Consider this scenario and comment below how you would view it.
What would be the proper name for a person who claims a public office but who is not entitled to hold it?
To hold a public office you must be qualified and eligible.
Being "qualified" means you are old enough, have the correct residency, are not disqualified because of criminal convictions, and are legally elected.
Being "eligible" means you meet all the requirements.
If you've been following this blog, you'll know where I'm going with this.
One of the requirements of being eligible is the filing of the Statement of Economic Interests Report with the South Carolina Ethics Commission. This reports reveals potential conflicts of interest and sources of income.
The law says you cannot take the oath of office or begin your duties unless you have filed that Statement.
How hard is that to understand? I'm thinking that a third-grader could understand it. It's kind of like, "Johnny, you don't get to go to fourth grade unless you have passed third grade. Understand?"
What does Johnny say? "I got it." If Johnny fails third grade but shows up for fourth grade, he can't get in.
If you take the oath of office before you file the Statement, the oath doesn't count (because the law says you cannot take it).
You can't begin your duties until you take the oath of office.
After you file the Statement, then you can take the oath and begin your duties.
So what do you call the person who doesn't follow the instructions and assumes the duties of the office?
1. An imposter?
2. A cheat?
3. A fraud?
4. A trespasser?
5. A usurper?
Do you think there is some risk, perhaps some breach of fiduciary duty, to the others on the Board for allowing unauthorized persons to carry on the duties of a Board member?
Is it time for the five legal Richland 2 School Board members to stand up and say, "Enough! Take the oath of office now or go home."
Thursday, April 4, 2019
Next School Board Meeting - Tues., April 9, 6:30PM
Parents, voters, taxpayers are requested at the next Richland 2 School Board meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, April 9, 2019. Please plan to speak and remember to sign up on the two forms.
The public session starts at 6:30PM at R2i2.
The public session is preceded by an Executive Session at 5:30PM. A public session opens the 5:30PM meeting and the Board immediately votes to enter a closed Executive Session.
If Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes have not taken the oath of office by then, it is hoped that the five legal members of the Board will vote "No" on the motion to go to Executive Session.
In the Executive Session there is discussion about confidential student matters, including suspension, expulsions, transfers, referral for mental health treatment at LRADAC, and other matters specified on a special Agenda. NO decisions can be made in Executive Session and NO action can be taken. Matters must be voted on in the public session, although the public will not know who Student 1 or Student 2 is.
The Executive Session is closed to the public. Only legal Board members should be allowed in it. Since November 13, 2018, the five legal members of the Board have allowed McKie and Holmes in the Executive Sessions.
This needs to stop. Now.
Do laws matter? Do ethics matter? Where are we headed, if they don't matter?
The public session starts at 6:30PM at R2i2.
The public session is preceded by an Executive Session at 5:30PM. A public session opens the 5:30PM meeting and the Board immediately votes to enter a closed Executive Session.
If Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes have not taken the oath of office by then, it is hoped that the five legal members of the Board will vote "No" on the motion to go to Executive Session.
In the Executive Session there is discussion about confidential student matters, including suspension, expulsions, transfers, referral for mental health treatment at LRADAC, and other matters specified on a special Agenda. NO decisions can be made in Executive Session and NO action can be taken. Matters must be voted on in the public session, although the public will not know who Student 1 or Student 2 is.
The Executive Session is closed to the public. Only legal Board members should be allowed in it. Since November 13, 2018, the five legal members of the Board have allowed McKie and Holmes in the Executive Sessions.
This needs to stop. Now.
Do laws matter? Do ethics matter? Where are we headed, if they don't matter?
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Not even one Board member
Last night there was an educational reform presentation at the Sandhills Library. It was sponsored by State Representatives Ivory Thigpen (House District 79) and Kambrell Garvin (District 77). Joining them at the front of the room was Michael Anzelmo, Chief of Staff to S.C. House Speaker Jay Lucas, and Joanie Lawson, Government Relations Specialist at the South Carolina Education Association.
