Best Defense - A good offense?

Maybe, if it is "good". And if it's not?

Back in March 2019, shortly after I began addressing the school board about two illegitimate board members (Holmes and McKie), I sent an email to the entire board on a Wednesday, stating that if I was not informed by Friday that the two women would be legally sworn in before the following Tuesday's board meeting, then on that Friday I would file charges against them. That email was sent about 10:30AM.

By 1:00PM Teresa Holmes was at the sheriff's department to file a report that I was harassing her.

Why would she leave work in Blythewood and hot-foot it to 5623 Two Notch Road in Columbia?

The next day a RCSD sergeant called me from the Criminal Investigations Division. I answered my cell phone while I was in the backyard, cleaning up dog poop. As soon as he told me why he was calling, I knew I was not going to "give" him anything. I was fully aware of "You have the right to remain silent" and "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law".

I was polite and listened to him, and then I thanked him for calling, telling him I was busy at home. When he said he wanted to get my side of the story, I said, "I'm sure you would."

I told him I wanted to read Teresa's report. I drove to RCSD. He met me at the front door and guided me up to the office of the Deputy Chief of Criminal Investigations. That might worry a lot of people. Me? No problem. I walked in and introduced myself.

I read the deputy's report. Then I told them they didn't have anything. Pointing to the first part, I said that was a lie. And the second. And the third, etc. Everything that the deputy had written was false. Where had he gotten his information? From Teresa Holmes. And the deputy had failed to get a written statement from Teresa.

And that was the end of it.

Now, I had the advantage of eight years' experience as a reserve deputy sheriff in Colorado. I've never gone to law school, but I was accepted twice at the University of Denver School of Law. A State Trooper in Colorado told me I knew the traffic laws better than most of his officers. I've worked with lawyers. I can read and understand the law. 

So, why did Teresa run down to RCSD to make a report after last Thursday's special-called board meeting? Did she go there, or did she make the report to a deputy at or near R2i2? Did she think she was culpable? Was yesterday's article in The State accurate? Was the RCSD deputy's report about the 4/28/22 confrontation accurate?

Were three people involved on April 28? Teresa Holmes, her colleague, and a "suspect"? Or only two? Did a board member comment on Teresa's ability to run a meeting? Is that what started it?

What caused the "action" on 4/28/2022?

What really happened in the private meeting of school board trustees on April 28?

First, it was an illegal executive session. To "have a meeting" is not a lawful reason to meet in closed session. Not even to "have a safety and security meeting".

Trustee-elect Amelia McKie's Motion was incorrectly worded. She failed to state the specific purpose for the executive session, and she failed to state the exclusion in the law that allows a public body to enter executive session.

Are there concerned citizen who will fund a legal move in court about that?

If a court declared the executive session as illegal, would that open all issues and discussions to public view?

What did happen behind closed doors? Who said what? To whom? In what tone of voice?

Teresa Holmes, as board chair (illegally, because she herself is not a legitimage board member (she has never taken the oath-of-office legally)) is known for cutting off discussions and interrupting other board members while they are speaking. Did she do that on April 28th?

The public has witnessed the chaos of open board meetings. You can review almost any of the past meetings and see the chaos for yourself. Usually, the other board members back down when Holmes is rude. Seeing how Holmes behaves in public, is it hard to imagine what might take place when the cameras are not recording?

Speaking of cameras, who grabbed her cell phone and began recording? Are recordings in executive sessions illegal? Or at least in violation of board policy?

I'm reminded of the 2015 incident at Sprng Valley High School, when Niya Kenny grabbed her cell phone in class and began recording a disturbance caused by a classmate. She was one of two students arrested for disrupting schools. That case fell apart, in part, because Sheriff Lott fired the SRO too quickly. The charge against Kenny is no longer in the public record; she must have had it expunged.

Should all parties involved in the April 28 incident be subjected to equal handling under the law?

