Monday, October 28, 2019
New Safety Announcement
A new safety message on video was just posted by Supt. Davis. Basically, he tell the kids don't joke around with threats. View the message on YouTube by clicking here.
Richland 2 tip line: 803/736-8756 or via Richland 2 app
Sunday, October 27, 2019
Weapons - Admn. muddies the water
On October 15, 2019 the school board altered the proposed revision of Board Policy GBEB Staff Conduct and removed all authorization for possession of weapons by employees on school grounds.
The existing policy was "possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law)".
The proposed revised policy was "possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law and the superintendent)".
Upon motion by Dr. Elkins-Johnson and seconded by Teresa Holmes, the board approved removing the entire parenthetical portion, leaving the proposed revision as "...possessing weapons on district property." Posssessing a weapon would be considered misconduct by an employee, subjecting him or her to discipline (not to mention the risk of arrest).
The vote was 5-1-1, with McKie voting "No" and Caution-Parker abstaining.
And that's how it ought to be coming back for a vote at the board meeting on October 29. The Board did not direct Administration to add anything to it.
But the Administration tampered with it and is proposing a new line in that bullet point of the Policy. That new line reads "(See policy JICI for items categorized as weapons.)
The problem is that Policy JICI applies to students, not employees. Further, when you read JICI, you will see this: "students will not possess any item capable of inflicting injury or harm (hereinafter referred to as a weapon".
Could any of these items be used to inflict injury or harm? Pen, pencil, ruler, credit card, key, comb, belt, shoelace, feet, hands, forehead, teeth? Students, you better leave them all at home.
Two weeks ago the discussion degraded in a battle of words over knives and box cutters. I was disgusted. A box cutter used in a shop class to open a box is a tool, not a weapon. Same with a knife. If used to assault or intentionally cut a person? It's a weapon. End of discussion.
Lately, I have observed that Richland 2 School District is rivaling the Federal Government in its number and complexity of Board Policies.
Will the Board be able to vote on October 29 on GBEB and prohibit weapons (including firearms) on school grounds? Or will it have to amend the proposed revision, strike the student-related section added by Administration, and then wait until November 12 to vote?
In the meantime, will two employees continue to carry their concealed firearms?
On October 29 the Board should direct the Superintendent to rescind his authorization for the two Emergency Services employees, who are not police officers or armed security personnel of the District, to to carry weapons (firearms) on school grounds. The Board's intention is that they not be grandfathered in or allowed to continue to carry, and the Board needs to make that crystal clear.
Why did McKie vote No? Just to "support" the superintendent? Listen to McKie's comments at the close of the discussion, after Elkins-Johnson had asked for the vote. At 1:09:09 on the YouTube recording of the October 15 board meeting, McKie proceeded with praise for Supt. Davis. Basically, she was just sucking up, for whatever reason. Her words added absolutely nothing to the discussion. She usurped the role of the Board Chair, who should have been the one to thank the superintendent.
Why did Caution-Parker abstain? Is it that hard to pick a side instead of the middle of the road?
The motion actually passed with the minimum number of legal votes necessary - four "Yes" votes. Holmes' vote doesn't count, because she is not a legal member of the board. She illegally took the oath of office on November 13, 2018, as did McKie, before she was eligible to do so, and she (and McKie) has never taken the oath of office after becoming legally eligible to do so on December 4.
One of these days the Board is going to have to go all the way back to November 13, 2018 and review every decision made. Then it will have to remove the votes of McKie and Holmes. Many decisions will change regarding student matters (inclusion transfers and expulsions) and especially the Resolution allowing the Board to remove an officer.
The existing policy was "possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law)".
The proposed revised policy was "possessing weapons on district property (unless otherwise authorized by law and the superintendent)".
Upon motion by Dr. Elkins-Johnson and seconded by Teresa Holmes, the board approved removing the entire parenthetical portion, leaving the proposed revision as "...possessing weapons on district property." Posssessing a weapon would be considered misconduct by an employee, subjecting him or her to discipline (not to mention the risk of arrest).
The vote was 5-1-1, with McKie voting "No" and Caution-Parker abstaining.
And that's how it ought to be coming back for a vote at the board meeting on October 29. The Board did not direct Administration to add anything to it.
But the Administration tampered with it and is proposing a new line in that bullet point of the Policy. That new line reads "(See policy JICI for items categorized as weapons.)
