Watch Holmes Disrespect McFadden

This story is about the September 14, 2021 Regular Board Meeting. View it at www.livestream.com/richland2

As I looked this morning for the superintendent's request on September 14th for a special-called board meeting consider the proposed revised contact, I happened to watch again the portion of the Sept. 14th meeting when Trustee Scott left the meeting, followed by Trustee Agostini.

At 1:23:40 Holmes erroneously ruled that Agostini's secondary motion is not germane to McKie's motion to approve that night's agenda. Wow! Nothing could have been more germane than Agostini's motion!

At 1:23:57 Trustee Scott expresses her displeasure with what is happening and leaves the meeting. She mentions "giving Dr. Davis a raise", which reveals to the public what was discussed in executive session and provides important insight into her solid reasoning about not participating further in the meeting.

At 1:25:54 Trustee Agostini asks to be recognized. She states that she is in agreement with Dr. Elkins-Scott and that she will be leaving the meeting.

At 1:26:32 Trustee McFadeen asks to be recognized.

NOW, HERE IS THE INSULT ISSUED BY THE CHAIR:

Holmes says, "Just a second, Ms. McFadden. I'm sure you are going to join the rest."

A board member should have immediately jumped on Holmes about that. But, other than Mrs. McFadden, who was left? Only "The Four" - Holmes, Manning, McKie and Caution-Parker. Since Holmes was not going to object to her disrespectful, snide, unprofessional, snarky words, that left Manning, McKie and Caution-Parker, and not one of them could be counted on to step up and demand an apology to Mrs. McFadden.

Holmes then asks Manning to speak. Wrong! McFadden was next in line.

Mrs. McFadden continues to ask to be recognized. Watch Queen Holmes continue to shut her down. That was out-of-order. Holmes correct choice would have been to recognize McFadden, but she knew what was coming. An end to the meeting, because there would no longer be a quorum.

At 1:29:39 Mrs. McFadden is finally recognized. She states her objections about short timing. She refers to a list of what the superintendent wanted in his new contract. It wasn't provided to her. Holmes interrupts McFadden with mumbling. 

Holmes again improperly interrupted McFadden, after she said, "We already know we got four that's going to vote for it (the contract)." Holmes argued with McFadden, while she had the floor. Holmes had not authority to interrupt, argue and challenge McFadden. Holmes didn't like what McFadden was saying and attempted to shut her down. It didn't work. Listen to McFadden's strong remarks. Firm, polite, straight-forward.

If Holmes had not spoken to McFadden as she did, if she had not argued with her and treated her like a child, McFadden probably would have stayed in the meeting. Then finally McKie's motion to approve the agenda would have been voted on, and the vote would have been 4-1; that is, 4 Yea, 1 Nay, 0 Abstain, 2 Not Present at Vote.

At 1:33:22 McKie was recognized. Watch McKie's sad refrain when she tries to get herself out of the "they" group. McKie is squarely in line with "The Four", what I call "the cabal" or "The Squad". Squarely! 

Then Manning responded to McFadden's remarks about the Proviso. His comments were out-of-order; they were not germane to the motion. He should have been interrupted, but Holmes does not know enough about parliamentary procedures to know when and how to cut off unrelated remarks.

While McKie is rambling away or Manning is speaking, McFadden packs up and leaves.

But with McFadden's departure, there was no longer a quorum.

Still, it took another 15 minutes until the meeting was adjourned at 1:49:05.

Holmes rambled on in a Point of Privilege.

Oh, yes, when did the superintendent ask for a special-called meeting, so he could get his raise?

At 1:39:28 the superintendent informed Holmes that there was no quorum and they would have to adjourn. 

In a boring, low-toned monotone, he explained the board policy about adjourning when no quorum, and he continued right on with "It would be the recommendation of the superintendent for the board chair to consider a special-called board meeting with only the superintendent's contract on that board meeting..."

CAN YOU BELIEVE HIS GALL IN PROMOTING HIMSELF THAT WAY IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC?

Remember how "they" say it's all for the children? Seriously? His raise is more important than the health and safety of the children?

Open Message to the Board re Sept. 22 Meeting

The following e-mail has been sent to the board today.

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

I urge you to cancel the Sept. 22 Special-Called board meeting and place the superintendent's contract  discussion and decision on the agenda of the Regular Meeting for September 28.

Since it is the public that pays the superintendent's compensation, please allow the public's input through Public Participation, not just individual emails and telephone calls that don't get compiled and publicized.

You can avoid the illusion of subterfuge, collusion and conspiracy by conducting the business of the School Board with complete transparency and by answering fully to the public on September 28.

If the Sept. 22 meeting is not canceled, I urge Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden not to attend the meeting, resulting in no quorum.

