Do school board members like 4-hour meetings?

The last school board meeting (8/8/2023) was over four hours long, including the executive session that lasted over an hour. The video on livestream.com/richland2 starts at 01:55

There was a sound problem until 03:47, when words can first be heard. When the sound begins, it seems that Trustee Scott was questioning an agenda item for a program that had not existed for several years. Trustee Agostini questioned another agenda item. Then Trustee Agostini made a motion to remove two items from the agenda. 

The Motion failed (3-4). Agostini, Porter, and Scott were in favor. Trapp, Nash, Washington, and McFadden voted against.

Then somebody spoke without being recognized and said she wanted Item 10.1 removed, because "that program" (f the SCSBA) is no longer operating. What she should have done was make a motion. That's how you get business done. Trapp and Scott made comments. There should have been a motion! Everything that was said, should have been said after a Motion and Second.

Finally Trustee Porter made the Motion to remove Item 10.1. The vote was 6-1. Nash voted No. The Motion passed.

How many more months will it take for Trustees to learn to ask for recognition and not just starting talking?

Do the trustees really like having four-hour meetings? By now, nine months after being elected, trustees should know how to conduct business.

The problem is there are not enough executives on the board, and there is no Parliamentarian.

A Motion was made to approve the Agenda without Item 10.2 The vote was 6-1; Agostini voted No. Motion passed.

Finally they got to the Motion to enter Executive Session, which was approved 7-0. At 17:12 the board left for Executive Session. What should have taken 2-3 minutes took 15 minutes!

Later in the meeting, during the discussion of the Release Time for Religious Instruction, again the desperate need for a Parliamentarian arose, when many comments by trustees were not germane to the issue being discussed. 

Clarification on Liability

At the August 8, 2023 school board meeting, there was a robust discussion of the Religious Instruction item on the agenda. You can watch that on livestream.com/richland2, beginning at 3:06:05

Late in the discussion, Trustee Scott mentioned liability.

At 3:35:34 Supt. Moore responded to Trustee Scott and said "... the school district is not liable". She said the District is not liable for vehicle insurance or vetting people associated with the religious instruction program. "We have zero liability..."

"Once that student has signed out (for the day's religious instruction), we are no longer liable for what takes place for that student..."

That is not what the statute says. 

Mrs. Gregory read the statute earlier in the meeting. The statute (S.C. Code of Laws 59-1-460 (A)) reads, in part, "4. the sponsoring entity makes provisions for and assumes liability for the student that [sic] is excused."

The statute does not say that the District will not have any liability.

'"Wall" at school board meetings

What is the purpose of the "wall" at school board meetings?

At the August 8, 2023, three large tables were placed in front of the four board members' desks. Sure, they were covered with nice, white tablecloths.

But why were they even there?

Were they there to "protect" the board members from the public?

Were they were to protect the public from the board members?

If they were there for protection, they are useless. Anyone can see why.

Release Time for Religious Instruction?

The following email has been sent to Richland 2 board members and the superintendent:

Before more board time is devoted (wasted, in my opinion) to the Religious Instruction movement, may I suggest that a survey of parents be conducted to determine the extent of interest? http://www.SurveyMonkey.com offers a fast, easy survey tool.

I side with Rabbi Case and the former principal who spoke at the August 8th board meeting. This is a bad idea. Religious instruction should be conducted outside of school hours, regardless of Federal and State laws that permit school boards to allow it.

Those who spoke in favor of it would turn Richland Two into a gospel-preaching district and will vilify those who do not participate. It becomes one more division between people. 

Has Supt. Moore offered an feasibility study of the workload (and cost) on staff to implement and maintain such a program? Who is going to track the kids for timely return to campus, security screening, and re-entry to the classroom? What is the District's cost to discipline those who abuse the "choice"? The troublemakers are not going to ask to be released for religious instruction, so they won't benefit habit-wise or goals-wise.

The religious parents will love it. Will they be the ones providing on-time transportation in both directions? 

