Why two email addresses for Holmes?

Why does Teresa Holmes have two email addresses on the District's webpage for board members? No one else has more than one. And I don't think I have ever seen a Members' webpage of any public organization that shows more than one email address.

For a long time, only her school board campaign Gmail address was shown. I questioned that early on. When she took office (even illegitimately), the District should have created an official email address for her, and that official email address should have been used for ALL school business.

There is a solid reason for that, and it's called the Freedom of Information Act.

The school district very likely faces a huge risk by her use of a personal Gmail address. Teresa can delete email at will, and she could even close that email address account. If she did, then all the "official" school-business email would be lost. 

Someday all that email will be lost; for example, if she is not re-elected this November. Will she deliver that account to Richland 2, where an Administrator will change the password to preserve all the school-related emails? Wanna bet?

Within the past month or two I saw, for the first time, an @richland2.org email address for Holmes. It was added to the Board Member page. But her personal campaign email address is still there.

Why?

Is it because Teresa is "special"? How can she get to say that she wants her personal email address shown?

There should be a District procedure, rule, even Policy that a school board member uses only an email address on the District's server for official email.

Does Teresa "tell" Administration that she wants her personal email address shown? Does she "tell" the superintendent to put it there and leave it there? Why doesn't the superintendent tell her that using her personal email address for school business is wrong?

Why don't the other board members tell her to use her official email address (only) for school business and tell Administration to remove Teresa's Gmail address?

If there were a Motion to remove Teresa's Gmail address, a Second and Discussion, how would the vote go?

For: Agostini, McFadden

Against: Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker, Manning, Scott (Scott also uses a personal Gmail address)

Result? Motion Fails

Spring Valley H.S. hits the (gun) news

WIS-TV reported today that a Spring Valley High School student was arrested after a loaded handgun was found in the student's car.

Hey, Richland 2, how's that Be SMART Program coming along? Has anyone heard even one word about it since the kick-off in December?

The student wasn't identified, since the student is a minor. The news station is so woke that it doesn't even report whether the student is male or female (or one of many other genders now made available by Richland 2's equity and diversity department).

The article said the student was charged with "possession of a weapon under 18, possession of a weapon on school grounds and simple possession of marijuana."

It should probably be "possession of a weapon under 21", because a person under 21 cannot possess a handgun in South Carolina.

Just in case you are a law-abiding person who holds a South Carolina concealed carry permit and now worry about having a loaded handgun in your car on school property, this would be a good time to review South Carolina Code of Laws Section 16-23-430 (B)

SECTION 16-23-430. Carrying weapon on school property; concealed weapons.

(A) It shall be unlawful for any person, except state, county, or municipal law enforcement officers or personnel authorized by school officials, to carry on his person, while on any elementary or secondary school property, a knife, with a blade over two inches long, a blackjack, a metal pipe or pole, firearms, or any other type of weapon, device, or object which may be used to inflict bodily injury or death.

(B) This section does not apply to a person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 when the weapon remains inside an attended or locked motor vehicle and is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle.

NOTE: Consider carefully the wording in (B). If you hold a CWP and normally "carry" on your belt, in your pocket or in your purse when you haul the hiddies to and from school, decide whether you need to move your handgun from its place where you carry it to the glove compartment, when you enter the parking lot.

Personally, I think this is where the law falls down. It's pretty stupid to have to handle your firearm unnecessary and move it to the glove compartment. It's safer on your belt or other place. But the law seems to say you cannot have it on your person when you enter the school parking lot.

Worse, If you get bumped in the parking lot and get out to check fior damage, then you just might be committing a felony, if the ol' Buntline Special is strapped on. Know the law!

4/7/22 Board meeting not at R2i2 - see you there?

The April 7, 2022 Regular Board Meeting will be held on Thursday, April 7, at Jackson Creek Elementary School - not at R2i2.

