Summit Parkway remembers Cyrus

WACH.com carried this piece on June 1st about Cyrus Carmack-Belton, a 14-year-old Summit Parkway Middle School student who was shot on May 28. The reporter "conveniently" omitted from the story that Cyrus was carrying a gun. This was apparently written by someone or some people at the School.

"Cyrus Carmack-Belton, a SIDI Magnet student, has been taken from us far too soon. A light in The Nest will be missed among the faculty and staff, as well as his peers. He was intelligent, humorous with quick wit and well-liked by his classmates. We could always depend on Cyrus to ask questions beyond the scope of the topic as he often would seek to understand, rather than accept and move on. He often had conversations with members of the faculty & staff about his dreams, goals and aspirations. He dreamed of owning a tattoo shop and being famous one day. We all poured into him daily and we were pleased to see the results of his hard work when he was promoted to high school. We remember his infectious smile and tenacity. We were blessed to have Cyrus a part of The Nest and pleased to see some of the seeds that were planted grow and blossom. He will be remembered forever in our hearts. Soar high young Eagle, soar high."

There is no doubt in my mind Cyrus was liked. But his possession of a gun - illegally - was a direct contribution to his death. How do we get students, teenagers, and others to realize that, when they engage in risky behavior, they may not get another chance?

The sheriff says that Cyrus "touched" a water bottle (or bottles) in the convenience store. "Touching" would be opening the cooler door, reaching in, and touching a bottle. Another story is that Cyrus removed four water bottles from a cooler and returned them, after he saw he was being watched. That's not "touching".

After a confrontation near the exit of the store, Cyrus left the store. Another story said he ran from the store.

The sheriff said a gun was found "near the body". Exactly where was the gun? "Near the body" implies some short distance from the body. Inches? feet? arms' length? 

Why hasn't the sheriff said what type of gun it was? Was it loaded? Exactly where it was found? Were Cyrus' DNA and fingerprints on it? Whose gun was it? How did Cyrus get it? Was it purchased by a family member or friend? Acquired by some other means?

Oh, I know. It's all part of an on-going investigation. Not really. 

Then read the WACH.com story that is linked in that article. The headline is "Officials release more details on Cyrus Carmack-Belton case"

Only you won't read "more details" from "Officials". You'll read old news and a racially-inflammatory and untrue statement by the attorney for Cyrus' family. There is no statement from RCSD about racial-profiling or that Cyrus was "shot down in the street like a dog".

Credentials of Supt. finalists

Several readers have reacted to the academic credentials of the finalists for the position of superintendent of Richland 2. Comments have focused on Argosy University and Nova Southeastern University.

Finalist Nia Campbell holds two degrees from Argosy. Argosy shut down in 2019. See a Wikipedia article and this article from Inside Higher Ed.

Finalist Kim Moore has two degrees from Nova Southeastern University. One reader commented that that private school is quite popular with administrators at Richland 2 for advanced work. 

The bio of finalist Benjamin Henry does not mention the institution that awarded his doctoral degree in Educational Leadership.

One or more of diversity, equity, inclusion, DEI are mentioned in the bios of each finalist.

How high on the criteria from Richland Two were those areas? How likely is the Board to hire a superintendent who believes in Fairness without running down the path of DEI?

Is the majority on the current board silently heading into Woke?

If so, they are NOT preparing today's students to succeed in life. Graduates must be able to read, write, add, understand, comprehend, do homework and learn from it, and they should be learning facts about the history of the U.S.A. without bias or indoctrination. They aren't going to get it from DEI.

If I were Superintendent of Richland 2,

If I were the Superintendent of Richland 2, 

- I would tell the board to stay in the boardroom and out of my office. Give me their directions at board meetings.

- I would take matters to the board for decisions, not endless discussions.

- I would treat employees fairly and set clear expectations for those who report to me;

- I would tell my Administrators to be clear with their subordinates, set clear expectations, and hold subordinates accountable; and duplicate that down the line;

- I would tell Administrators that their work and work of teachers is to be limited to what they can accomplish during normal working hours; their free time and that of the teachers is not to be intruded upon!

- I would tell board members to stay out of the schools, unless they are there as a parent of their enrolled child. Their job is directing the District, not meddling in the schools.

- I would tell board members that employees work for me, not for them. Stay away from them. If employees whine to board members, re-direct them to their superiors;

- I would tell all employees that I expect to hear about problems fast - through the chain-of-command. Only contact me if their complaint is not resolved. 

- I won't read anonymous complaints. There will no retribution or retaliation for complaints with merit.

- Students are expected to conduct themselves with good manners and respect for others. The principals will have paddles on their walls. Don't find out what they are for!

- Teachers are not babysitters. They are not to be threatened, cussed out, disrespected. 

- We are going to turn out students who will be productive citizens, capable of earning a living and staying out of jail. 

- The Student Handbook will be reduced to one page. Students won't have to spend nights and week-ends reading it.

- Make school and life fun!

- If you don't like the way I run things, fire me.

Three Finalists - now what?

Richland 2 has announced three finalists for the superintendent's job. Go to the District's website for information about them. Now what?

