Family Assistance Fund - what is it?

 

What's this?

Areas residents are becoming aware of this fund through publicity involving the church and large donation to Brookland Baptist Church Northeast from a family. 

When was this venture approved by the Richland 2 School Board? Or was it? 

The type of venture cannot just be fired up by the superintendent, because it could involve liability on the part of the school district and possible disclosure of personal information pertaining to students, including minors.

One media article mentioned $50,000 from the church to help homeless students. Under what provision might the District provide information to the church about any student, homeless or otherwise?

Perhaps someone will enlighten readers here of a formalized agreement with the District that the board members have approved?

Anyone?

A Mom Speaks out

You don't want to miss the remarks of Ms. Irina Stephens (sorry if I erred in the spelling) at the October 25, 2022 board meeting.

Her remarks begin at 1:42:18 on the recording:   https://livestream.com/richland2/events/10655678/videos/233486563

She spoke about the Whole Child Survey of students (as young as fifth grade) that did not require parental consent or provide for opting out.

She particularly objected to Question 1, which was "What is your gender?" Mark one response:

Male

Female

Non-binary

Prefer Not to Say

She said that there are two genders and that "children are in school to learn and not to be subjected to liberal ideological grooming".

She asked the board to STOP gender promotion to minors in school.

Three cheers to this mother who spoke on Tuesday night. Be sure to listen to her words.

Any interesting tax question

 Is Richland School District Two a Federal tax-exempt organization?

In other words, if you donate money to RSD2, can you take a tax-deduction for it?

A donation to a church is tax-deductible, assuming IRS regulations are followed.

But, if RSD2 is not a tax-exempt organization and money is donated to a church is intended FOR a school district, could the donor lose his tax deduction?

Somewhere in the world there is probably a CPA who knows the answer.

Anyone else confused?

Photo credit: WLTX.com

On Chris Leevy Johnson's Facebook page today is a picture of a group at Brookland Baptist Church Northeast at a check-donation ceremony. Johnson wrote: "Church donates more than $100K to Richland Two for school meals and homeless students."

The caption under the photo is "Church donates more than $100K to Richland Two for school meals and homeless students." There is a large (display) check "signed" by Michael and Jennifer Boynton. 

There is just one "huge" problem. The check is made out to Brookland Baptist Church. The generosity of the Boyntons is surely to be acknowledged and appreciated.

Reference in the associated WIS-TV (friend of Richland 2) story was made to the school meal debt that was discussed at school board meetings earlier this year.

That debt arose because of mismanagement by Richland 2. It's hard to know yet whether the Boyntons are bailing out Richland 2 or if the money is for students going hungry today.

No students are going hungry. Many get free meals and many more get reduced-price meals. Others pay for meals, if they want to eat. If they spend their lunch money at GameStop, they can go hungry.

The District never should have gone begging for money. The superintendent should have "bitten the bullet" and should have acknowledged the internal accounting errors that allowed the meal debt to accumulate to $100,000.

As to the donation, Supt. Davis said today, "Brookland Baptist will be the custodian of the funds for the time being."

What in the world does that mean? Well, for starters, it means that the money has not reached Richland 2!!!

The State bashes Trustee McFadden today

The State newspaper got all hot and bothered about spending at an Atlanta conference in September that school board members attended. The article is here.

Holmes and Caution-Parker have ragged on Lashonda McFadden, as usual.

Lashonda incurred personal expenses of some $425 for the September 7-10 conference and has reimbursed the District for them.

The reporter didn't mention Teresa Holmes' over-spending of almost $3,000 as of 5/10/2022. Has Holmes paid that back?

The following email has been sent to reporter Bristow Marchant.

Regarding today's story on TheState.com

If you would like to do a real story on Richland 2, rather than a bash job on Mrs. McFadden, write about former board chair Teresa Holmes and her irresponsible use of taxpayer money. Each School Year (ending June 30th) a trustee is allowed $7,000 for travel and training.

As of 5/10/2022 Teresa's spending total for travel and training was at $9,729.27, and she may have spent more by going to Myrtle Beach in June. 

The District paid $587.30 for her April 2022 car rental in San Diego at the National School Boards Assn. conference. Plus $220 for four nights' of valet parking. Want the receipts?

She put out some defensive "smoke-and-mirrors" at a previous board meeting about "sharing" the car with other board members. She didn't. Of the five who attended that conference, at least two of them didn't know about it. A third may not have known about it.

The hotel was four miles from the airport. The conference center was 0.2 miles from the hotel. The car would have remained parked during the three days of the conference. It was a personal-use rental. It never should have appeared on her reimbursement request. She should have paid the Overnight Valet Parking $220 bill by personal credit card as she checked out. 

Instead, the superintendent approved reimbursing her for the car and paying the hotel bill in full.

The District should demand repayment of every penny over $7,000 for 2021-2022 expenses. And they should collect it!

Caution-Parker getting on her high horse about Advances last night was nothing but a continuation of her disrespect for Mrs. McFadden. The District is better off for her departure from the board.

Sincerely,

Gus Philpott

Subscriber

Three Trustees should walk out tonight

Item 10.1 "8% Bond Resolution" is on tonight's agenda as New Business - Action Requested.

This is a First Reading, and The Core Four (and the superintendent) want to jam this through before they leave office. Tonight is the final meeting for McKie, Caution-Parker and Manning and hopefully will be the final meeting for Holmes.

The normal process is a First Reading and then a vote at a subsequent meeting. What's the rush about tonight - except for the anticipated shift in the quality of the majority of the board.

The Core Four will also approve Item 9.1 Policy BK revisions and Item 9.2 Policy BID revisions.

All three of these should be tabled until the new board is seated on November 18.

The only way to stop this stampede is for Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden to leave the meeting, so that a quorum is no longer present. It shouldn't require this extreme action, but tonight it is again warranted.

McKie Ethics Hearing 10/20/2022

On Thursday, October 20, the S.C. Ethics Commission held a hearing on a violation of the ethics laws by Amelia McKie. The hearing started promptly at 9:30AM.

The complaint was that McKie had failed to report her Richland 2 School District income, received in the year 2020, on her 2021 Statement of Economic Interests Report (SEI). On that Report, she indicated only Personal Income from some entity identified as NLLC.

You can view that Original SEI, for Report Year 2021, filed on January 12, 2021, at ethics.sc.gov

After the ethics complaint was filed, she amended her 2021 SEI and reported $9,600 income from Richland School District Two.

The chairman spoke into his microphone and requested those giving testimony to do likewise. McKie spoke it a low voice and, at the beginning of her direct testimony (about 11 minutes into the hearing), the chairman again asked her to speak up. 

Three people in the gallery, behind her, could not hear all of what she said. At times, I thought I heard "stipend", "income", "sheriff's department" , "school boards association workshop".

I think she offered some excuse to the hearing commissioners. I'm not sure how she could have explained it away, because in previous years she reported her Richland 2 income on her SEIs.

The audio recording of the meeting is very difficult to understand, because McKie did not speak clearly into the microphone. When a transcript of the hearing is available, I'll read it and learn the content of her testimony.

The chairman of the hearing announced that a decision would be announced within two weeks. That'll make it by November 3rd, before she completes her term of office. McKie is not running for re-election. She still owes $57,100 to the S.C. Ethics Commission, and a judgment for $51,750 is on file with the Richland County Common Pleas Court.