Board to select Supt. on June 23

The Richland 2 school board is scheduled to select its new superintendent in a Special-Called Board Meeting on Friday, June 23. The meeting starts at 1:00PM in the boardroom at R2i2. The announcement of the Meeting on the District's website reads, "Special Called Board Meeting: Board Debriefs and Makes Decision Re: Superintendent Selection"

The board will, no doubt, quickly go into executive session, where they will discuss the three finalists.

Executive Session rules are that the board cannot make decisions in private, and it cannot even come to a consensus or agreement who will get the offer.

Watch the agenda for June 23, which must be published by 1:00PM on Thursday. It should show the board returning to Open Session and the next item should be the selection of the superintendent by vote in public session and a motion to offer the position to the person selected.

Is that how they will do it? Will the terms of the offer be disclosed? Will they disclose the selected finalist's name and the terms of the offer?

If they make the selection in private (in the Executive Session), should I have S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson on speed-dial?

Trustee Monica Scott has been in charge of the Superintendent Search Committee. Let's see what happens on Friday. 

Special-Called Board Meeting - June 20, 2023 - FOIA Violation

The announcement on the Livestream page says the board meeting is supposed to start at 7:00PM. Okay, so where is the meeting?

The meeting was called to order at 7:02PM. After the approval of the agenda, Trustee Nash made a motion for the board to go into Executive Session for the purpose of "an interview with a superintendent search finalist."

BINGO! FOIA Violation

The Agenda reads at Item 3.2, "Personnel Matter related to Superintendent Candidates."

Yesterday I contacted the District and expressed my opinion that Item 3.2, as presented on the Agenda, was too general. State law requires the Purpose of an Executive Session to be specific enough for the public to know what will be discussed.

Interviewing a candidate is not a "Personnel Matter related to Superintendent Candidates." The wording used by Mrs. Nash was changed from the agenda description to something closer to what will actually happen. 

However, the agenda did not get changed. There was time to change it. The agenda had to be published by 7:00PM yesterday. So the Public, believing the published agenda, had every right to expect that to be the purpose of the Executive Session. 

Will the I.G. or the Attorney General find a problem? 

At what time did tonight's meeting actually start? Did the trustees gather for dinner? At what time did they gather? 5:30PM?

If so, THAT is when the Special-Called Board Meeting began. It began as soon as four trustees (under State law) gathered, even though the Board's "quorum" (for matters like firing a superintendent) reads five trustees to be present.

It's already too late to correct the agenda for tomorrow night's Special-Called Board Meeting. 

Will the District correct it before Thursday's Special-Called Board Meeting?

3 Special-Called Board Meetings? Yes or No?

Is the school board holding meetings on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday?

Richland 2 homepage: "Finalist Interviews for Superintendent", June 20, 21, 22

Livestream.com/Richland2: "Special-Called Board Meeting", June 20, 21, 22

The official place for announcements of board meetings is on the District's website.

If it is not announced on the webpage, will only up-to-three board members attend each night, avoiding a quorum?

Are these interview sessions open to the public?

[Edited. Agendas have now been published for the June 20, 21, and 22 Special-Called Board Meetings, and the District's website will be updated for those dates. And, finalist interviews will be conducted in Executive Session.]

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?