The stamina of the finalists will be tested on June 20-21-22, when each comes to the District for meetings with the Stakeholder groups and the Board. 

District visits are two-way streets. The District looks at them. They look at the District.

Will any of the three want the job? Presumably, they know the basics of the compensation package, or they wouldn't even come. They know of the dysfunction on the current board. They will have studied and analyzed online board meetings.

After reading the prominent placement of DEI in each description, I wondered, "What did the Board really give McPherson & Jacobson as criteria in a candidate?"

The board chose three finalists out of 39 candidates. Diversity vanished in the selection. Inclusion vanished. The three look like nice people; in fact, they look like the majority of the students. That will please many. 

The candidates' descriptions say where they've been, not where they are going. Only one mentioned a distinction awarded to a school of which he was Principal. Details are general. Where is any expression of conservative values and leadership in citizenship?

Had the Board started its search in February, would it have a finalist with real experience as a superintendent leading a sizable district?

The Board expects to offer the position on June 23, a Friday. The offer letter must already be drafted and awaiting a name and address. It will be emailed late Friday. When will negotiations occur and with whom (at a Richland 2)? Saturday? Sunday? Monday? Last-minute on Tuesday? What if the #1 pick withdraws?

The Board expects to announce the name of the superintendent on Tuesday, June 27, and expects him or her to start on July 3. Will it happen?

Three Finalists Announced

Richland Two has announced three finalists for the position of Superintendent.

Read all about it on the District's website. Or click here.

I.G. Committee should finish its work

At the June 13, 2023 school board meeting a trustee asked about the I.G. Recommendations Committee meetings and when the next meeting would be.

I think it was Niki Porter, member of the I.G. Recommendations Committee, who said it would be after the new superintendent starts.

When were the past meetings? Jan.18, Feb. 21, Mar. 21. None in April. None in May. None in June.

On May 19 the committee published a summary of actions completed by the District and claims 70% of the I.G. recommendations have been completed.

Now, what's the deal about waiting for the new superintendent? The I.G.'s Report came out in October 2022 and was based on the District then and the old board.

Why not finish cleaning up the mess, and let the superintendent start with a clean slate? Why burden the new superintendent with straightening out something of which he'll have no knowledge?

Passing the buck is a cop-out. The District, the board, and the committee have had seven months. As with most projects, the final part can be the most difficult. 

So complete it!

[Edited 6/14/2023]

This must stop!!!

Tonight's Public Participation was "interesting". 

The first speaker, Irina Stevens, blasted the District for its gender-ideology practices. She begins at 1:11:50 on the Livestream recording,  https://livestream.com/richland2/events/10878735/videos/236545693

Ms. Stevens, at 1:13:30, had just said, "Will Anderson diligently replied to ...", when Trustee Niki Porter interrupted her with "Point of Order".

Instead of waiting to be recognized by the Chair, Porter continued, "Our speakers are not supposed to name individuals that [sic] work in Richland Two..." (This is often the habit of Trustee Porter - to begin speaking without being recognized. She has resisted waiting to be recognized since the beginning of her term.)

Chair Agostini asked Ms. Stevens to refer to Anderson as the COO, eliciting a "I apologize" from the speaker.

No apology by the speaker was warranted, because the Point-of-Order was wrong.

Speakers are not to express complaints about people associated with the District. That is how the Board Policy BEDH reads. And Ms. Stevens had not.

Robert's Rules of Order addresses Point-of-Order. Porter should have waited to be recognized. After the Chair recognized her, then she could proceed to state her objection. The correct response from the Chair should have been to recite the applicable portion of Board Policy BEDH, explain that the speaker had not violated the BEDH, over-rule the Point-of-Order, apologize to the speaker, and invite her to continue with no penalty on time for the interruption.

I was the next speaker (starting at 1:15:37). I had prepared a request to the Board to ask the superintendent to direct staff to follow procedures laid out in Board Policies and Administrative Rules, without arbitrarily and unilaterally expanding them.

However, I was reactive to the first 12 minutes of tonight's meeting at its 5:30PM beginning.

Chair Agostini had wanted to remove discussion of Board Policy BC - Board Conduct from the Agenda and place it on a workshop agenda in August. The claws (of other board members) came out. The Chair was voted down 1-6.

I pointed out that problems with Board Conduct can be solved with "being civil, being respectful, and being polite." I asked the board members to listen to the beginning of the meeting and to listen to themselves.

The last speaker was Katie Gage. She had signed up online to speak but her name didn't make it to the list. She begins at 1:22:22. She ripped the District for the Pride event at Blythewood High School. She labeled the Pride event and sexual-identity politics as "ideological grooming". She is an eloquent and patriotic speaker.

Later in the meeting "board conduct" became an issue, when Board Policy BC - Board Conduct was discussed. Porter explained (1:34:58) why certain items were added to the proposed revision, directing her remarks toward the Chair, and saying "...so that you understand why we put these statements in place..." Why did she feel it necessary to make pointed statements toward the Chair?

Trustee and Vice-Chair Scott was worried about someone feeling "uncomfortable." Board Members, grow up! If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen! 

That whole discussion about BC was the exact reason it should have been handled in a workshop and not in a board meeting!