Meadow Pollack - remember this name?

Meadow Pollack was one of the students killed at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School.

Her father, Andrew Pollack, is serious about change. Not just talking about it or writing about it. He is doing something to effect change.

His book, Why Meadow Died - The People and Policies That Created the Parkland Shooter and Endanger America's Students, will be published on September 10, 2019.

You can pre-order it today and it will be delivered directly to your Kindle, computer or smartphone on September 10.

YOU can get active in Richland 2. Don't sit back and wait for "somebody" else to fix the problems.

Facebook IS good ...

... for something.

I spotted this on Facebook this morning.

"A lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesn't become right and evil doesn't become good just because it's accepted by a majority."

Attributed to Booker T. Washington (1856-1915)

State law ignored?

South Carolina books are full of laws. It's hard to know all of them.

Remember back on November 13, 2018, when the newly-elected trustees for the Richland 2 School Board were sworn in? The ceremony was held before the Regular board meeting resumed at 6:30PM.

On November 6, 2018 one trustee was elected and three were re-elected. Casting aside for a moment my complaints over the past six month that the one who was elected and one who was re-elected were not eligible to take the oath of office, when should the elected trustees have taken office?

South Carolina Code of Laws Section 59-19-315 reads:

"Commencement of trustee's term of office.

"The term of office of every elected trustee of a school district must commence one week following the certification of his election."

Keyword: must

According to the Richland County Board of Elections office this morning, the November 6, 2018 election was certified on November 9, 2018.

One week after the election was November 13, 2018. A board meeting was held.
One week after the certification of the election was November 16, 2018.

The earliest that Teresa Holmes could have been seated, assuming for the moment that she had taken the oath of office legally (which she didn't), was November 16, 2018. When she sat at the board on November 13, she was still a trustee-elect. She was not entitled to sit at the board, attend an Executive Session, hear confidential District matters and student affairs, or vote on Board business. But she did.

As to Trustees Manning, Caution-Parker and McKie (the last also ineligible under State law to take the oath of office on November 13), had their 2014-2018 terms of office expired?

It seems to me that there is a State law about when a term of office for an elected person ends.

If it ends on election day or the day before election day, then there was no quorum at the November 13, 2018, and all business conducted that night must be struck from the records.

Manning, Caution-Parker and McKie could not begin their 2018-2022 terms until November 16, 2018. When did their 2014-2018 terms legally end?

How good are your eyes? See the differences?

Is punctuation in official documents important?

The oath of office is taken by a school board member in the State of South Carolina. The oath is specific and it should be administered, and taken, verbatim. Shouldn't it?

Can you find the differences in these versions?

This is the oath as stated in the S.C. Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according 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, protect, and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States. So help me God.”

This version is posted on the website for the South Carolina School Boards Association. See Page 3.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according 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, protect and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States, so help me God." – (S.C. Constitution, Art. III, Sect. 26)

This version is the oath as administered by the Richland 2 School District:

"First, I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according, 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."

The cleanest, most-correct version grammatically is that of the SCSBA. A close second is the actual oath in the State Constitution.

A distant third is the version used by Richland 2. A typist, perhaps somewhere in the bowels of some law firm and on her last day on the job and who must have gotten a C- in English, typed the version used by the District. 

The errors cause me to think of the two versions of the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. 

The version passed by Congress read, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

The version ratified by the States and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, read, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." 

Source: Wikipedia

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.