Holmes violates facemask rule and Ordinance

Today the following email has been sent to the Richland Two school board:

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

Please watch the first 15 minutes of the reconvened 1/11/2022 meeting (YouTube) and be aware of the amount of time Teresa Holmes holds her face shield, instead of wearing it.

You, except Teresa, wore your masks. The staff, audience, security officers and deputy sheriffs were required to wear their masks.

Why is the facemask rule not imposed on Holmes? She could wear it and speak into her microphone; she should wear it all the time, just as everyone else is required to do. Should she be subject to arrest by deputies for violating the Richland County facemask ordinance?

I request a written response from the District that will assure me of my physical safety from COVID exposure at future meetings by requiring Holmes to wear her facemask/shield. 

This email was sent to Trustees Agostini, Scott, McFadden, Manning and Caution-Parker, to trustees-elect Holmes and McKie, with copies to Supt. Davis, Security Director Marq Claxton, Chief of Operatons, Will Anderson, Chief Financial Officer Harry Miley, Diversity Chief DEI Officer Helen Grant, and Chief Communications Officer Libby Roof.

The board has the authority to insist on compliance by Teresa Holmes. If they can't get it done, the supt. can direct Marq Claxton to sanction Holmes and issue her a Trespass Notice for refusing to wear the mask/face-shield on school property. 

Inaccurate ending of 1/11/2022 meeting.

There is poor editing at the end of 1/11/2022 recording which Richland 2 has published on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gWtpQ_SGQY

Toward the end of the amended recording, the superintendent spoke and then trustee-elect Holmes spoke about the presentation on a survey regarding face masks.

Then Holmes' voice can be heard, stating, "I am making an executive order, an executive decision that this meeting has been adjourned."

While she is speaking, this screen is displayed.

What was obviously cut out of the video was the view of Supt. Davis' health event. A period of time passed while he was assisted by some in the room and during which EMS arrived and removed him from the building. And then Holmes announced adjournment of the meeting.

The meeting was not adjourned at the time Holmes spoke. In the interest of accuracy, there is a better way that this ending of the meeting could have been conveyed. It's an editing issue by R2 staff, not of the board.

Jan. 11 Board Meeting - on YouTube

                                                          Click on "Watch on YouTube"

The January 11, 2022 Regular Board Meeting has been published on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gWtpQ_SGQY

Trustee Agostini explained why she votes No at every meeting on the item to approve the Board Agenda. Then Trustee Manning was recognized. A Parliamentarian would have shut him down, because he was responding to what Trustee Agostini had said and not commenting on the motion that was before the board. Because Holmes does not know the Robert's Rules of Order, she didn't stop Manning's comment. Notice his posture as he speaks. Leaning back in his chair. Rotating on the swivel. Arms folded. Body language says so much!

Notice also the long periods of time when Holmes holds her face-shield, rather than having it on her face!

Be sure to watch the segment for Item 5.0, approval of the Consent Agenda. That starts at 06:35. There were many parliamentary errors. Trustee-elect (and acting chair) Teresa Holmes ran over Trustees Agostini and McFadden, resulting in an important error in the Minutes' not getting corrected.

The Agenda for the December 14, 2021 had listed a hearing on ESSER 3. Holmes blew right by that at the December board meeting. Yet the Minutes reflect the ESSER 3 hearing, even though it was never held. The Minutes should have been amended.

The original motion to approve the Consent Agenda was made by McKie, seconded by Caution-Parker. Agostini made a motion to have the Consent Agenda broken up and each of the three items discussed separately. Agostini stated no second was required. Holmes didn't know. The superintendent agreed that no second was required. BUT THEN the superintendent erred in his opinion that McKie's motion had to be decided first.

This was wrong, because Agostini's motion was a secondary motion.

The Superintendent was wrong. The Chair was wrong. Manning was wrong.

Yet Holmes railroaded the Consent Agenda item through as shown on the Agenda. Big mistake.

Watch how Holmes (mis) handles Trustee Agostini's secondary motion to amend the Consent Agenda. Agostini's motion never got a vote.

Trustee McFadden's claim was accurate that proceeding with a vote on trustee-elect McKie's motion would eliminate any chance of amending the motion. And that's exactly what happened.

Why didn't Trustee Manning or Supt. Davis speak up and remind Holmes, yet one more time, about how to handle secondary motions? Why did they disregard that it WAS a secondary motion and brought up at the correct time?

