The problem with yesterday's Motion for exec. session

After the April 28, 2022 special-called board meeting convened and the agenda was approved, the Chair stated what that day's (she called it "night's" meeting; it started at 4:30PM) meeting was to be about.

Holmes said she wanted to "make a little clarity to the public" about the meeting. 

What in the world does that mean? "make a little clarity to the public"? Those are the words of a 35-year educator who is head of a board of trustees managing a business with a $300,000,000 annual budget. Seriously?

Holmes said they had to go through that meeting first, so that they could get to the public forum that they planned to have. 

No, they didn't have to go through that meeting first to "get to the public forum". It was what they chose to do. 

What "public forum"? The Committee had not yet decided on any public forum. The Committee hadn't even met yet! 

Then Holmes said they had to do this (meeting) first, before they went into private things of having people come in ...

What "private things"? There aren't going to be any "private things". This is a public body!

Then Holmes called for a motion to go into executive session.

Trustee-elect McKie made the motion: (livestream.com/richland2 at 06:45) "I move to convene in executive session for the purpose of a safety and security meeting." The motion was seconded by Trustee Agostini. The motion was approved by a hand-vote of 7-0. 

Was the executive session legal?

McKie said the purpose was "a safety and security meeting". No, the purpose was not a safety and security meeting. Holmes had just explained that the purpose was to establish how the Committee of the Whole ("Committee") would conduct its business (my words; not hers).

Setting the purpose and scope of the Committee is not an eligible exclusion for leaving public session and entering executive (private, secret) session. 

If the board members intended to discuss school safety and security, that is an eligible exclusion for which the board could enter executive session and met out of the public view. But that's not why they were meeting.

Are Minutes kept of executive sessions? While those Minutes would not normally be available to the public, a judge could order them to be available in camera.

Unfortunately, in South Carolina the only way to hold a public body (ex., a school board) accountable for violation of the State's Freedom of Information Act is to haul them into court. 

The District's in-house legal counsel is not going to do that. The SCSBA is not going to do that. The County Council is not going to do that. Our State Rep and State Senator will not do that. Will a member of the public fork over his own money to hire an attorney and force Richland 2 into court?

4/28/22 Meeting - Illegal Executive Session?

Wrong explanation, Teresa.

The April 28, 2022 board meeting was broadcast on livestream.com/richland2  After the board meeting was called to order at 4:30PM, instead of just calling for the motion to go into executive session, Teresa Holmes gave an explanation of the meeting. She gave a misleading one, at that.

Holmes said, "Let me take a point-of-order here. (Wrong term; she meant point of personal privilege which she, as chair, did not even need to claim). I want to make a little clarity to the public tonight. This meeting is the way that we have to get to the public forum that we do plan to have later on. We have to go through committee first, which is what we are doing tonight, and then we'll talk about the things that we want to do. Dr. Davis and I will come back out later after and give a little brief update. I want the public to understand that this is the process that we have to go through first, before we go into private things of having people come in and however we are going to format that."

Then a motion to go into executive session was made and seconded, and off they went.

Did the Board hold an illegal executive session tonight?

After I wrote the above, I began thinking more about Executive Sessions. The reasons proscribed in State law that allow a public body to meet in secret are very limited. These can be read in the South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 30 Public Records, Chapter 4 Freedom of Information Act. Specifically, see 30-4-70.

Forming a Committee and discussing rules by which a committee might operate is not eligible for meeting out of public sight. They won't be discussing specific steps to improving safety and security. 

When Holmes said that they had to met in private to set the rules, she was wrong. Did they ask the in-house general counsel for a green light on that? Would that attorney, who is an employee of the District and who reports directly to the superintendent, say, "No, you can't do that"?

And then, when she said Dr. Davis and she would come out and give an update, did she mean they would disclose what was talked about in executive session? Somewhere, in all the fine print of the statute, I think it says that no one can talk in public about what was discussed in executive session. That point has been made very clear in previous board meetings.

The meeting re-convened on livestream.com/richland2 at 1:25:28.

What was the promised "little brief update"? Holmes said, "We appreciate you tonight. We covered a lot of ground. Parents, we want you to know we hear you. We're doing the work. We're doing the work to make sure that your children are safe." 

That's an update? Was anyone there in person who stuck around to the end to hear that?

At that point Manning enters the board room and takes his seat. Apparently, Trustee McFadden had departed.

Then trustee-elect McKie made a motion was made to come out of executive session.

And then Holmes forgot to ask for a motion to adjourn. After being prompted by the superintendent, Holmes asked for motion to adjourn. Why does she have such a hard time keeping her head in the game?