In the grand scheme of things, aren't there many more-important issues for the school board to address?

This Mom in California got canceled

Janet Roberson

Read this article about Mrs. Janet Roberson, who addressed the Benicia (Calif.) Unified School District on April 20, 2023. Benicia is just southeast of Vallejo. She disagreed with the district's new sex-ed curriculum.

Boy! Did she get hammered!

She has created a website with her story. Click here to view it. Listen to her remarks to the school board on that day. Read what happened to her after that.

Her email address is BeniciaFreedom@gmail.com

This is what we here in Columbia must be alert for. What is going on in Richland 2 that might be similar to this?

Parents, do you really know what your sons and daughters are being exposed to?

R2 Supt. on Crossing Guards

Yesterday I asked the public affairs officer for Richland Two's position on crossing guards. He sent me this link, which is a speech by Supt. Moore on this topic. This is now posted on the District's homepage.

https://www.richland2.org/News/A-crossing-guard-update-from-Superintendent-Dr-Kim

One of the things she said, "We have not had a lot of luck with off-duty deputies, because the time of day we need them to work interferes with their shift."

She did a pretty good job reading the teleprompter or the cue cards, but who wrote that? As she read it, she apparently did not realize that it didn't make sense.

Richland Two could definitely hire off-duty deputies. The sheriff would be delighted to rent them to Richland Two. At what rate?

RCSD charges the Summit's HOA $48.00/hour for off-duty deputies. Considering what the going-rate is for a SRO, either the sheriff is losing money at $48.00/hour or the HOA is getting a sweetheart deal. 

Pay to an off-duty deputy would be at overtime rates, and I can't imagine that $48.00/hour covers it, when you take into account benefits, administration, squad car, uniform, gun, ammo, radio, 50 pounds of gear, etc.

Cost? 35 schools. One deputy per school. AM and PM. 4 hrs./day x $75 x 35 = $10,500/day. 

As for as reaching out to the government (Feds, State, legislature), we all know how that works.

Free fees?

The following is re-posted for all parents in Richland 2. Thanks to this Black Parents Association post on Facebook. This information should be available to all. (Aren't all students getting free lunches now?)

ALERT PARENTS,

PLEASE SEE BELOW THE FEE WAIVER POLICY FOR YOUR CHILD.  IF YOUR CHILD IS ON FREE AND/OR REDUCED LUNCH PLEASE PRINT AND COMPLETE THE FORM AND SEND BACK TO YOUR CHILD'S SCHOOL IMMEDIATELY!

PLEASE INBOX US IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS!

HOPE EVERYONE IS HAVING A GREAT SCHOOL YEAR!

Richland Two Black Parents Association

 (Date)

(Principal’s Name)

(School Name)

(School Address)

(School City, State, Zip)

 

Dear (Principal’s Name)

         

I am writing to make you aware that my student,  (Child’s Name)

is eligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch.  I have learned that the school is charging a fee of

 (amount) for (item)

this year.  It is my understanding that under South Carolina law, schools are required to waive fees for students who are eligible for free meals and reduce fees for students eligible for reduced price lunches.  I am attaching a copy of the relevant law on the following page. 

Please waive or reduce this fee for (Child’s Name) and issue all materials as soon as possible.  If you have any questions, you may contact me at the number below.  Thank you.

 Sincerely,

  

(Parent or Guardian Name)

(Address)

(City, State, Zip)

(Telephone Number)

 

South Carolina Code of Laws Unannotated

Title 59 - Education

CHAPTER 19

School Trustees

ARTICLE 1

General Provisions

 

SECTION 59-19-90. General powers and duties of school trustees.

 

The board of trustees shall also:

 

(8) Charge matriculation and incidental fees. Charge and collect matriculation and incidental fees from students; however, regulations or policies adopted by the board regarding charges and collections must take into account the students' ability to pay and must hold the fee to a minimum reasonable amount. Fees may not be charged to students eligible for free lunches and must be reduced pro rata for students eligible for reduced price lunches;