How high is student meal debt?

On the Agenda for tomorrow night's school board meeting (5:30PM, August 6, 2019) is Item 5.4, Update: Meal Debt.

An attachment to the Agenda, available for public viewing, shows that this debt is "almost $242,000". This makes one wonder just who was watching the store!!!

The district is trying to collect $218,000 from full-pay families. It is not a debt of free/reduced eligible families.

How does this debt approach almost one-quarter of a million dollars???

You can view the PowerPoint program through the Agenda or by clicking on this link.

I was first reminded of words spoken by the wise Yoda. "Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try." Don't "try" to collect the debt. Collect it!!!

The district sent letters to delinquent parents on June 27 and July 18, but apparently only to those owing $100 or more. NOTE: WHAT DID IT DO BEFORE JUNE 27???

The district mailed 939 letters; 10% were returned as undeliverable. $9,137 came in on 197 accounts, but the PowerPoint presentation doesn't indicate whether those were full or partial payments. Obviously, it was mostly partial payments, because the average payment was only $46.38. What about the rest???

A third letter is being mailed today The fourth letter will go out on August 16 and informs parents that the debt will be turned over to a collection agent.

If 939 accounts owe $242,000, that's an average of $257.72 EACH. Some owe more; some owe less. All owe at least $100.00.

Only 23% (197/846) who got one of the first two letters sent any money at all.

The average payment received from 197 respondents was only $46.38 ($9137/197).

Come on, folks. If a full-pay student keeps showing up for lunch with no money, why didn't the district take action long before the balance got close to $100.00?

What's the plan to collect from the rest of the deadbeats? How many accounts have balances of $99.99 or less?

Should the district hire a bill collector (cost?) or sic a polite, well-trained employee on these deadbeats? Or maybe hire a part-time employee to contact every one of the 939 debtors with the higher balances and those with smaller balances?

Absolute Foolishness

A special school board meeting has been called for Tuesday, August 6, 2019. The meeting will start with an Executive (private) Session at 5:30PM.

Two items are on the Agenda for the Executive Session. The board will discuss in private 1) a contractual matter regarding the superintendent's contract and 2) a diploma petition.

The starting time for the Open (Public) Session was omitted from the Agenda. It could be 6:00PM or later, depending on how long the board takes to discuss the "contractual matter". Or the Open session could begin as early as 5:35PM. If you don't want to miss the beginning of the open session, you might plan to arrive at 5:30PM.

Under Old Business (No Action Requested), four items are listed on the Agenda.

Here's the kicker! Under New Business (No Action Requested) there are THIRTY-TWO (32) Board Policies submitted for consideration and revision. Normally, the Policies to be revised are shown on the Agenda and can be viewed through attachments.

For the August 6 Special Called Board Meeting, the attachments are not included, which means the public has no idea what the board is being asked to consider. The board members receive the proposed revisions before the meeting, sometimes not very far before the meeting. At least one board member publicly asked for revisions to be sent to board members much earlier, so they'd have time to study them.

Swamping board members with THIRTY-TWO Policy Revisions at a Special Meeting is nuts. The Board should direct the Superintendent to present them with a small number at each meeting, perhaps five. There are matters of much greater importance than nitpicking board policies.

Perhaps a board member will make a motion to limit the number of revisions to be presented at any one meeting, and perhaps a second board member will second. And perhaps at least two other board members will be brave enough to hop aboard and support the first two.

There will be no Public Participation segment at the August 6th meeting.

Securities problem with $26MM Bond Notes sale?

On April 11, 2019 some representatives of the Richland 2 School District are believed to have signed a document for the sale of $26,000,000 Bond Anticipation Notes.

I haven't seen the official, signed document but, upon information and belief, it was signed on that date (or another close date) by Amelia McKie as Board Chair, Supt. Baron Davis, and Chief Financial Officer Miley.

The signature of the Board Secretary was required, but the Board Secretary would not sign. Before the end of April the then-Board Secretary Lindsay Agostini announced her resignation as Board Secretary, giving the reasons that she could not and would not sign special additional statements related to Amelia McKie's status on the board, wishing to avoid the risks of personal and civil liability.