If the Sept. 22 meeting is held, the legal members of the board (Agostini, Scott, McFadden, Manning, Caution-Parker) will constitute a quorum. Holmes and McKie are not legitimate members of the board and should not be present or voting.

A legal vote by the five legal members of the board might look like this:

Motion to approve the superintendent's revised contract:

Yea: Caution-Parker, Manning

Nay: Agostini, Scott, McFadden

Result: 2-3. Motion fails

I request a trustee at the Sept. 28 meeting to make a motion to allow the board to respond to public comments and questions at that meeting.

Sincerely,

Gus Philpott

No Raise for the Superintendent!

I can think of one good reason not to approve a raise for the superintendent.

When he sat in the August 16 Special-Called Board Meeting and witnessed the discussion about a motion that Manning was going to make to seek legal advice, but had heard the legal advice given during the meeting and knew there was an understanding that he could proceed with legal action (lawsuit) if Manning's motion passed, he should have informed the board that they were wrong to handle it that way.

Wasn't he worried that it might backfire on him? Just as it has?

The superintendent is an employee of THE DISTRICT. He doesn't work for Holmes, Manning, Caution-Parker and McKie. 

The superintendent must know the rules for executive sessions and what can take place therein. He would have had to know that what they were doing was wrong. Very wrong.

Even though his employment seems shockproof (it takes five to fire him), it's not. As superintendent, he has a fiduciary duty to The District, his employer. 

Will "the Four" (the cabal; The Squad) have the integrity to acknowledge their error and discipline the superintendent for his complicity by not further considering any changes in his employment contract at this time? And how should they discipline, criticize, punish, sanction themselves? They knew better, too.

I'm really struggling with using the word "integrity" in the same sentence as "the Four". But I'll leave it there as a lofty goal. 

Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden absolutely clear the high bar, when it comes to Integrity. 

There's a song running through my mind now. I wonder why. 

Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq7pxUgjLz0

Open Letter to Reporter at The State

The following email is being sent to reporter Lucas Daprile at The State newspaper today:

I was interested in your yesterday's (9/17/21) article (headline: Voting discrepancy surfaces...) and your statement that "Concern about the August vote did not surface until after this week's meeting, more than three weeks after the suit was filed on Aug. 20."

On August 20th, when the lawsuit was filed, I first wrote about the discrepancy on my blog at www.Richland2.info  

See https://richland2sd.blogspot.com/2021/08/update-to-sc-supreme-court-filing.html

And I've written about it many times since.

Maybe I should join the S.C. Press Assn. so I could solicit and publish Jay Bender's opinions. 

The R2 superintendent had to get a green light in the executive session on August 16. I never believed that he would proceed without knowing the majority of the board was behind him. 

Manning's public motion was misleading to the minority of the board and the public. It was subterfuge and deception. When Holmes made her press statement on August 20, I realized something was up. As you revealed in your story, the District acknowledges that the board got legal advice during the executive session; so they didn’t need to “get” it after Manning’s motion.

With Manning's admission on Sept. 14 to many phone calls to board members about the proposed revised contract of the superintendent, I wonder how many phone calls there were between the majority component of the board (Holmes, Manning, Caution-Parker, McKie) to "agree to agree" in the executive session about what Manning's motion during the Regular Meeting on Aug. 16 would really mean. 

State law is clear about executive sessions. No decisions are to be made. No votes are to be taken. And they can't "agree to agree". That's a prohibited decision.

Because the lawsuit was never legally authorized by the board in public session, it should have been withdrawn. In fact, I telephoned the Defendants to suggest that they motion for dismissal on that point.

"The four", as Trustee McFadden correctly called them, should be greatly concerned about being named in a lawsuit for violating the S.C. Freedom of Information Act. The three trustees forming the minority (Agostini, Scott, McFadden) could do that. And they ought to, since two of them voted for Manning's Motion.

Had Holmes allowed the discussion on Aug. 16 that Trustee Agostini wanted, that behind-the-scenes decision would have been revealed. Agostini was traveling and had not phoned into the executive session. Holmes reconvened the public meeting and "forgot" that Agostini had said she wanted to rejoin the meeting by phone. Trustee McFadden reminded Holmes. By prohibiting Agostini's requested discussion, Holmes kept the secret decision out of public view - for the time-being.

R2 Supt's 2019 raise was 12.3%

On the agenda for Wednesday (Sept. 22) afternoon's Special-Called Board Meeting at 5:00PM is a raise for Supt. Davis. 

Why? 

And why on Wednesday, instead of at the next Regular Meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 28? 

And why at 5:00PM, when many parents are just leaving work? 

And why at a Special-Called Meeting where, traditionally, public participation is not scheduled (or allowed)?

In March the superintendent disclosed his earnings on the required public Statement of Economic Interests Report due at the South Carolina Ethics Commission. What's on it?

