Thursday (3/3/22) - Joe Trapp Meet-and-Greet

 

Come on out at 6:00PM on Thursday, March 3, and meet Joe Trapp, first to announce for the Richland 2 School 'Board.

I know Joe to be a man of integrity and honesty.

He was sitting in the second row of the board room on January 25, when Pamela Davis melted down when I introduced myself. Keep in mind, I did not know who she was. Joe didn't know who she was; nor did Gary Ginn or Ethan L.

But Joe witnessed what happened. And, as he told the school board during Public Participation on February 22, the District never asked him for a statement. Not the night of January 25th. Not since. No one was closer.

Come and meet Joe Thursday night (March 3rd).

Special-Called Board Meeting - March 4

More "be nice" and RONR.

Richland Two trustees (and the two trustees-elect) get a chance to earn some extra pay this month. A Special-Called Board Meeting is scheduled for Friday, March 4, 2022, at 1:00PM. This meeting is at R2i2 and will be open to the public.

The agenda reads "Executive Coaching & Parliamentary Coaching".

That's a laugh. "Executive" Coaching. Maybe it's a fancy name for spending a few thousand dollars to bring in a consultant for a day. There won't be any "executives" in the room.

I hope Ms.Guthridge (if it is she who returns) will know of the intense sniping that has been going on between certain board members, at least two of whom are very likely consulting private attorneys about what is happening on the board.

The dirt is likely not to be fully aired, since it is a public meeting. But you should see the e--mails that are flying back and forth.

Will the consultant hammer board members for acting like children? Like bullies? For finger-pointing and claiming harassment during meetings? For not acting independently, but rather voting almost always en bloc?

What about those board members who work for a living? Must they take an unpaid day off work?

Does Holmes have a job?

Does Caution-Parker work?

Does McKie work?

What if three board members refuse to show up, because it is irresponsible for them to abandon their livelihoods for a day?

Result? No quorum. No meeting. And the consultant will still get paid.

SRO press event - what a waste!

 

This morning's "press event" was totally unnecessary. It was a "splash" just because it could be put on.

Everthing said or done could have been accomplished with a two-paragraph press release. The superintendent wanted some face-time, screen-time, something to put in his scrapbook. 

Sheriff Lott was brief.

Teresa Holmes was all gushy and will claim some "bytes" for her next political campaign. Whatever her day job is, she should not give it up to become an emcee. Her egocentric demand for recognition and attention came across as just that. A demand for attention and obedience and acclaim. And False. Where did she think she was? Training at Walmart? I almost expected her to call for a cheer: "Give me an S. Give me a R. Give me an O. S-R-O!"

Board members (four) in attendance, in addition to Holmes, made it a quorum. When a quorum is present, there it is a Meeting. And Notice should have been given, with an agenda. There wasn't. So this morning's meeting constituted a violation of the South Carolina FOIA law.

Two Council Council members attended. Big deal. And one representative of the South Carolina Department of Public Safety.

One question was asked by a man (a reporter?) in the audience. His question was not audible during the meeting, because no microphone was handed to him. (Why not? No advance planning?) And the question was not repeated by the moderator of the Q&A.

No question was asked about the cost of the ten new SROs, who began working on March 1 (yesterday). No mention was made of the schools to which they were assigned.

The budget shows almost $4,500,000 spent on SROs before the ten new ones. If RCSD charges $150,000/year for each SRO, then ten new ones will cost $1,500,000. And Richland Two will account for $6,000,000 for SROs.

Opinions, anyone?

Refused Access - Again

Yesterday, in accordance with the Trespass Notice issued to me by Richland School District Two on January 26, 2022, I wrote to Director of Safety and Security Marq Claxton to request Access Authorization so that I could attend tomorrow's press conference about the ten new SROs for the school district.

The Trespass Notice directs that I must request access authorization at least 24 hours before an event.

Yesterday Claxton emailed me a one-liner, denying my request and providing no reason or explanation.

This morning I mailed an appeal to his superior, Will Anderson, COO of the school district, citing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and asserting that the District is abridging my right as a member of the media to attend that press conference. 

I have been publishing this blog since March 2019. For those who are interested in numbers, in 2019 there were 284 postngs.

2020: 321

2021: 382

2022 (to date): 126

Blogposts have been read more than 42,000 times.

This access request is the second refused by Claxton. The first was my request to attend my grievance on February 22, 2022. 

Do you think he is refusing requests without getting a nod from persons above? Was he told to deny ALL requests? 

How did Claxton even decide to issue the Trespass Notice to me on January 25, 2022? Was he told to do so? Was he merely following orders? Is there some reason that he didn't even write a report about the incident in the board room that night? Was there something that he really didn't want to put in writing? Why was he allowed not to write a report?

