Oath of Office - Important?

What is the oath of office that a school board trustee takes? Is it important to take the oath of office? To take it legally?

From the South Carolina Code of Laws:

Title 8 - Public Officers and Employees

CHAPTER 3

Commissions, Oaths, and Bonds

SECTION 8-3-10. Oath and commission prerequisite to assumption of duties.

It shall be unlawful for any person to assume the duties of any public office until he has taken the oath provided by the Constitution and been regularly commissioned by the Governor.

Section 8-3-10 makes it very clear. The words "It shall be unlawful..." are not hazy.

So what happened in November 2018?

On November 6, 2018 Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes were elected to the Richland 2 school board.

On November 13, 2018, they took the oath of office in violation of Section 8-13-1110. This law prohibits taking the oath of office without first filing Statements of Economic Interests (with the South Carolina Ethics Commission). They had not filed the required Statements. Taking the oath of office illegally is like not taking it at all.

On December 4, 2018, they filed the required Statements.

NEITHER has taken the oath of office since becoming eligible to do so on December 4, 2018.

Thus, both violated Section 8-3-10. Neither has taken the oath of office legally.

Now the following law becomes important.

SECTION 8-3-220. Bonds of public officers may be sued on.

The bond of any public officer in this State may at all times be sued on by the public, any corporation or private person aggrieved by any misconduct of any such public officer.

I am personally aggrieved by the failure of Richland 2 School District to administer the oath of office legally to McKie and Holmes and by their not taking it legally.

McKie and Holmes are undoubtedly covered under the bond for board members. But could this present a problem? Because they have never become legal board members, they aren't eligible to be covered under the bond. Does the insurance company know that they are not legal board members?

It just gets deeper and deeper!

Who is responsible for this error? The Board is responsible.

The Superintendent? While he just works there, he also is responsible because he is the chief administrator of the District. He is supposed to know all the rules and provide guidance to the Board. But he cannot "tell" the Board what to do. What he can tell them is the consequences of failing to do their duties. But it's the Board that has the ultimate authority and responsibility.

Where is the attorney for the school district in all this? The legal issue is not hard to understand. McKie and Holmes have never taken the oath of office legally, yet they have been allowed to act as board members.

So, why doesn't the Board (there are five legal members of the Board) tell McKie and Holmes to raise their right hands and repeat the following words:

"First, I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according, [sic] to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the duties of the office to which I have been elected (or appointed), and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the duties thereof, and preserve and protect and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States. So help me God."

Board Minutes Missing from Agenda

The Agenda for the August 27, 2019 school board meeting has been published, and it usually contains the Minutes of the last meeting.

The Minutes reveal the actions and decisions of the Board and who voted for or against Motions. The Minutes are the way for the Public to know what is going on.

The Minutes have been attached to the Agenda so that, with a click, one can read them. Except not this week.

The last meeting (August 13) was the one in which there was a Motion to approve the Superintendent's evaluation and his 12.3% raise. On that night two trustees voted against the Motion to Approve. The vote was 5-2.

The reasons given by both were the Super-Majority requirement to send the superintendent packing, if that's what the board decided to do. This would mean that five of the seven-member board would have to agree. There was no mention of what is probably a very healthy early-termination penalty that the District would have to cough it, if it wanted to replace the superintendent.

Somebody on the Board negotiated that with the superintendent, and so that language showed up in his contract. He certainly would have wanted it, but why would the board roll over. The board apparently wasn't allowed to nitpick the proposed contract renewal.

A third person, trustee-elect Holmes, didn't like the Super-Majority provision, but she didn't back it up with a No vote.

One trustee had a second reason for voting No. That second reason was the size of the superintendent's raise - 12.3%. She was right! And that was in addition to the STEP increase.

The Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County newspaper reported on August 22 the following:

"On July 1, Davis’ salary rose from $191,904 to $197,661 after he accepted a STEP increase coupled with a 1 percent raise the district gave administrators.

"Six weeks later, the Richland Two Board of trustees tacked on another 12.3 percent, elevating the superintendent’s base pay to $221,973, fifth highest in the state, according to public records."

The increase from $191,094 to $197,661 is 3%. The superintendent also receives $18,000/year as a automobile allowance.

