Nobody told me nuthin'

When a person decides to run for office, there are certain things they must do. And certain things they must know.

A valuable source of information is the South Carolina Elections Commission.

Behind the "Candidates" tab on the homepage is a page titled "Campaign Finance & Ethics".

On that page, clear as a bright sun, it reads

"Candidates are required by law to file various campaign finance reports by specific deadlines.

"All candidates must file a Statement of Economic Interest (SEI) form with the State Ethics Commission.  This must be done electronically on the State Ethics Commission website.  Candidates may also be required to make Campaign Disclosure reports.  Visit the State Ethics Commission website for more information."

So this is my question. If a person with an eighth-grade education or higher read that, wouldn't he or she think that maybe, just maybe, it might be a good idea to find out what those reports were and when those deadlines were?

How could a person possibly later say, "Nobody told me I needed to do something." It was the candidate's personal responsibility to find out. You can't put the blame off on someone else.

If a candidate can't or won't take that personal responsibility, can that candidate be trusted to fulfill important fiduciary duties as a member of a board of trustees, responsible for multi-millions of dollars of assets, thousands of students and hundreds of employees?

Reality Check - McKie misses deadline

Do you read The Independent Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County? Do you follow the goings-on of Richland 2 on The Voice?

On May 9, The Voice reporter Michael Smith filed his story about the latest deadline that Amelia McKie missed. Hit the link above, then click on News, then at the bottom of the webpage click on Next. You're looking for the story titled McKie fails to file ethics form... again. Or just click here.

Earlier this year Amelia McKie assured fellow School Board members and the public that "It’s a problem that certainly will not happen again.” By the "It" she meant failing to file required reports at the South Carolina Ethics Commission.

Now, if she makes a promise (gives her word) that it won't happen again and less than three months later it does happen again, how much faith can be placed in anything else she says?

She got in hot water this time over her Campaign Disclosure Report for January 1-March 31, 2019 that was due by April 10, 2019. When did she file it? May 8, 2019! A month late.

Wouldn't you think that one of her buddies on the board would have been saying, "Amelia, you know you need to file the Campaign Disclosure Report, right?" and "Amelia, when you are going to file that report?" and "Amelia, did you file the report?"  Or did all of her buddies clam up and just sit on their hands, waiting for Amelia to self-destruct?

McKie owes $51,850 to the South Carolina Ethics Commission. That amount is no longer negotiable. The appeals period has closed. That's what she owes. The S.C. Department of Revenue (SCDOR) may be likely to commence collection actiony soon, and it probably won't be so polite as the Ethics Commission has been. The SCDOR is likely to send a letter or two and then file a collection action in court. And then pursue a judgment.

Has Amelia got $51,850 to settle up? It's my understanding that campaign funds cannot be used to pay fines and penalties.

How many people would grab the arms of their chair, fasten their seatbelts, and hang on? What should she do?

"Resign from the Board?" Actually, that's not an option for McKie, because she is not even legally a member of the Board. (Nor is Teresa Holmes.)

How can you resign from something of which you are not even a legal member?

And why don't the five legal members of the School Board insist that McKie and Holmes not take seats at the front of the room during Board meetings? Why doesn't the Superintendent explain to her that she is not a legal member of the Board and cannot participate as such? She should not be attending Executive Sessions, calling meetings to order, recognizing others to speak, voting, or taking any other action as a Board member, because she is not a School Board member.

Are her problems about to get a lot worse?

And the other School Board members should be very careful not to be complicit in anything that smells of being illegal. Mrs. Agostini was wise enough to consult her private attorney. If the other Board members consult with their own private attorneys, they will learn about their own precarious positions.

Here is the question each Board member should ask his or her own attorney? "If I fail to challenge the presence of someone who has asserted an illegal claim to the office of Trustee on the Richland 2 School Board, do I have personal or civil (or even, possibly, criminal) liability?"

Teresa Holmes doesn't need to ask her attorney that question. She too is not a legal member of the Board. for the same reason McKie isn't.

The "real deal" - only it's not

This morning I came across this page on the Richland 2 website. It's titled The Real Deal.

One of the questions is

"Q: A newspaper article stated that Dr. Davis was listed on the SC Ethics Commission website as owing a fine. Is that correct? 
A: Dr. Davis was never assessed a fine by the ethics commission and was never listed on the website as owing a fine. At the February 12, 2019 School Board meeting, Dr. Davis stated that he was unaware of the requirement of "filing a Statement of Economic Interest (SEI) form within 10 days of officially becoming the superintendent in Richland Two. Instead, Dr. Davis followed the practice of his predecessors and of superintendents across the state by filing the SEI after receiving the annual notification from the Ethics Commission in December.”