If that was an illegal executive session, any trustee can talk about it.

Which board member(s) blew past her Travel Allowance?

In the Draft Agenda portion of the April 26, 2022 board meeting, there was total chaos. What should have taken less than five minutes took over 30 minutes.

Start listening at 3:03:43 on livestream.com/richland2 when Trustee Agostini wants a report on each board member's expenditures for travel and training.

The Board Chair totally lost control of the meeting (if she ever had it, to begin with). 

The superintendent "feels uncomfortable" with sharing "anyone's personal financial use of funds" for travel and training with other board members. (3:26:20)

WHOA!!! Those aren't "personal financial funds". That's taxpayer money. That's public money. That's public information. What's up with his "feels uncomfortable"???

Trustee McFadden wanted to transfer some of her unused individual allowance to Trustee Scott, but she could not because the board has apparently gone over its total allowance for travel.

Finally the discussion got around to the impossibility that the total could have been exceeded, if Mrs. McFadden still had money in her account.

Rather than just saying that Trustee A and/or Trustee B overspent (without prior board consent), the superintendent beat around the bush. It was Classic Run-around.

Finally the superintendent stated that he should have done a better job at monitoring board member travel spending.

This is an EASY FIX. Just bill the board member(s) for the excess. Take it out of her next per diem check, until the amount is recaptured. What payroll clerk or travel reimbursement clerk failed to catch the over-expenditure? 

I'd be pretty sure that a clerk informed a supervisor, who should have informed a manager, who should have informed an administrator, who should have informed the superintendent. How far up the food chain did the notice go that one or more trustees blew through the budget cap on her individual spending allowance?

The superintendent admitted that there are board members who surpassed their travel allocations. (3:31:45) He said he should have been following each request for travel. ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's the job of a clerk, way down in the bowels of the Accounting Department.

WHO OVER-SPENT? I'll bet he knew and wouldn't say!

I'll be finding out. I shall file a FOIA request today for that information.

Chair bullies Trustee during Committee Creation

Be sure to view the portion of the April 26, 2022 Board meeting when they attempt to create a Committee for Safety and Security. Go to livestream.com/Richland2 and pull the timer ribbon forward to 2:01:20.

The Board and the public had just listened to Teresa Holmes struggle to read the Update on Executive Coaching, and then Holmes began to call the same item as the next item, before realizing they had just "done that". 

There was no need to ask the superintendent to explain what they were about to do, but Holmes did. The superintendent said that a motion would be needed, a second, and approval. The chair asked for a motion, but then recognized Trustee McFadden, who had questions. Holmes said "we" want everyone's opinion (all the board members) and "we" want the community's opinion(s).

Then trustee-elect McKie made a motion to "implement" the committee. When the Chair asked for a second, Trustee Manning requested recognition. NOTE: The motion had not yet been seconded!

Manning proposed a change in name of the Committee. McKie agreed to the change. McFadden commented. Then McKie spoke without being recognized and tried to explain what Manning meant. WHAT? Lots of discussion, but the Motion still had not been seconded!

When Holmes asked again for a Second, Manning withdrew his request. Manning stated that the motion had been made and seconded, but it had not been seconded!

Then Holmes asked McKie to state the motion, so that the recording secretary would be clear on the motion. McKie restated the motion. Holmes said, "And Mr. Manning has already seconded that." But Manning had not seconded it.

There was more discussion. Trustee Agostini asked who would sit on the committee. Holmes said everyone on the board was invited to sit on the committee. Agostini asked about community involvement. Holmes said, "When we have a meeting here, there is always public participation." Then Holmes proceeded to lecture Trustee. (2:06:20) Agostini asked about the goals of the committee. Holmes interrupted Agostini more than once.

This whole discussion would be a Parliamentarian's nightmare!!! This is exactly what Holmes had just read in the Update on Executive Coaching. Fifteen minutes later it has all been forgotten.

Holmes said the committee would find out what the community would like. Listen to Holmes' snarky and demeaning manner toward Trustee Agostini. Agostini asked if the community would be invited into Executive Session to express their concerns. Holmes asked McKie to respond. BAD MOVE. Who put McKie in charge? This whole thing was a set-up. It was decided before the board ever got to this meeting. Obviously, Holmes, Manning and McKie knew what was going on. At this point Caution-Parker hasn't spoken up.

McKie proceeded with a class in Board Meetings 101 and mentioned that the public can be at any board meeting. Tell us something we don't know! 