Holmes Files a "Report" with RCSD

The State newspaper reports on the April 28, 2022 Special-Called Board Meeting. At 3:22PM today reporter Bristow Marchant published an article below this headline: "Police report says one Richland 2 school board member threatened to ‘beat’ another" 

Read the article at: https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article261126992.html#storylink=cpy"

The article opens with "The chairwoman of the Richland 2 school board filed a police report on another board member who threatened during a heated exchange at the last board meeting to beat one of her colleagues".

My first question is, why would Teresa Holmes file a police report, if she is not involved? Was she the victim? That's not what the first sentence says. The first sentence intimates that two other board members were involved.

The reporter wrote that Holmes declined to comment to The State.

Executive Sessions are supposed to be confidential. So why did Holmes make the complaint? Seems to me that if a person was threatened, that person needs to make the complaint. Not Holmes.

Just a couple of days ago I was reminded of Holmes' "report" against me for harassing her in 2019. I'm still laughing over that one.

Holmes had a knee-jerk reaction to the emails I was sending to the board about McKie and her being illegitimate members of the board. After one of the emails, she hot-footed it down to RCSD in the middle of her workday in Blythewood and made a "report". The deputy's statement of what Holmes said was full of lies, and the "report" went nowhere. I should have had her charged with Filing a False Police Report.  You can read one of the stories I wrote about that on March 21, 2019 right here:  https://richland2sd.blogspot.com/2019/03/citizen-accused-by-r2-board-member.html

The article does not mention that any charges were filed, and there is no record of charges in the public record of the Fifth Judicial Circuit Public Index, as of right now.

The article mentioned that a board member recorded ("filmed")  the exchange. Wouldn't that be an improper use of cell phone on school property, according to Board Policy?

The reporter's final sentence in today's article is erroneous. He wrote, "Two people were removed from the meeting by law enforcement and formally warned not to return to the property."

After the meltdown by Pamela Davis at the January 25th board meeting, I was not removed from the meeting by law enforcement.

Illegal Executive Session, 4/28/2022?

Why was an illegal executive session held by the Richland Two school board on April 28, 2020?

This good explanation of the rule for entering executive session comes from an organization of public bodies, like school boards, in South Carolina.

"Before going into executive session, the council must vote, in open session, to enter executive session and state the specific purpose and open meeting exception for the closed door meeting. Councils must be as specific as possible without compromising the issue. The motion to enter executive session should be specific, such as 'to go into executive session to discuss applications for employment within [a specific department]' or 'to discuss negotiation of a contract and receipt of legal advice related to a building project.'" (Source: Municipal Association of South Carolina)

When trustee-elect Amelia McKie made her motion at the beginning of the Special-Called Board Meeting on April 28, 2020, she said it was for the purpose of a safety and security meeting. McKie gave no specifics.

In fact, many thought the meeting was for the purpose of organizing the work of the Committee of the Whole, which would not qualify for an executive session.

I recognized immediately that she had not stated a purpose. And she certainly did not cite the exception provided in South Carolina law.

Had there been a Parliamentarian present, that professional would have called attention to the wording of the Motion and urged the board to halt business right on the spot. Maybe this is one of the reasons that the Richland 2 school board does not utilize the services of a Parliamentarian.

Had one of the minority three on the board questioned the wording and the intention to enter into executive session, after a Second there would have been discussion. Then the board would have voted. Regardless of arguments presented, the board majority would have voted 4-3 to go into executive session. 

Because the board was about to enter an illegal, non-public session, the three members of the minority should have left the meeting. The meeting would have stopped for lack of a quorum.

What is R2's Cellphone Policy for Students?

Does Richland 2 have a cellphone policy for students?

The 2021-2022 Student Handbook can be viewed here. It's 58 pages (in .pdf). What percentage of it do you think students have read?

Electronic Communication Devices (ECDs) are covered on Page 28 of the Handbook. That's Page 36 of the .pdf version when viewed as 100%, if you want to find it quickly. 

Board Policy JICJ is the formal wording for the Policy.

I suggest reading the Board Policy first. In my opinion, there are several questionable actions in that Policy that are allowed by school personnel. Parents should review Board Policy JICJ with their children who are students and discuss the Handbook conditions with them. If you object, show up at a board meeting and speak out.