At the April 30, 2019 board meeting, the board elected Trustee James Shadd as Board Secretary and he signed the bond documents that night.  *

The 140-page bond document can be read at https://emma.msrb.org/ER1220676-ER955363-ER1356366.pdf  In particular, questionable wording can be read on Pages 51-52. You can use the Page Number block at the top of the .pdf document to get in the general area of the document. Then use the Page Number at the bottom of the actual page to find the references in LEGAL MATTERS (see Opinion and see Litigation) and MISCELLANEOUS (see Certificate as to the Official Statement).

Elsewhere in the document it identifies Amelia McKie as a Board member and as Board Chair, and Amelia McKie's occupation is listed as "Community Volunteer".

If 50 years of reading legal documents, I don't think I have ever before read that a person's "occupation" is Volunteer.

Today (July 31, 2019) I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request with the School District for copies of the signed Certificate of Incumbency and the Signature and No-Litigation Certification. These are the two documents that Mrs. Agostini refused to sign. They are part of the bond documents but not part of the documents filed on a website for public viewing.

If and when it is eventually determined that Mrs. McKie was not a Board member after November 6, 2018 and was also not Board Chair, was it legal for her to sign the bond documents as Board Chair?

The attorney for the School District and the bond counsel should have been well-informed of the challenge to McKie's participation on the board.

The board should have cleaned this up in February 2019 by having McKie take the oath of office legally. McKie first became eligible to take the oath of office on December 4, 2018, when she filed the Statement of Economic Interests Report that should have been filed before she repeated the words of the oath of office on November 13, 2018. On November 13 she was not eligible to take the oath of office or to enter upon her official responsibilities, but she did both.

* [CORRECTION. The Certificate of Incumbency and the Signature and No-Litigation Certificate were signed by Amelia McKie, as Board Chair, and by James Shadd, as Board Secretary, on May 2, 2019.]

Shoulda, coulda ...

When the controversy first arose about the legality of two trustees-elect participating on the school board earlier this year (February? maybe January?), the Board should have appointed a committee to investigate and consider what was being challenged.

Did it? Not according to any action officially taken.

What should have been the composition of such a committee? Obviously, the two persons challenged should not have been on the committee. A Committee of three might have been appropriate, with at least one of them being an officer of the board.

Should the superintendent have been on the committee?

As the senior staff employee of the District and one who must work closely with the Board Chair, the superintendent should not have been designated to be on the committee. This would have protected him and helped separate his role, which was to support the Board Chair, whoever the person was.

Should one or more members of the public have been on the committee?

Perhaps one or more of the several members of the public who were complaining should have be invited to be part of such a committee. After all, they were the ones waving the flag.

Such a committee would have had to study the laws and should have obtained the advice of the legal counsel for the school district. Then the committee would have brought its findings to the full board.

And then the Board should have announced the committee's findings and stated what action it would take, if any.

At least one board member seemed to agree with the challenges that were being raised. When it came time to sign a Certificate of Incumbency and a Signature and No-Litigation Certification in connection with documents for the sale of $26,000,000 Bond Anticipation Notes, that board member's concerns were so great that she consulted with her private attorney to determine what risk, if any, there was for personal or civil liability, should she sign the documents as Board Secretary.

As a result of that consultation, she refused to sign the documents and resigned as Board Secretary on April 26, 2019.

At the school board meeting on April 30, 2019, her resignation was announced, and she explained her reasons at length. The Board was in a pickle, because it needed a Secretary to sign the documents, including the two special certifications. Board Trustee James Shadd was nominated, accepted the nomination and was elected by the Board to the office of Secretary, to complete the Secretary's term-of-office to June 30, 2019. That same night he signed the bond documents as Secretary.

Will he someday regret the "honor" of serving as successor Secretary? Will he wish he had taken time to consider exactly why the previous Secretary had resigned? Has he given thought since April 30th to the possible effect of signing a document that stated Mrs. McKie was the Board Chair and that her term of office was July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019?

When the District and the Board finally have to admit that, after all this time (since November 6, 2018), Mrs. McKie has been a trustee-elect (only) and not a Trustee, making the Certificate of Incumbency false, how will this reflect on those who signed it?

Most on the Board must hope this issue will just go away.