I'd like to say that the third-floor library auditorium was full. I'd like to say it was half-full. A quarter-full? There were about thirty in the audience, with the majority appearing to be teachers and members of SC for Ed. The youngest member of the audience was 5, and he was very well behaved while the "grown-ups" talked for 90 minutes.
As I looked around, I did not see one Richland 2 School Board member. (If I missed you, my apologies.)
Rep. Thigpen had told me about this meeting on March 25, or I wouldn't have known of it. Although it was being held at the library, it was not on the library's online calendar. And it wasn't on the Richland 2 calendar.
S.C. House Bill 3759 has been sent to the S.C. Senate, where it will be considered while the Senate works up its own Bill, S. 419. This legislative session will end early in May.
If you are a parent, student or taxpayer, you'll want to pay attention to this educational reform bill. Now is the time to contact your State Senator and express your comments and requests.
At the March 25 educational reform presentation, sponsored by Sen. Mia McLeod, there was a comment that South Carolina and Mississippi are fighting hard for the bottom ranking of Education. Should it be that way? For how much longer?
If you are a teacher in Richland 2, let me hear your stories about your classrooms and discipline. Is it as bad as the rumors? Your privacy and confidentiality are safe with me.
Rep. Thigpen is planning another meeting on educational reform. I'll get the details on April 4 and publish them.
I'd like to say that the third-floor library auditorium was full. I'd like to say it was half-full. A quarter-full? There were about thirty in the audience, with the majority appearing to be teachers and members of SC for Ed. The youngest member of the audience was 5, and he was very well behaved while the "grown-ups" talked for 90 minutes.
As I looked around, I did not see one Richland 2 School Board member. (If I missed you, my apologies.)
Rep. Thigpen had told me about this meeting on March 25, or I wouldn't have known of it. Although it was being held at the library, it was not on the library's online calendar. And it wasn't on the Richland 2 calendar.
S.C. House Bill 3759 has been sent to the S.C. Senate, where it will be considered while the Senate works up its own Bill, S. 419. This legislative session will end early in May.
If you are a parent, student or taxpayer, you'll want to pay attention to this educational reform bill. Now is the time to contact your State Senator and express your comments and requests.
At the March 25 educational reform presentation, sponsored by Sen. Mia McLeod, there was a comment that South Carolina and Mississippi are fighting hard for the bottom ranking of Education. Should it be that way? For how much longer?
If you are a teacher in Richland 2, let me hear your stories about your classrooms and discipline. Is it as bad as the rumors? Your privacy and confidentiality are safe with me.
Rep. Thigpen is planning another meeting on educational reform. I'll get the details on April 4 and publish them.
What would YOU call this?
Let's say a person walked into your business, sat down at a desk and started answering the phone and writing checks on your business account. What would you do?
Or let's say a person bought a badge, pinned it on the front of his shirt and started writing tickets to jaywalkers? What would you do?
Or a person walked into a bank, hopped over the counter, cleaned out the till and walked out?
Or let's say a person took an oath of office when she wasn't legally entitled to, and then sat in a selected chair at public meetings, heard confidential student matters, voted on them, or maybe even ran meetings?
When a person assumes duties in a "public body" (ex., state, city, county government; school board) to which she is not entitled and is allowed to do so unchallenged by other equal members of that public body, what would YOU call this?
There isn't just one person who has assumed such duties. There are two such persons. And right here on the Richland 2 School Board.
The problem is that, when each took the oath of office on November 13, 2018 and entered upon official duties, neither was eligible to do so - under South Carolina law! Section 8-13-1110(A).
Neither had filed the required Statement of Economic Interests with the South Carolina Ethics. Commission. Each filed that Statement on December 4, 2018. Neither has taken the oath of office after filing the Statement.
Therefore, neither is legally on the Board. Yet there they sit.
This continues to be a problem not only for the two women there illegally, but now also for the five legal members of the Board who are doing nothing to stop them. And will the problem overflow to the Superintendent?
Couldn't he - shouldn't he - advise the five legal members of the Board that Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes need to be sworn in?