Trustee McFadden had questions, and Holmes interrupted her. Notice on the screen that Dr. Cheryl. Caution. Parker. has her arms crossed over her chest and has turned her chair around to face away from McFadden and Holmes. Her body language is speaking SO LOUDLY (2:08:51). Holmes says to McFadden, "I'm trying to figure out what the ... (I was ready for "the word") what the hold-up (is)."

After more comments from Trustee McFadden, Holmes called on the superintendent. He said that typically the public won't be at meetings of the Committee of the Whole, but a "resident expert" might be invited in. 

When a question is asked of the superintendent, somebody should start a timer. After 2 minutes, ding-ding-ding. If you ask him what time it is, about 20 minutes later you will have heard how the sundial was invented, but you still won't know what time it is.

Trustee McFadden wants the community involved in planning how the community is going to solve the gun-violence problem. Based on the superintendent's explanation, the "community" will not be involved.

The superintendent further explained that the Committee of the Whole could decide to have the community involved and sponsor a forum, which is what Trustee McFadden wants. The purpose of the committee is to come back to the board with a report and not to take action. 

McFadden made a few more comments, and then Holmes lectured her further, repeating and repeating and repeating. (NOTE: Holmes had just a few minutes earlier read Liz Ethridge's Executive Coaching suggestion, "Say it one time." Just words. Just meaningless words. But say them over and over.

Trustee Scott (2:21:50) asked a question about the number of allotted meetings of board members. 

Then Manning was recognized, but he said by that time he had forgotten what he was going to talk about. But that didn't stop him. Then he remembered that he was going to say that they could meet more than 30 times but could get per diem (i.e., get paid) for more than 30 meetings. 

The vote to "implement" a committee was 7-0.

While the voting was in progress, McKie (2:26:20) was recognized by the Chair and made an extraneous and unnecessary comment. Trustee Agostini called a Point-of-Order. Without discussion the Chair allowed McKie to continue. That was WRONG. McKie's comment did not need to interrupt the voting and should have been held until after the voting result was announced. 

The next item was called at 2:27:15. WHEW! That took 26 minutes to cover a 2-minute approval. What nonsense!!!

Tomorrow's Special-Called Meeting - No Open Meeting

When Teresa Holmes announced the Special-Called Board Meeting for tomorrow, Thursday, April 28th, at 4:30PM at R2i2, she did NOT inform you that the only item on the agenda would be an Executive Session. She was so serious about addressing gun violence and guns in schools; right?

If they haven't come up with the answers so far, what do they think they are going to accomplish without more help; for example, the community, parents, teachers, staff. 

Yes, it's a public meeting. The public part will be the 30 seconds after the meeting is called to order at 4:30PM.

Then the board will scoot off for a private meeting, after which they will return to the boardroom and publicly adjourn.

DO NOT SHOW UP TOMORROW, unless you want to be disappointed.

What Will S.203 Mean for Richland 2?

Signed into law by Gov. McMaster on April 25, 2022.

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 59-19-60, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF SCHOOL DISTRICT TRUSTEES AND FILLING OF TRUSTEE VACANCIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THE GOVERNOR MAY REMOVE TRUSTEES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO PROVIDE THE GOVERNOR MAY FILL TRUSTEE VACANCIES, TO PROVIDE NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS, AND TO DELETE EXISTING PROVISIONS CONCERNING TRUSTEE REMOVAL AND FILLING OF VACANCIES BY SCHOOL BOARDS.

What does this new law mean for the Richland 2 school board?

Not much information is available today on the State legislature's website. A note reads:

THIS IS A TEMPORARY VERSION. THIS DOCUMENT WILL REMAIN IN THIS VERSION UNTIL FINAL APPROVAL BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

But I recall some of the reasons the Governor can use to remove a school board trustee. Misfeasance. Malfeasance. 

Does he just have to believe that such conduct took place? How will he decide? What "proof", if any, will he need or want?

For more than three years I have been decrying the fact (FACT) that the Richland 2 school board has been operating with two illegitimate members. Teresa Holmes and Amelia McKie have never taken the oath-of-office legally.

They were duly elected on November 6, 2018.

An oath-of-office was administered to them on November 13, 2018; however, neither was eligible to take the oath on that date.

Each first became eligible to take the oath-of-office on December 4, 2018, after filing her Statement of Economic Intrerests Report with the South Carolina Ethics Commission.

Neither has taken the oath-of-office since December 4, 2018.

Thus, neither is a legitimate board member.

What would happen, if Governor McMaster removed Holmes and McKie?