Personal Income:

Salary $223,882.97

Automobile Allowance $18,000

Insurance Policy Benefit $760.00 (A)

Salary, Neo Genesis Group (amount not disclosed)

Salary, University of the Cumberlands (amount not disclosed)

Salary, University of South Carolina $14,000

Speaking Engagement, ERDI (B) 9/14/2020 $500

Speaking Engagement, Francis Marion University 6/24/2020 $850

Family Income:

Richland Two, Salary $78,113

(A) The specifics are not reported. Commonly, when an employee reports taxable income in that category, it represents the economic benefit to the employee of premiums paid by the employer for a life insurance policy insuring that employee and payable to a beneficiary named by the insured employee. In other words, a perk of personal life insurance in a significant amount. It's not necessary that premium amount, but rather the "economic benefit" of the premiums paid.

(B) ERDI is the Education Research & Development Institute. From www.erdius.org "ERDI is the premier provider of unique research and development opportunities for companies who are designing products and services to support PK-12." 

Does Richland 2 buy any of those products and services?

So, Davis' yearly Richland 2 income is $241,882.97 plus his salaries from U of S.C., the U of the Cumberlands, and the Neo Genesis Group, plus his speaking fees, (Total $257,992.97+) plus the Family Income from Richland 2 of $78,113. Total family income of $336,105.97+.

I'm sure we can all sympathize with the financial struggles in the Davis family to get along during a pandemic year on that piddling amount.

Is this why "the four" are in such a rush to give him a raise?

How much of his Richland 2 time, if any, is carved out for his employment with the Neo Genesis Group, the University of the Cumberlands, the University of South Carolina, and speaking engagements?

Maybe the revised Contract should read, "Employee is to commit his working time solely to Richland School District Two and will not participate in outside ventures or receive earned income from other sources."

Must-read Article in TheState.com

Reporter Lucas Daprile dug deeply into the Richland 2 school board's meeting where Trustee Manning moved to get legal advice on Proviso 1.108. Read the article here.

Only it turns out that the board GOT the legal information during that executive session.

The purpose of the Motion by Manning was to give the superintendent the green light to file the lawsuit.

Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden got snookered. Read the article.

Libby Roof provided a statement (the article doesn't say to whom). The article states, "This vote by the board was taken following an executive session during which the board received legal advice regarding the best option and legal strategy to address (the one-year mask law). The discussion included a clear description of what actions would be taken by district administrators if the board voted to give district administrators the authority to engage legal counsel.”

However, the following statement by Mrs. Roof does not look truthful to me.

“'The approved motion provided the authority for district leaders to...seek legal relief from (the one-year mask law) in order to protect our students and employees,' Roof said."

Manning's Motion did not say that. 

I highlighted the word "received" for a reason. That's to call your attention to the revelation that the board actually got the information during the executive session, which Manning later made a Motion to obtain.

How that for deceit?

Up until reading that statement today, it had appeared to me (and, I think, to others) that Manning's motion, as approved 6-1, directed the superintendent to get information. But now it turns out that the board already had the information.

This is the right time for Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker and Manning to resign from the board.

Is an Earpiece in use?

Look again at the video-recording of the September  14, 2021 Regular Board Meeting of the Richland 2 School Board. Go to www.livestream.com/richland2

Fast-forward to 1:16:50 where, after the Pledge of Allegiance, the board chair asked for a motion to approve the agenda for that night's meeting.

McKie makes the motion; Manning seconds. The chair calls for discussion.

Mrs. Agostini is recognized. After a brief audio interruption the end of her motion can be heard, and that was to postpone the agenda item about superintendent's contract. A woman's voice can be heard seconding the motion.

You can hear Mrs. Agostini stating that a main motion can be amended, while the camera is on Holmes, who isn't saying anything. Watch Holmes closely. She says, "OK. ... OK   ... OK" and states, "It does have to be germane to the motion."

Mrs. Agostini thinks that Holmes is speaking to her, but is she? Is Holmes really agreeing to something being said to her and then repeating what was said?

Is there a possibility that Holmes is wearing an earpiece and is listening to someone giving her information and guidance?

If Holmes were put under oath and asked about an earpiece, how would she answer - under penalty of perjury?

For Holmes to say, as if she had thought of it herself, "It has to be germane", would be very unusual. Holmes does not have a good grasp on parliamentary procedures.

Just as board members are not to use cell phones, texts, emails, etc. between themselves or to or from the outside, a board member can't have someone whispering in her ear.

Everybody - all the board members and the public - is entitled to hear every word said during a public meeting. This is why I have complained about side-conversations among board members and/or with the superintendent. When one is speaking and two others are having a side conversation, we can't hear that conversation.

Watch the video. What do YOU think?