, trying to find out where the leaks were. I filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena pro se in Federal Court, and the Magistrate granted my motion, telling the sheriff's attorney she was just on a "fishing expedition" (his words) to uncover the names of deputies who were leaking the dirt to me.

The subpoena was part of a former deputy's wrongful termination lawsuit. I knew I would not reveal my sources, even at the risk of jail time for contempt of court. Fortunately, it never got to that.