Note that the agenda includes Public Input on the 2022-2023 Budget. Be sure to show up by 6:30PM on Thursday to comment on the budget. Find out if you have to register ahead of time to speak. (Remember how Teresa Holmes blew right by the Public Input session on the ESSER III Funds? The District told me that no one had signed up to speak, so she skipped that Agenda Item. She should have called the Item, even if no one had signed up ahead of time!)

Because this board meeting is not at R2i2, I have requested access authorization and expect to attend the meeting. The District's agent, Safety & Security Director Marq Claxton, did not follow the correct procedure, when he issued a written Trespass Notice against me on January 26, 2022. As a former NYPD officer and detective, he surely knows the importance of every word in a controlling document, whether rule, regulation or law.  A complaint has been filed with Richland 2 over his previous actions that involve exceeding his authority, when he barred me from ALL Richland 2 properties.

The following email has been sent to Claxton. Will  he exceed his authority again?

Mr. Claxton,

Pursuant to your January 26, 2022 Trespass Notice which directs me to request access authorization to any Richland School District Two property at least 24 hours in advance AND that I MUST receive access authorization from you or your designee, I hereby request access authorization from you at the time stated in this email for the purpose of attending the April 7, 2022 school board meeting at Jackson Creek Elementary School.

AR KI-R authorizes you to issue a Trespass Notice for one property only; i.e., "the school facility" where an alleged incident occurred - that being R2i2 on January 25, 2022. AR KI-R does NOT authorize you to apply a Trespass Notice for "ALL [sic] properties, facilities, campuses and buildings", as stated in your January 26, 2022 Trespass Notice. By issuing the Notice to me as you did, you have exceeded the authority granted to you by the District.

Each word in a rule, policy and procedure is important. Each word was carefully chosen by the entity crafting the rule, policy or procedure. It is improper for a designated person (employee or otherwise) to violate the policy or rule by arbitrarily changing and/or expanding the policy or rule.

If the Administration had intended that a Trespass Notice apply to ALL properties, it would have so stated. It did not. 

Please approve my access authorization request.

Please also re-issue the January 26, 2022 Trespass Notice, so that it correctly applies only to R2i2.

Sincerely,

Gus Philpott

Resident, Richland School District Two

Board Brief 3/17/22 - Blank

Would you like to know what information the Richland 2 school board receives in "Board Briefs" from the superintendent? 

Presumably, this is information that the board has requested and that the superintendent ends up having to furnish, but in a way that it doesn't reach the public during a Board Meeting.

Go to the District webpage where the Agenda is usually found. The agenda for the April 5th board meeting has not yet been published.

What is there, under Documents, is "3/17/22 Board Brief". Click on it.

Follow the prompts. Keep clicking. When you get dizzy, get a cup of coffee and try again. No matter what you click on, you will not get to the 3/17/22 Board Briefs (4/1/22 11:29AM). Maybe this is the District's April Fool's Day joke.

After clicking on every word, including "Content", no 3/17/22 Board Brief shows up. Well, maybe that's what the superintendent really sent to the board. Nothing.

Sandlapper Elem. School Food Truck Event

Yesterday I spotted an announcement on Facebook of the Sandlapper Elementary School Food Truck event, being held this afternoon (April 1st - no joke).

So I re-read the January 26th Trespass Notice from Safety and Security Director Marq Claxton carefully and submitted my request for access authoritization at least 24 hours in advance. Patronizing the food truck today would be a great way to wind up the week.

Claxton denied my request, as expected.

The following email has been sent to Claxton's immediate superior, pursuant to revised Board Policy KE. What a shame that Mrs. Pamela Davis' outburst on January 26th has resulted in so much administrative and board time used. Did they really think I would just go away quietly and hide in a corner with my blankie?

Will Anderson, COO

Richland School District Two

Good morning, Mr. Anderson,

Pursuant to Board Policy KE (revised) I am filing this complaint against Marq Claxton, Safety & Security Director of Richland School District Two and your immediate subordinate.