So, where are the Minutes for the August 13th meeting. I guess the public won't get a chance to read them before the August 27th meeting.

Do Lawyers for District Understand?

At the July 26 school board meeting I requested a meeting with the Board Chair and the attorney for the District. Mr. Manning said he'd meet with me informally. On August 3 I emailed him to request the meeting.

There could be a lot of reasons why he hasn't responded (yet).

On August 19 I emailed Kathryn Mahoney, attorney for Richland 2, and Frannie Heizer, Burr & Forman's bond counsel for Richland 2, to explain exactly why I have been complaining to the Board.

I explained to them that my complaint is not about the late filing of the Statements of Economic Interests by Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes.

My complaint is that each took the oath of office illegally and that, until they do take it legally, they are not legal members of the Board.

The District has never contacted me to explain why my assertions are wrong. From that lack of contact, I can only assume that I am not wrong.

I also pointed out false, misleading and incomplete statements in the Richland 2 bond documents for a $26,000,000 sale of Bond Anticipation Notes.

Burr & Forman attempts to protect itself in the bond document by including this paragraph in the Legal Matters section, beginning on Page 51 of the sale document.

"Burr Forman McNair has assisted the School District by compiling certain information supplied to them by the School District and others and included in this Official Statement, but said firm has not made an independent investigation or verification of the accuracy, completeness or fairness of such information. The opinion of Burr Forman McNair will be limited solely to the legality and enforceability of the Notes, and no opinion will be given with respect to this Official Statement."

Did Richland 2 or its attorney ever tell Frannie Heizer of the ongoing questions about Amelia McKie's participation as a Board member and Board Chair? All of them should know about it, because Lindsay Agostini resigned from the Board Secretary position on April 26, rather than sign two documents associated with this sale. She would not risk personal or civil liability by signing a Certificate of Incumbency (related to McKie) and a Signature and No-Litigation Certification.

Neither Attorney Mahoney nor Attorney Heizer has acknowledged or replied to my August 19 emails. I didn't expect them to, but I certainly hope they will be questioning Board members, the Superintendent and the CFO as to what, exactly, is going on and why the Board hasn't fixed the issue by swearing in McKie and Holmes. McKie and Holmes first became eligible to take the oath of office on December 4, 2018.

Can a Board Allow Unofficial "Members"?

The School Board of District Two often refers to the district as a Premier district. And that it wants to be the Premier board of a premier district. To be that, it should be squeaky clean. Anything that is not totally clean should be cleared up, and quickly.

A school board is composed of  members elected by the public. The School Board of Richland School District Two is to have seven members.

A school board has awesome power, authority and responsibility. It can run your lives or it can ruin your lives, if you are students, teachers, administrators, staff or other District employees or taxpayers.

To run for election to the board, a person has to be qualified. The Election Commission sets the qualifications.

Once a person is elected, that person becomes a Trustee-elect.

To move from Trustee-elect to Trustee, that person must take an oath of office before assuming official duties. In South Carolina, the elected person must file a Statement of Economic Interests Report (SEI) with the South Carolina Ethics Commission before taking the oath of office.

If you take the oath of office before you file your SEI, the oath of office has been taken illegally. It doesn't count. It has no force or effect. Saying it does, does not make it so. No matter how many times you say it.

Once the SEI is filed, the elected person becomes eligible to take the oath of office.

Once the oath of office has been taken (after filing the SEI), only then the elected person can assume official duties.

Just about anyone can run for School Board. He or she must live in the School District and meet other general qualifications.

You don't have to be smart. You don't have to educated. You don't have to have a business background or financial knowledge. You don't have to understand accounting or spreadsheets or budgets. You don't have to have a manager's or executive's skills. You don't have to come from an educational background.

All you have to do is get one more vote than the candidate lower down in the results on Election Day.

Why is legal composition important? The Board makes decisions involving millions of dollars and affecting thousands of students and employees. Board officers sign legal documents that create huge financial obligations for the district.

All seven members must be fully and officially authorized by law to serve.

Right now, two of the seven are not. This means there are five legal members on the board and two who are not. South Carolina law calls them usurpers; they could also be called impostors or pretenders.

