McKie's Debt - $57,100 - Why isn't she paying???

Recently a friend and I were discussing the chaos on the Richland 2 school board.

I was explaining how I got involved. In February 2018 I addressed the board after the shootings in Parkland, Fla. In January 2019 I addressed the board about Amelia McKie's debt to the S.C. Ethics Commission. At that time she owed $51,750.

In February 2019 I addressed the board about Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes being illegitimate members of the board, because they had taken the oath-of-office three weeks before they were eligible to do so.

McKie and Holmes still have never taken the oath-of-office legally. McKie still owes $57,100 to the S.C. Ethics Commission (as of 2/22/22).

My friend said, "If they'd just do things right, you'd go away."

That's true.

One down; one to go

Teresa Holmes finally has a Richland 2 email address. It's teresaholmes@richland2.org

I spotted it on my first email from her $45,000/year "Special Assistant to the School Board," Christine Lewis. She emailed me at 3:01PM  to confirm receipt of my complaint and to let me know that my complaint (grievance) will be placed on the agenda for February 22, 2022. 

Of course, I had already seen the agenda. It was published on the District's website, and I spotted it first thing this morning.

Remember when that new staff position was touted as Special Assistant to the Board Chair? It turns out that Christine is the Special Assistant to the School Board! 

But Teresa's importance (in her own mind) continues, because she is the only board member to show both her official email address and her personal email address. The personal one - the one she used for her political campaign - has got to go.

If you think it is inappropriate for a school board member to list her personal, political-campaign email address on school district website, send your comments to

Supt. Davis at badavis@rickland2.org

and

Karla Hawkins (attorney) at khawkins@richland2.org

Tell them what action  you want the District to take (remove Holmes' personal email address).

Tell them to let you know what they will do about your request.

Follow up 30 days later to see if Holmes' personal email address has been removed.

T-shirts galore

I don't remember the name of this speaker on February 8, 2022, but she was one of several who were sporting new t-shirts and sweatshirts. This one was black. "We Support Dr. Davis."

A different attendee wore a pink t-shirt with the same wording. Somebody was really busy. Whose brainchild was that? The Davis Fan Club?

Were the superintendent and his wife feeling a little bruised by all the bad publicity following Mrs. Davis' outburst on January 25?

Will the t-shirts be back on February 22?

Near the end of the meeting the superintendent said (4:14:23), while reading his prepared statement from his tablet, "For those who woule be concerned about the future of this district and my future, let the record show that I'm just getting started."

Why would anyone be concerned about his future?

Anyone holding his breath?

The superintendent was followed by Teresa Holmes' closing comments. At that point the trustees had been at work for four hours fourteen minutes. Wouldn't it have been nice, if she had just said, "Thank you for being here tonight. May I have a motion to adjourn?"

Instead, she rattled and rambled for over five minutes.

Stop! Look! Listen! Derrick Wilburn speaks

 

This is one of the best addresses to a school board I've ever heard. Listen to Derrick Wilburn, as he addressed the Colorado Spring (Colo.) school board on August 12, 2021.

Do you agree?

What if Richland 2 school board meetings were run the way that one is. Listen to the comments by the board chair, as he lets the audience know how they can indicate agreement with the speaker.

Compare his expression and tone-of-voice with what we have here in Richland 2. He is informing the audience, not ordering the audience to obey. 

Listen carefully to the remarks of Derrick Wilburn.

Is the Richland 2 Board and the Administration keeping racism on life support? Do programs like 100 Premier Men of Color and providing information about scholarships available only to black students promote the Differences between races?

The Board hides behind "We don't teach Critical Race Theory". Richland 2 doesn't "teach" it; that part is true. But don't they implement it? Don't they implement it through culturally-relevant teaching (pedagogy), the program they buy from Gloria Boutte? Doesn't Richland 2 promote Critical Race Theory through the emphasis on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion?

Listen to Derrick Wilburn a second time. Do you think Richland 2 can do better?

District's Toothless Warning

Late in each week prior to a board meeting, the District puts out a long notice about do's and don't's of attending a board meeting. In other words, Be good, boys and girls.

Read this paragraph:

"In an effort to effectively maintain a safe environment, any person attending the meeting who is out of order, loud, disruptive, making inappropriate comments, and/or a safety concern will be asked to be seated or leave by a security officer. If the person does not comply, a Richland County Sheriff Deputy will escort them off the property."