From Board Policy JICJ:

Elementary and Middle School

"Elementary and middle school students may not use or display ECDs while on school property during school hours."

High School

"High school students may use ECDs before and after school, during their lunch break, within "free zones" (as determined by the principal) for educational and/or instructional purposes only. Any other use of wireless communications is considered misuse and violations may result in disciplinary action. [emphasis added]"

How is this last part enforced? Or is it enforced? 

Is it a good practice for all students to just turn off their cell phones upon arrival at school and leave them off until departing?

What kind of emotional distress would students experience, if they did that?

Each board member - $7,000 to spend. Not more.

Each Richland 2 board member is allocated $7,000 to spend on training and travel during the School Year, which ends June 30. 

It's easy to know what the total is for the entire board to spend on travel and training; right? 7 X $7,000. Many on the board can do that calculation in their heads. Some will need paper and pencil. And some might even need their calculators.

If each gets $7,000 and some have not yet hit their limit, how could the board, as a whole, already have spent over $49,000?

If a board member has not yet spent her $7,000, she should not be told not to submit any further expenses or requests for reimbursement!

The big question is WHO over-spent? Did only one board member exceed her allowance? Did more than one exceed her allowance?

If a board member over-spent her allowance, why was the excess amount paid? Is any travel allowance issued in advance?

What happens when a board member turns in her expense reimbursement request? 

Does the Special Assistant to the Board review the forms before passing them into the system? What if she finds that a board member is asking for too much money, either in advance or as reimbursement - or, worse, charged to the District? Does she kick it back and ask for it to be corrected?

Has the Board Chair over-spent? 

Has anyone else over-spent?

The supt. tried to make a case on April 26th for the information being private. How pathetic is that? These are public funds. Taxpayer-provided funds. Board members are fiduciaries. There is nothing "private" about their spending of public funds.

The District hasn't yet responded to my FOIA Request for the individual year-to-date spending by each board member and the total spent by the full board.

If any board member over-spent her $7,000 allowance, the District should request immediate repayment. If the money is not promptly paid back, it should be taken out of their per diem until the full amount is recovered.

Any chance of this in Richland 2?

Gender identity? Gender confusion? Gender transition?

Is there any chance that there is any gender-change guidance or coaching being provided to students in any Richland 2 schools without parents' knowledge and consent?

Read this FoxNews article that was published today:  Florida mom filing suit after child transitioned at school without her consent: 'Happening all over' US

With all the emphasis on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in Richland 2, could this be part of the deal? Are there "gender closets" in any Richland 2 schools?

The first way to find out is to know your children. Watch for shifts in conversations, words used, how they are acting, how they are dressing, who their friends are.

Another way is to ask the teachers of your children. Ask them specifically. And then follow up your conversation with an email that confirms your understanding of the conversation. Ask them to confirm your understanding or to correct you.

Next, speak with the school's principal. Send the same confirming email.

If your child has a transgender teacher, watch for any classroom indoctrination that might be taking place.

A Richland 2 teacher called me a few weeks ago to express high concern about what is happening in that teacher's school. That teacher is very concerned about the high suicide rate among transgender youth and doesn't want it happening here.

How is the District leading the way by allowing staff to show "personal pronouns" in their official correspondence? 

Frankly, it is downright stupid for a female employee with a common female name to show personal pronouns of "she/her" in her signature block. Is anyone on the planet going to think she is not a female?

Let's use the Special Assistance to the School Board as an example. She is Christine Lewis. A very nice person, I am told. In her signature block she includes "Pronouns: she/her". WHY? Is there doubt in anyone's mind that Christine Lewis is female? Now, if she gave her name as Chris Lewis, one would not immediately know whether she is male or female; in that case, she could put (Ms.) or (Miss) in front of her name.

This is Woke-creep, and it should be stopped in its tracks!

Who sets the rules for employees of the District? The superintendent. With the board chair's advice to parents to "Stay woke", is there more than a little to worry about?