The five legal members of the Board should not tolerate this and should insist that the oath of office be administered legally to Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes without further delay.

After that, the board will have the responsibility to clean up all the messes that have accumulated since November 13, 2018.

Remember the RVHS fight? teacher vs. student

Remember all the hoop-da-la about the teacher at Ridge View High School who ended up in  a fight with a student?

If you watch WIS-TV (Channel 10, Columbia) or read the news online, now you'll know the rest of the story.

A pre-trial intervention deal was struck. The terms were not included in the WIS-TV article. The usual outcome of such a deal is, after it is successfully completed, charges are being dismissed. This apparently is the expectation of former teacher Karon Wilson, Jr., who also expects that the charges will be expunged from court records. His attorney will inform him how that gets done.

Wilson was quoted in the WISTV.com news article: “I didn’t do anything wrong," Wilson said. "There’s no admission of guilt and I’m thankful for God for making this happen and for the support my students gave me. I don’t know anybody that has gotten hit in the face that would not react the same way. I don’t care if it’s a child or an adult, no teacher should ever be put in a position to be hit by a student in any regard."

At the end of May local news reported that Wilson had quit his teaching job. My guess is that he might have done that in anticipation of being canned by the District. It seemed to me, from the video at the time, that Wilson was defending himself.

The most that should have happened at the time was for Wilson to be placed on paid leave while the charges were investigated and resolved. What happened?


Would the District have backed him up and presumed he was innocent? Did he figure that he wasn't going to get a fair shake from the District? Now that the charges are to be dismissed and expunged, will he sue the District?

Do Richland 2 teachers and staff qualify for battle pay?

Richland 2 Football - The State piles on

In a story date-lined yesterday, August 17, at 11:11AM, The State newspaper piled on with its own story about ethics violations in the Richland 2 Athletics Department.

Read Lou Bezjak's story on www.thestate.com. Search for Blythewood High or the coach's name, Jason Seidel. A typical legal-approved, carefully-worded statement from Richland 2 was enough to make any sane person laugh. Like Lou's story? Write him at LBezjak@thestate.com

Quoting The State's quote of the Richland 2 PR puff piece, "recruiting 'for athletic purposed is a serious ethical violation.'"

Somehow, I think Richland 2 shouldn't be talking any ethics violations being "serious", when the Board itself overlooks ethics violations by it own members and especially by Trustees-elect, who aren't even members of the board, yet claim the office and get paid for it.

Did the Board ever take any action against Amelia McKie for violating Board Policy when she did not file Statements of Economic Interests with the South Carolina Ethics Commission for several years during his first term, 2014-2018? Or for her similar violations twice already in 2019?

Those violations are costing McKie $51.750 (fines and penalties by the S.C. Ethics Commission), but did the Richland 2 School Board ever address the violations of Board Policy?

And when McKie and Teresa Holmes took the oath of office illegally on November 13, 2018, did the five legal board members object or stand up and say, "Whoa! Wait just one minute!"

So I'm really questioning the "serious" part of the ethics violation allegedly committed by Coach Seidel.

Sure, such recruiting actions are wrong. But the Board should really be careful about throwing the yellow Ethics flag down on the field.

Be brave. Comment below. Surely, not all Richland 2 employees and parents are afraid to comment...  If you are, email me. Your confidence and privacy will be respected.

High School Football Recruiting

Columbia's WIS-TV reports today (August 16, 2019) that a smelly situation existed earlier this year in Richland 2 athletics. Read the long, exhaustive article on the WISTV.com website at https://www.wistv.com/2019/08/16/investigation-suggests-blythewood-hs-coach-tried-recruit-student-athletes/

You can safely click on the link, copy and paste it, or go directly to www.wistv.com and search for the article.

I've attending almost all the school board meetings since January, and I don't remember any mention of this.

If you are interested in all the gory details, read the WIS-TV news article. They did an excellent job of digging out the dirt and reporting it.

You can bet that the administrators and the lawyers were busy word-smithing the response by Richland 2.

In my opinion, if there is a major ethics problem with an employee, then you give that employee an "opportunity to be happily employed somewhere else."