Then recall the February 8th board meeting.

That was the meeting when Craig Khanwell was allowed to go on a three-minute rant, threatening members of the audience and those at home. Missed it? Go to livestream.com/richland2  Feb. 8, 2022 meeting. Start at 1:46:30

.

Ask Teresa Holmes and Baron Davis:

Was a safe environment maintained?

Was Khanwell "out of order, loud, disruptive, making in appropriate comments"? Was he a safety concern?

There was no doubt about that. All of the above.

How did Holmes and Davis respond? Not a peep out of them. Not a peep out of any board member. Not a peep out of Marq Claxton. Not a peep out of even one Richland 2 security officer.

Holmes mentioned recently there was an elephant in the room. There sure was. A black elephant.

If I had expressed myself, or if any white person had expressed himself, as Khanwell did, we would have beene face-down on the floor. Arrested for threatening behavior in a school. Jailed.

I am not going to be bashful about talking about race here. 

Holmes and Davis permitted Khanwell to spew his vitriolic hatred because all three are black. 

Convince me I'm wrong.

You Are Invited: 2/22/22 6:30PM

The next school board meeting will, hopefully, be calmer than the February 8th meeting. If that loud guy shows up again, security or RCSD should shut him down if he threatens the audience as he did on Feb. 8th.

What's up for Tuesday night?

The Board is scheduled to consider my grievance about the Jan. 25th Trespass Notice in executive session. I have presented a Witness List with ten names on it. Then the board will vote on my grievance in public session, right after Public Participation.

I'm all for having the entire grievance discussed in public session. Why would the board not want to do that? (Shall I list the reasons?) Then the public would have the whole story.

We'll see how it goes. I expect the board members to do their duty and be fair. What do you think? Will they be fair? 

The stumbling block right now is access to R2i2. If I cross the property line without written Access Authorization from Mark Claxton, I'll be arrested for Trespassing. Should I be intimidated by that? 

Monday is a school holiday. That leaves only Tuesday for the District to produce written Access Authorization and get it to me in time for me to be in the board room by 5:30PM, when the executive session starts. 

Surely, the board would not attempt to "consider" my grievance without hearing from me, would it? Or without hearing from the witnesses on my list?

If you want to speak during Public Participation, be sure to get there before 6:15PM. Sign-up starts at 5:31PM.

Revision of Board Policy BEDI - Media

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 a revision to Board Policy BEDI will be introduced for first reading. No action will be taken that night.

Who dreamed up this one? Did a board member propose that BEDI be re-visited? Or did Administration (meaning the superintendent) come up with this?

This is a blatant attempt to muzzle Trustees. As you read the following, pay close attention to the wording in the proposed revision: "...assumes personal legal responsibility..." Those four words will have a chilling effect on the free speech rights of board members.

On the other hand, maybe this revision should have been passed before Holmes and Manning stepped into the spotlight in the courtyard at R2i2 on January 28th and spoke in front of the WIS-TV camera. When the Chair and the Vice Chair stand on school property in front of R2i2, is there any doubt that both of them are speaking on behalf of the board?

Here it is. If you were a Trustee, what would you say to this?

"Policy BEDI News Media Services At Board Meetings Issued 9/17 

"The board believes that one of its paramount responsibilities is to keep the public informed of its actions. Therefore, the press and public are welcome to attend board meetings. 

"The superintendent or his/her designee will send a copy of the agenda in advance of all official board meetings to members of the working press who request it. In the event that representatives of news media are unable to attend a meeting, they will be provided a summary of important board actions upon request. 

"When individual board members receive requests from news media representatives for information about board meetings meeting content, members will refer the information-seekers to the board chairman. The board chairman is the official public spokesman for the board (except as the board specifically delegates this responsibility to others). Individual board members may speak to the media so long as they are not speaking on behalf of the board. When speaking as an individual, the board member will express such to the media and assumes personal legal responsibility for his/her media statement."

         indicates changes

Underscore indicates added content

 

It is already adequately covered in Board Policies that trustees, by themselves, do not speak for the board.

If Administration proposed these revisions, why does the superintendent want the hammer - the threat - of "personal legal responsibility" added to the Policy? 

Trustees should vote on this revision at the next following meeting. And the vote should be 0-7!!!