"When he learned of the requirement, he self-reported this omission to the ethics commission, updated the files submitted for the 2017 calendar year that he submitted in 2018, and voluntarily paid the $100 fine."

If that answer were put through the Snopes.com True or False wringer, the Answer would be "Mixed".

How so?

True. Dr. Davis was never assessed a fine by the S.C. Ethics Commission.
True. Dr. Davis was never listed as owing a fine to the Ethics Commission.
True. Dr. Davis acknowledged not having filed a SEI.

FALSE. What is the so-called ten days after period?

The South Carolina Ethics Commission, according to S.C. law, requires the SEI to be filed before the appointee takes the oath of office and engages upon official duties.

Dr. Davis did mention a period of ten days following becoming the Superintendent, but that is NOT how the law reads. S.C. Code of Laws §8-13-1110(A) is crystal clear. Read it yourself. Where does it say you have ten days after...?

Wasn't the notification that Supt. Davis received in December 2018 a Notice that he had not filed a required SEI, rather than an "annual notification" that one was required? And wasn't that because The Voice newspaper had blown the whistle on District 2 officials?

The District shouldn't be writing a partial truth and calling it the "Real Deal", or Truth.

If his predecessors were wrong or other superintendents across the state of South Carolina were wrong, does that excuse the Richland 2 Superintendent? That's like saying "Well, I speed because everybody speeds."

And that's also too much like saying, "The dog ate my homework."

May 14th Agenda - Cell Tower

Attention - Parents!

The Agenda for the May 14, 2019 Board meeting contains an item for discussion during the 5:30PM Executive Session: "Contractual Matter regarding Cellphone Tower"

If you have something to say to the Board, you are have some choices:
1. Email your School Board members before the meeting;
2. Telephone your School Board members before the meeting;
3. Speak at the May 14th meeting by arriving before 6:30PM and registering to speak. You must fill out both forms!

The Board will meet to discuss the Contract before you get to speak about it.

The Board should not be taking any action on the contractual matter discussed on May 14. There is no vote scheduled.

But this may not mean anything, because there may be no action by the Board necessary for work to proceed on the tower. It may already be a done deal. The meeting held last month was an Informational Meeting. Information was provided TO you. Whatever you said at the meeting (or since) may have absolutely no consequence.

The Board should make clear exactly what the status of construction is.

Is it too late for anything you say to have any effect on construction of a cellphone tower at Kelly Mill Middle School or on the grounds of any other school in the Richland 2 School District?

May 14th Agenda - Budget Input Session

The May 14th meeting of the Richland School Board will start at 5:00PM. The only item of business is "Public Input Session: Budget".

This means, if you have anything to say to the Board about the budget for the coming school year, now is the time to step up and say it.

At the last Budget Input session, only one parent spoke.

I think parents did not know about that "opportunity" to speak. OK, so what if you have to leave work early to be there at 5:00PM. Or tell your family that they "are on their own" for dinner.

Why is the Board scheduling the Input session for 5:00PM?

Is it so the Board can say, "Well, we offered the public a chance to speak and no one showed up." Or "People ought to find the Agenda, read it and understand what we mean."

Why not have the Budget Input session at the beginning of the public session at 6:30PM?

Did the Board decide on the time? Or did Amelia McKie and the superintendent pick it?

After the 30-minute Budget Input session, the Board will hold an Executive Session from 5:30-6:30PM. The Regular Meeting of the Board will start at 6:30PM. That's this Tuesday, May 14th.

When is the next meeting?

From the Richland 2 School District website at 6:12PM on May 9, 2019.

BOARD MEETINGS

Upcoming Meeting:

   Tuesday, April 30, 2019
   Regularly Schedule Meeting

I wonder why the date wasn't changed on May 1st. The next meeting will be Tuesday, May 14.

Do you think it's a "Regularly Schedule Meeting"?

Any grammarians here?

The Voice on board's bond documents

You'll want to read slowly the entire article on this week's The Independent Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County. Don't miss it. To go straight to it, click here.

Reporter Michael Smith dug further into the question and got quotes from two trustees on the Richland 2 school board. I can imagine he had some good questions for the superintendent, but Smith wrote "District Superintendent Dr. Baron Davis couldn’t be reached for comment."

Will the Board ever find out how, exactly, the fancy wording got added to the bond documents?

It's the Administration that brought the documents to the Board. It's the Administration that needs to be under the microscope. And the grilling should be in public, not hidden away in Executive Session and not swept under the rug.

Thank goodness that Mrs. Agostini had the insight and the integrity to examine carefully what she was being asked to sign.

There is much more to be written and said about this. And it will be.