The Board or the District has never tried to explain to me why they are right and I'm wrong. For my part, I don't care about being "right". I do care about what is right.

Board can't control who sits on Board?

At the school board meeting on July 23, 2019, I made the following comments during the Public Participation segment of the meeting. These comments can be watched and heard on the YouTube recording of the meeting, starting at 9:57 on the meeting timer.

I was cautioned twice by the Board Chair; both times were done so politely, professionally and respectfully.

First, my comments:

"Over the past four months I have many conversations with law enforcement and other agencies regarding the problems that I have called to the attention of the Board.

"Among my contacts have been the Richland County Sheriff’s Department, the South Carolina Ethics Commission, the Attorney General, SLED, the South Carolina Dept. of Education, the Governor’s Office, my State Senator and my State Representative, the School Boards Association, and others.

"In a March meeting at the Sheriff’s Department, a sergeant-investigator asked me if I wanted Mrs. McKie and Ms. Holmes “kicked off the board” (his words). I answered that I did not. All I wanted was for them to take the oath of office and become legal members of the board.

"I still do.

** First caution occurred here. 

"The purpose of my comments tonight is to request a meeting with the Board Chair and the attorney for the School District to discuss two matters.

1.     1. Why the District believes that two trustees-elect, who did not legally take the oath of office, are allowed to sit on the Board, and

     ** Second caution occurred here.

2.     2. Whether the District has engaged in securities fraud because of erroneous, misleading and incomplete information in the bond documents for the $26,000,000 sale of Bond Anticipation Notes on April 11 of this year.

"I will contact Mr. Manning to arrange the meeting."

Regarding the first caution, I disagree that a member of the public use a board member's name in Public Participation or cannot repeat a comment about two board members made by a law-enforcement officer. The important part is that I disagreed with that law-enforcement officer.

Regarding the second caution, I disagree that the School Board does not have jurisdiction over who sits at the Board. It's not a matter of ethics; it's a matter of legality. I was told that the Board does not have direct control over whether a person is illegally on the Board. 

If the Board doesn't have control over who sits on it, why couldn't anyone just show up at a meeting and take a seat in one of the nice chairs at the front of the room?

Mrs. McKie and Ms. Holmes have never legally taken the oath of office and cannot be on the Board officially, until they do. On December 4, 2018 they first became eligible to take the oath of office, because that is the date they filed their Statement of Economic Interests Reports. The law (S.C. Code of Laws §8-13-1110(A)) is clear.

Next Board Meeting - Tuesday, August 6

Richland 2 School Board meetings are normally on the second and fourth Tuesdays.

There will be a Special-Called Board Meeting on Tuesday, August 6, 2019.

The starting time for the Executive Session is scheduled for 5:30PM. The length of the executive session is being determined, and that will determine the starting time for the public session. It could be 6:00PM, 6:30PM, 7:00PM.

Monitor the Agenda on the District's website for more information. The Agenda will be published on Thursday, August 1.

Go to www.richland2.org
At the upper right, click on EXPLORE
Then click on School Board
Then click on Agenda
Under Meetings, click on Regular Business Meeting (wording might change for this Special meeting)
Note the time for the start of the public session
Click on View the Agenda

At the July 23rd Board meeting, the Agenda for the "next" Board meeting was discussed and approved. They considered the "next" Board meeting to be the one on August 13.

The superintendent and the Board knew that the "next" Board meeting would be in two weeks on August 6. Why didn't they discuss the Agenda for that meeting?

There is this little thing called Transparency.

Could R2 have a bonding problem?

A local newspaper, The Independent Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County, published an article on July 18 about a recently-appointed Fairfield County magistrate, whose bond application was denied by that county's bond insurer due to the new magistrate's credit.

That new magistrate quickly secured a bond independently and provided it to the county.

This caused me to wonder whether school board members must be bonded. I'm rather sure that they must, because their fiduciary responsibility is high.

If a school board trustee has credit problems that include foreclosure action and an unsatisfied judgment in a significant amount, would that cause a bonding company to cancel any bond that had been issued?

It's the School District that should require Trustees to be bonded.

Of course, if the person to be bonded is not actually a legal trustee, that will present its own problem for the bonding company.