Doing so will force the District to acknowledge that it has been operating since November 13, 2018 with two persons improperly involved in Board matters. Many votes will have to be undone. Some matters concerning students will be reversed.
What can you do? Email or phone Board members (names and phone numbers on Richland 2's website) and tell them to fix this now.
Or let's say a person bought a badge, pinned it on the front of his shirt and started writing tickets to jaywalkers? What would you do?
Or a person walked into a bank, hopped over the counter, cleaned out the till and walked out?
Or let's say a person took an oath of office when she wasn't legally entitled to, and then sat in a selected chair at public meetings, heard confidential student matters, voted on them, or maybe even ran meetings?
When a person assumes duties in a "public body" (ex., state, city, county government; school board) to which she is not entitled and is allowed to do so unchallenged by other equal members of that public body, what would YOU call this?
There isn't just one person who has assumed such duties. There are two such persons. And right here on the Richland 2 School Board.
The problem is that, when each took the oath of office on November 13, 2018 and entered upon official duties, neither was eligible to do so - under South Carolina law! Section 8-13-1110(A).
Neither had filed the required Statement of Economic Interests with the South Carolina Ethics. Commission. Each filed that Statement on December 4, 2018. Neither has taken the oath of office after filing the Statement.
Therefore, neither is legally on the Board. Yet there they sit.
This continues to be a problem not only for the two women there illegally, but now also for the five legal members of the Board who are doing nothing to stop them. And will the problem overflow to the Superintendent?
Couldn't he - shouldn't he - advise the five legal members of the Board that Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes need to be sworn in?
Doing so will force the District to acknowledge that it has been operating since November 13, 2018 with two persons improperly involved in Board matters. Many votes will have to be undone. Some matters concerning students will be reversed.
What can you do? Email or phone Board members (names and phone numbers on Richland 2's website) and tell them to fix this now.
Monday, April 1, 2019
McKie still owes $51,850 - no foolin'
According to the South Carolina Ethics Commission, as of today, April 1, 2019, Amelia McKie still owes $51,850 in fines and penalties.
According to other media stories, the amount owed increased by $10,000 on January 1, when she failed to make a payment by December 31, 2018.
The Ethics Commission attempts to collect debts itself, before turning the debt over to the South Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR). The DOR charges 22% of the amount collected, so it stands to earn $11,407, if it can squeeze the full amount out of McKie.
Other media reports indicate that another Richland 2 Board member owed $65,000 to the Ethics Commission, but he was able to bargain it down to $6,500. Now that is some bargaining, if I do say so myself. That was for a 2014 complaint.
McKie's complaint at the Ethics Commission was Complaint No. 2017-023. The complaint itself is recorded as Resolved, but the debt remains outstanding.
Should a person with an Ethics Commission debt be allowed to hold office? Please comment below.
According to other media stories, the amount owed increased by $10,000 on January 1, when she failed to make a payment by December 31, 2018.
The Ethics Commission attempts to collect debts itself, before turning the debt over to the South Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR). The DOR charges 22% of the amount collected, so it stands to earn $11,407, if it can squeeze the full amount out of McKie.
Other media reports indicate that another Richland 2 Board member owed $65,000 to the Ethics Commission, but he was able to bargain it down to $6,500. Now that is some bargaining, if I do say so myself. That was for a 2014 complaint.
McKie's complaint at the Ethics Commission was Complaint No. 2017-023. The complaint itself is recorded as Resolved, but the debt remains outstanding.
Should a person with an Ethics Commission debt be allowed to hold office? Please comment below.
Sunday, March 31, 2019
Extent of bullying?
With state-wide and even national focus on Walterboro, South Carolina and the death of 10-year-old Raniya Wright, a fifth-grader, after a reported fight at school, one must ask what the extent of bullying is in the Richland 2 School District.
Students are supposed to be safe at school. Right?
When a student in Richland 2 reports bullying to a teacher, staff member, Principal or parent, what happens?