Holmes wrongfully called for a vote on McKie's motion, and the Core Four, naturally, approved it 4-2--1 (Yes 4; No 2; Abstain 1)

SHAMEFUL!!!

Be sure to watch the Public Participation segment, which begins at 15:45

At least three of the speakers addressed the board's complete failure in handling the Consent Agenda item.

Why I address Holmes and McKie as trustees-elect

When I write to Teresa Holmes and Amelia McKie, I address them as trustee-elect. I do not address them as Trustee Holmes and Trustee McKie.

Why do I do this? I assure you - it is not intended as disrespectful. I address them in this manner because it is correct.

Holmes and McKie have never taken the oath-of-office legally. They remain trustees-elect.

An oath-of-office was administered to them on November 13, 2018, but neither was eligible to take the oath on that date. They had not filed their Statements of Economic Interests (SEI) with the South Carolina Ethics Commission, as required by State law.

As a result of contact by The Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County newspaper, both filed their SEIs on December 4, 2018.

On December 4, 2018 each first became eligible to take the oath.

Neither has ever taken the oath since December 4, 2018.

I can only assume that a lawyer has advised the school district on this matter. If the lawyer told the District that there was no problem, I am doubtful about that advice.

The law is the law. The law was not followed. It's a short, simple law. Easy to understand. Easy to follow.  The South Carolina Code of Laws states:

ARTICLE 11

Disclosure of Economic Interests

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. If a public official, public member, or public employee referred to in this section has no economic interests to disclose, he shall nevertheless file a statement of inactivity to that effect with the appropriate supervisory office. All disclosure statements are matters of public record open to inspection upon request.

Here is the correct order.

1. File the SEI

2. Take the oath-of-office

3. Enter upon official responsibilities

The correct order is 1-2-3. The order is NOT 2-3-1.

It was suggested to me that the error was just a "technicality." Nope! Sorry. Good try. No pass.

Why have Holmes, McKie, the school board, and the school district dug in their heels? Why haven't the five legal Trustees insisted that Holmes and McKie take the oath-of-office legally? Why doesn't this come up at every board meeting?

If the board insisted that Holmes and McKie recuse themselves from any vote on the matter, a Motion to direct Holmes and McKie to remove themselves from the board until they take the oath-of-office legally would get a vote of 3-2, a passing vote. Agostini, Scott and McFadden would vote in favor. Manning and Caution-Parker would vote against, although they too ought to vote in favor.

In every communication to the board, I address Holmes as "trustee-elect Holmes" and McKie as "trustee-elect McKie". I shall stop so addressing them, as soon as they become legitimate members of the school board.

And because they are not legitimate members of the board, they cannot serve as Chair and Secretary, respectively. This means that all documents (school bond resolutions, etc.) are worthless, because legal signatures are not affixed. Thanks to Manning and Caution-Parker for creating this legal mess on June 29, 2020, when they nominated Holmes and McKie as board officers.

I invite you to do so, too.

Supt. Davis - ill at board meeting

Apparently, Supt. Davis became ill at tonight's board meeting. I had left after the Public Participation.

Later I began watching the livestream recording and then decided to watch the remainder tomorrow. I received a text that Supt. Davis had become ill and that the meeting had adjourned.

When I returned to the livestream recording, it was password-protected; i.e., locked. 

The District is in error to lock the video. It is a public meeting. Everything that happens in a meeting that has been properly noticed to the public, as this one was, belongs in the public view.

This is the second time that Richland 2 has locked a video. 

If South Carolina had a strong Open Meetings Act law, there would be a way to appeal decisions made by public bodies. 

EDITED:

1/12/22 The recording of last night's board meeting is improperly locked by the District, just as they did a couple of months ago. One viewer was quick enough to capture a short segment of the recorded meeting.

View it here: 

https://www.facebook.com/messenger_media/?thread_id=780588873&attachment_id=444319297182207&message_id=mid.%24cAAAAAA8Lf5GEfXhSu1-TDMEOnbJ2

Click on the link above to view video

The purpose of including this is so that you can see clearly just what happened. Supt. Davis was seated in his chair. He didn't collapse. He didn't pass out, as commented on Facebook. 

You can decide for yourself who close to him responded and how much they appeared to help. 

The District will probably edit out the superintendent's health incident and then publish the meeting on YouTube. The District fails the public, when it shuts down the recording of a public meeting. 

Notice Teresa Holmes' cell phone standing on her desk, propped open. Was she again recording speakers and streaming to her personal Facebook page? I was going to ask about that in public but got distracted by the dog-and-pony show during the Consent Agenda fiasco.