That would leave Agostini, Scott, McFadden, Caution-Parker, and Manning. Now look at the balance! Three Conservatives. Two Liberals. How would those five have voted last night?

The vote clearly would have been in Gary Ginn's favor. And I would ask for an immediate re-hearing, and they'd vote in my favor. Agostini, Scott and McFadden know that what happened to Ginn and me on January 25th was wrong. The vote would 3-2 in our favor. Hear that, Caution-Parker and Manning?

Would the Governor appoint successors for Holmes and McKie? Or would the Governor tell the remaining five trustees to appoint the successors? Or would the Richland County Council appoint? Or would the Richland County Elections Commission have to conduct a special election? 

Either way, there is a good chance that more-conservative members would join the board, whether appointed by the Governor or the remaining five board members.

Can the refusal by Holmes and McKie to take the oath-of-office legally be considered misfeasance or malfeasance? Where is my legal dictionary?

Hear that train late last night?

Did you hear that freight train roll through Richland Two late last night?

Gary Ginn's grievance was heard in the second executive session of the Richland 2 school board last night. As anticipated, his appeal to the board was denied.

The public missed all the antics. It's certainly too bad that his grievance wasn't conducted in full view of the public. He and I have not talked about that. But it was what I wanted for mine, and I bet a box of Dunkin' Donuts that he wanted it in public, too.

As was the case with my grievance, Gary also was denied access to ALL Richland 2 property and was prohibited from attending the hearing on his own grievance. Tell me again how it is fair that a person is denied his opportunity to face his accusers.

What you can view is the hanging. Errr, the board's vote on the matter they had just considered. That part of the livestream.com/richland2 video begins at 4:43:13. Previously, it was possible to capture just that part of the video and put a link here. But the District decided, in its infinite wisdom, to restrict copying of the YouTube recording into Vibby.com.  So now, you must go to livestream.com/richland2 and pull the timer bar across the bottom of the video to 4:43:13.

Agenda Item 17.2 was Gary Ginn's grievance. When a motion was called for, Trustee Agostini moved to accept the appeal (by Ginn) and revoke the no-trespass notice. 

Notice especially the body posture and attention that Caution-Parker, McKie and Holmes give her. As Agostini speaks, Caution-Parker is turned away from her, McKie appears to be studying her lap (is she using her phone during a board meeting???), and Holmes  

When a Second is asked for, Trustee Scott begins discussion but is stopped until there is a Second, which she makes. Scott makes, then withdraws, a request for Agostini to alter her motion.

Again, watch Caution-Parker's swiveling in her chair, leaning back, and holding her folded arms across her chest. Any body-language expert can tell you very quickly what she is shouting by that posture.  

McKie is still busy with something off her desk. McKie appears to be looking at her phone in her lap.

Holmes, as usual, is not looking at Agostini and appears to be just tolerating her words until she finishes speaking. This is par for the course at board meetings.

Holmes, after waiting for Agostini to finish, asks for a Second. Trustee Scott seconds.  

As discussion starts, the camera clearly shows McKie on her phone. She is reading whatever is on her phone and not paying attention to Trustee Scott. Why not? My compliments to the camera manager for showing McKie's clear violation of Board Policy about use of phones during meetings. (I hope he doesn't get fired for having done so.)

After Trustee Agostini re-states her motion, Holmes asks for another (unnecessary) Second. Holmes says, "Second for Dr. Caution-Par... I mean, Dr. Scott."

During discussion, Trustee Scott addressed "fairness" and "doing the right thing" She stated that they were there dealing with two trespass notices (one last night and one other (mine previously, on February 22) previously)) "and nothing to other people". By that, she meant no action against Pamela Davis and Baron Davis for their actions and words on January 25th. She added, "We have to be able to walk the talk."

Look again at Caution-Parker's posture. What does that say to me? "Cut out the chatter. Let's hang 'im and get out of here."

The vote was 3-4. Agostini's motion failed. The four against Agostini's motion were Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker, and Manning. Of course.

Then Holmes was ready to move on, but Manning reminded her they needed to vote on the grievance. (By this meeting, Holmes has been acting as the Board Chair for 9½ months and she still doesn't know procedures!) Manning moved to deny the appeal. Caution-Parker seconded. (She must be the Designated Second for any motions made by The Core Four.)

During this vote, it was hard to see what was on McKie's tablet screen, but it didn't look like District business. As McKie voted, she reached into her purse and lifted her phone in her left hand. Why is she looking at her phone again? Her car keys were on the desk. She was more than ready to leave.

The vote was 4-3. Passed. As Holmes announces the vote, McKie is looking down at her phone.