Mr. Claxon improperly denied my request for access to Sandlapper Elementary School property today.

AR KI-R allows a designated security officer to apply Trespass only to "the school facility" (singular), not to "ALL [sic] properties, facilities, campuses and buildings" as stated in his January 26, 2022 Trespass Notice to me, received February 5, 2022. His Trespass Notice should have been applied only to R2i2. Nothing in AR KI-R authorizes him to unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously expand the Trespass order to ALL Richland Two properties.

I request that Mr. Claxton be disciplined in accordance with District policy, up to and including termination, for exceeding his authority in issuing the January 26, 2022 Trespass Notice (and other Trespass Notices), and I request his denial regarding today at Sandlapper be reversed. I also request that he be directed not to deny further requests from me to visit properties other than R2i2.

This complaint is separate and distinct from the Board's decision in my grievance, which it considered on February 22, 2022 in my forced absence. 

Please inform me of your decision on my complaint.

Sincerely,

Gus Philpott

S.188 - Call Now

S.C. Senate Bill S.188 is a very important bill that is dying a painful death in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This bill would prevent Amelia McKie from running for re-election in November 2022 because of her $57,100 debt to the South Carolina Ethics Commission.

Call S.C.Sen. Greg Hembree at (803) 212-6350 and ask him to do everything he can to move this bill now. Ask him what you can do. (I've emailed him twice and already called him today.) The bill has been stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee since January 21, 2021.

It is preposterous that an elected officioal can owe that amount of money, not be paying on it in substantial amounts, and be allowed to remain in office. The Ethics Commission filed a judgment against McKie in the Richland County Common Pleas Court on July 10, 2019, and the S.C. Dept. of Revenue is supposed to collect it. 

Does anyone else wonder why the S.C. Ethics Commission is not pressing for collection?

I doubt it will do much good to call McKie's friend, Sen. Mia McLeod, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She ought to be willing to favor such a bill, but she won't return any phone calls to me or reply to my emails.

R2 Board Still Has Two Illegitimate Members

Why has the Richland 2 school board never caused the problem of board illegitimacy to be resolved?

The problem? The Richland 2 School Board has two women on it who are not legitimate members. Why aren't they? They have never taken the oath-of-office legally.

Who are they? Teresa Holmes and Amelia McKie.

On November 6, 2018 Holmes was elected to the Board and McKie was re-elected. A board meeting was held on November 13, 2018, and the oath-of-office was administered to them on that date (Nov. 13).

However, neither had filed her Statement of Economic Interests Report (SEI) with the South Carolina Ethics Commission! Because neither had filed the SEI by November 13th, neither was eligible to take the oath-of-office on that date. The oath they did take was only "practice"; it has no legal effect.

According to State law (Section 8-13-1110(A)) one must file the SEI before taking the oath-of-office.

The Voice of Blythewood newspaper blew the whistle on them, and both Holmes and McKie filed SEIs on December 4, 2018.

On December 4, 2018, Holmes and McKie first became eligible to take the oath-of-office, but they have never done so.

But Richland 2 has allowed them to serve and to continue to serve, even serving as officers of the board.

I have heard that the District considers that merely a "technicality". It is not. 

Their serving is a violation of law. Holmes and McKie are usurping public office. Richland 2 has been paying them a stipend (now, a per diem) for meetings and paying handsomely for expenses each year.

All Holmes and McKie have to do to become legal board members is take the oath-of-office. They have been eligible to take it since December 4, 2018. 

Every board vote they have participated in since November 13, 2018 needs to be corrected. Many decisions will change, when their votes are removed. Instead of 3-4 (Fail), the votes will become 3-2 (Approve).

Every form, document, resolution signed by them needs to be re-done. Even Bond Issue legal documents.

All the money paid to them by the District needs to be refunded to Richland 2.

This should happen before they leave office in November 2022. But, if it doesn't happen before, then it should happen after, even when they are no longer in office.