Chair Mishandles Consent Agenda Item

The opening of tonight's board meeting was a complete joke, and three speakers addressed the errors during the Public Participation segment.

When the meeting arrived at the Consent Agenda item, a motion was made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda item.

Trustee Agostini then made a motion to split the agenda. What she meant was to separate the items and not approve them as a group.

Holmes wanted to approve the consent agenda and then address the items which Agostini wanted to separate.

It would have been clearer if Trustee Agostini had made a motion to remove Item 5.2 Approval of the Minutes from the Consent Agenda. After discussion and a vote, then a motion would have been made to remove Item 5.4 Request for an Innovative CTE Course from the Consent Agenda. And it would have been discussed and voted on. And only then would the original motion, as amended, have been voted on.

If both Items 5.2 and 5.4 were removed, then the board would have voted on the Consent Agenda, which would have contained only Item 5.3. After that each of the other two Items would have been discussed and voted on.

Holmes has a lot of trouble understanding secondary motions and generally objects to them because she doesn't know how to handle them, in spite of having been educated by Trustee Manning at several previous meetings. 

Trustee Agostini stated that her motion did not require a Second. After brief discussion between the superintendent and Holmes, the superintendent agreed with Agostini that a second was not required.

What did Holmes do? She wanted to move on to a vote on the original motion. Why didn't the superintendent step up and correct her? Isn't part of his job to assist her in not making a fool out of herself?

Trustee McFadden stated that, if the orginal motion was voted on, then it would not be possible to discuss removal of the two Items. And Mrs. McFadden was exactly right.

Holmes ran all over Trustees Agostini and McFadden and bullied her way through to vote on the original motion.

Three speakers tonight attacked what had happened.

I was the final speaker. I showed my notes and said I had written comments on two topics, but I said I was going to address what had just happened in the meeting. I got away with mentioning Trustee Agostini's name but, when I mentioned Trustee McFadden's very correct comment, Holmes woke up and came out of her shell, demanding that I not mention anyone's name.

Why not? Mrs. McFadden was sitting right there and had just said what I was repeating. I was complimenting Trustee McFadden.

I think the problem is that Teresa Holmes is just ignorant of organizational procedures. She's not a completely dumb person; after all, she did get an Ed.D. degree from an online school in California. The procedures have been explained to her in public in school board meetings many times, and she is either unwilling or unable to learn them. Or maybe she just wants things her way, even when she is wrong.

Any other board would removed Holmes from the position as Chair by now. Manning made a huge mistake last June 29 when he nominated Holmes for the office of Chair. Just as the board (the Core Four) elected her last June 29, they could hold a new election and elect someone else as Board Chair.

For the good of the District, that's exactly what the board should do.

Is R2 Violating Board Policy AC?

Is the 100 Premier Men-of-Color Program ("Program") a violation of Board Policy AC?

Board Policy AC was created just three years ago, in October 2018, and it reads, in part,

"“The Board affirms the right of all individuals to be treated with respect and to be protected from intimidation, discrimination, physical harm, and/or harassment. Respect for each individual will be a consideration in the establishment of all policies by the board and in the administration of those policies by district staff.

“The district is committed to providing equal access to educational and employment opportunities regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, pregnancy (including childbith and other related medical conditions), age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity status, spousal affiliation, or any other protected characteristic as may be required by law.”

In how many ways does the Program violate not only board policy, but also Federal and State laws? Is it not discriminatory?

How do employees, including teachers and staff, feel about the 100 Premier Men-of-Color Program?

Are employees afraid to speak out? Are white men afraid to speak out? Are women afraid to speak out?

What would be the result, if the District conducted a survey of all employees (and of parents and community members) about the 100 Premier Men-of-Color Program? A survey that was 100% confidential, with absolutely no way that responses could be tracked down to those who completed a survey?

If employees were absolutely sure that they could answer honestly and without fear of retaliation or retribution, how would they answer?

How did it happen that Service Solutions decided to cough up $15,000/year, to be used in this Program?

Was it purely out of the goodness of their corporate heart?

The superintendent told the board that his performance evaluation does not include this Program. 

If he is not evaluated on it, then how is it getting so much emphasis and why is it even being conducted?

Is anyone who questions it considered to be a racist? 

Why isn't the board making a very careful examination of this Program and reporting to assure the public that it is not a racist or discriminatory project?