Parents are invited to submit their stories to this blog. If you are willing to use your name and name the school and personnel involved, all the better.
If you worry about retaliation, email your story to gusphilpott@gmail.com with your phone number. Confidentiality is assured.
Will I keep your identity safe?
When I wrote a blog in Illinois, numerous sheriff's deputies and policy officers fed me the dirt from their departments. The sheriff's attorney try to force me, under subpoena in a deputy's Federal wrongful-termination lawsuit, to reveal their names. I refused and filed a Motion pro se to quash the subpoena. The Federal judge ate up the sheriff's attorney, telling her that she was just on a "fishing expedition" (his words). I still remember the judge's words from back in 2010, "Mr. Philpott, you have won your Motion."
Students are supposed to be safe at school. Right?
When a student in Richland 2 reports bullying to a teacher, staff member, Principal or parent, what happens?
Parents are invited to submit their stories to this blog. If you are willing to use your name and name the school and personnel involved, all the better.
If you worry about retaliation, email your story to gusphilpott@gmail.com with your phone number. Confidentiality is assured.
Will I keep your identity safe?
When I wrote a blog in Illinois, numerous sheriff's deputies and policy officers fed me the dirt from their departments. The sheriff's attorney try to force me, under subpoena in a deputy's Federal wrongful-termination lawsuit, to reveal their names. I refused and filed a Motion pro se to quash the subpoena. The Federal judge ate up the sheriff's attorney, telling her that she was just on a "fishing expedition" (his words). I still remember the judge's words from back in 2010, "Mr. Philpott, you have won your Motion."
Saturday, March 30, 2019
Free Times weighs in
The freetimes weekly newspaper in Columbia has weighed in on Richland 2 again.
See the March 29, 2019 article by Al Dozier here.
On February 14th Al wrote an article that was titled "Richland 2 Chair, Vice Chair Will Keep Posts After Controversy". You can read that article here. In that article Dozier wrote about the resolution that the Board considered for authority to remove an Officer from his or her office, such as Chair Vice Chair or Secretary. The Resolution was not about removing a member from the Board.
He wrote, "The measure failed by a 4-3 vote ..." He continued, "Board members Teresa Holmes, Cheryl Caution Parker, James Shadd and McKie voted against the measure. Elkins-Johnson, James Manning and Lindsay Agostini voted for the policy."
So the vote was four against, three in favor.
BUT, when you remove the votes of two persons who are not legally on the Board (McKie and Holmes), the Resolution actually passed (3-2).
The true vote was Board members Cheryl Caution Parker and James Shadd voted against the measure. Elkins-Johnson, James Manning and Lindsay Agostini voted for the policy.
A 3-2 vote means the measure passed. This is just one of many votes that the School Board must re-visit for all eight Board meetings since November 13, 2018. When the improper votes are removed, some votes will change on student appeals and transfers and on other matters.
See the March 29, 2019 article by Al Dozier here.
On February 14th Al wrote an article that was titled "Richland 2 Chair, Vice Chair Will Keep Posts After Controversy". You can read that article here. In that article Dozier wrote about the resolution that the Board considered for authority to remove an Officer from his or her office, such as Chair Vice Chair or Secretary. The Resolution was not about removing a member from the Board.
He wrote, "The measure failed by a 4-3 vote ..." He continued, "Board members Teresa Holmes, Cheryl Caution Parker, James Shadd and McKie voted against the measure. Elkins-Johnson, James Manning and Lindsay Agostini voted for the policy."
So the vote was four against, three in favor.
BUT, when you remove the votes of two persons who are not legally on the Board (McKie and Holmes), the Resolution actually passed (3-2).
The true vote was Board members Cheryl Caution Parker and James Shadd voted against the measure. Elkins-Johnson, James Manning and Lindsay Agostini voted for the policy.
A 3-2 vote means the measure passed. This is just one of many votes that the School Board must re-visit for all eight Board meetings since November 13, 2018. When the improper votes are removed, some votes will change on student appeals and transfers and on other matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)