SRO Program - adding ten in Richland 2

RICHLAND TWO AND RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT JOINT NEWS CONFERENCE

COLUMBIA, S.C. — 

WHAT: Officials with Richland School District Two and the Richland County Sheriff’s Department will hold a news conference to provide an update on the progress to add 10 School Resource Officers at Richland Two schools after receiving a grant from the
S.C. Department of Public Safety.

WHEN:  Wednesday, March 2, 2022, at 9 a.m. 

WHERE:  Richland Two Institute of Innovation (R2i2) Conference Center

How much manpower will be wasted on Wednesday morning, when a celebration is planned for something that is just a matter of pushing paper and money around?

Why not make a video and publish it on Livestream? 

An announcement like that would be perfectly adequate to inform the public that money has been found for ten more SROs. Why should there be pomp and circumstance surrounding this announcement?

Unless a few people are just wanting to plant more feathers in their caps and say, "Look at me. Look at me."

Richland 2 currently spends $4.5 Million on SROs. I was shocked a couple of years ago when the $150,000/year cost was mentioned at a board meeting. If I recall correctly, the cost of a deputy was about $80,000 and the sheriff charged $70,000/year for the deputy's equipment (uniform, firearm, leather, all the 40 lbs. of equipment, AND a patrol car).

A SRO's patrol car is a commuter vehicle. Why not tell him to drive his own car to work and back?

If there is a need to transport a miscreant to jail, call a road deputy for that. 

What McKie learned at the SCSBA party

What was it that Amelia McKie said at the February 22, 2022 board meeting?

Keep in mind that McKie has been on the school board since 2014. She has served as an officer of the board several times, and sometimes illegitimately. Like now.

She went to the South Carolina School Boards Association's annual convention on Hilton Head Island. It was held February 17-20. 

What did she learn? That there are three levels of authority that Richland 2 is governed by. 

1. S.C. law; 

2. Board Policy; 

3. Robert's Rules of Order.

Well!!! Wonder of all wonders! The mysteries of the Universe are revealed. How much of her $7,000 annual board expense money did it cost us for her to learn that?

Seriously? She spoke on February 22nd like that was something new. There is absolutely nothing new about that. 

That's how it always has been. That's how it is. That's how it will be.

The problem at Richland 2 is that the school board doesn't recognize it.

If it did, it would not tolerate two women on the board who have never taken the oath-of-office legally.

If it did, it would not tolerate a woman on the board who owes $57,100 to the S.C. Ethics Commission and who hasn't made any significant payments since a judgment was filed on July 10, 2019, in the Richland County Common Pleas Court.

If it did, it would not have tolerated a woman to continue serving as Board Chair between November 2018 and June 30, 2019, when she was no longer a legitimate member of the board (because she had not taken the oath-of-office legally).

And the board would not have elected her to serve as Secretary during the 2021-2022 school year, because only a legitimate board member can serve as an officer.

As Secretary, she should object when Minutes are inaccurate. Does she? Ever? Does she read the Minutes before a meeting? Does she read them critically? Shouldn't she be looking for errors and omissions? Shouldn't she be the first to make a motion to amend the Minutes and correct errors and omissions?

R2 changes FOIA procedure

In response to a FOIA Request filed this morning for all the records and statements pertaining to the January 25, 2022 incident (you know the one) just prior to the beginning of the board meeting at 5:30PM, I was informed by the FOIA Officer of a new procedure.

Now the District requets (requires?) the Request to be made on its webform, which can be found at www.richland2.org/FOIA  Before I use that form, I'll review South Carolina law. Many states allow a request to be submitted in narrative format, not using any form requested or demanded by the public body to which the Request is made.

Take a look at the description of the FOIA process posted on the District's website at that link. I'll tell you; the Federal Government has nothing on Richland 2. What did the preparation of that procedure cost? That's a week's worth of work by a high-priced lawyer. Was it done to simply to effort by the public? Or was there some other reason for it?

Particularly onerous is this section on the form:

Tell us who you are

(Select one or more)

Richland School District 2 Student

Richland School District 2 Employee

Richland School District 2 Parent/Guardian

Community Member

Vendor

Media

Richland 2 requires completion of that section (note the *), but I'm pretty sure the law does not require the Requestor to reveal his status in such a category. Any person can submit a FOIA Request. You don't have to live in the District or fit in any of those categories. 

Just imagine how that information could be used. The word "Weaponized" comes to mind. If a parent submits a FOIA Request, imagine how that might trickle down. If a student files a FOIA Request, would s/he have to worry about retribution or retaliation? Or a vendor? Kiss Good-bye to future work.

This new procedure pushes the request through the Let's Talk scheme of Richland 2 and provides a copy of the request by return email.