The problem is that Policy JICI applies to students, not employees. Further, when you read JICI, you will see this: "students will not possess any item capable of inflicting injury or harm (hereinafter referred to as a weapon".
Could any of these items be used to inflict injury or harm? Pen, pencil, ruler, credit card, key, comb, belt, shoelace, feet, hands, forehead, teeth? Students, you better leave them all at home.
Two weeks ago the discussion degraded in a battle of words over knives and box cutters. I was disgusted. A box cutter used in a shop class to open a box is a tool, not a weapon. Same with a knife. If used to assault or intentionally cut a person? It's a weapon. End of discussion.
Lately, I have observed that Richland 2 School District is rivaling the Federal Government in its number and complexity of Board Policies.
Will the Board be able to vote on October 29 on GBEB and prohibit weapons (including firearms) on school grounds? Or will it have to amend the proposed revision, strike the student-related section added by Administration, and then wait until November 12 to vote?
In the meantime, will two employees continue to carry their concealed firearms?
On October 29 the Board should direct the Superintendent to rescind his authorization for the two Emergency Services employees, who are not police officers or armed security personnel of the District, to to carry weapons (firearms) on school grounds. The Board's intention is that they not be grandfathered in or allowed to continue to carry, and the Board needs to make that crystal clear.
Why did McKie vote No? Just to "support" the superintendent? Listen to McKie's comments at the close of the discussion, after Elkins-Johnson had asked for the vote. At 1:09:09 on the YouTube recording of the October 15 board meeting, McKie proceeded with praise for Supt. Davis. Basically, she was just sucking up, for whatever reason. Her words added absolutely nothing to the discussion. She usurped the role of the Board Chair, who should have been the one to thank the superintendent.
Why did Caution-Parker abstain? Is it that hard to pick a side instead of the middle of the road?
The motion actually passed with the minimum number of legal votes necessary - four "Yes" votes. Holmes' vote doesn't count, because she is not a legal member of the board. She illegally took the oath of office on November 13, 2018, as did McKie, before she was eligible to do so, and she (and McKie) has never taken the oath of office after becoming legally eligible to do so on December 4.
One of these days the Board is going to have to go all the way back to November 13, 2018 and review every decision made. Then it will have to remove the votes of McKie and Holmes. Many decisions will change regarding student matters (inclusion transfers and expulsions) and especially the Resolution allowing the Board to remove an officer.
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
How's your math?
Better yet, how is your arithmetic?
Most of us learned to add, subtract, multiply and divide somewhere along the way. I'm not so sure about the more recent students in our schools who learned New Math and other newfangled ways to find the sum of two or more numbers. If you are a parent, you've seen the homework that your kids have brought home.
Can they add 347 + 521 without using three sheets of paper or a calculator?
How about $17.50 + $5,058.28?
OK, take your best shot here, readers. Should I run a little contest?
Is the answer $5,525.78?
If you think it is, you'll be in good company. A person sitting on the Richland 2 School Board thinks that is one of the answers. And the S.C. Ethics Commission must think so, because it accepted Campaign Disclosure Reports for three quarters (Filing Dates 5/8/19, 7/18/19 and 10/10/19) with incorrect sums.
Under Expenditures:
On the Report due 1/10/19 the sum of $17.50 + $5,028.28 is correct as $5,045.78.
On the Report due 4/10/19 the sum of $17.50 + $5,058.28* is incorrect as $5525.78.
On the Report due 7/10/19 the sum of $17.50 + $5,208.28** is incorrect as $5725.78.
Most of us learned to add, subtract, multiply and divide somewhere along the way. I'm not so sure about the more recent students in our schools who learned New Math and other newfangled ways to find the sum of two or more numbers. If you are a parent, you've seen the homework that your kids have brought home.
Can they add 347 + 521 without using three sheets of paper or a calculator?
How about $17.50 + $5,058.28?
OK, take your best shot here, readers. Should I run a little contest?
Is the answer $5,525.78?
If you think it is, you'll be in good company. A person sitting on the Richland 2 School Board thinks that is one of the answers. And the S.C. Ethics Commission must think so, because it accepted Campaign Disclosure Reports for three quarters (Filing Dates 5/8/19, 7/18/19 and 10/10/19) with incorrect sums.
Under Expenditures:
On the Report due 1/10/19 the sum of $17.50 + $5,028.28 is correct as $5,045.78.
On the Report due 4/10/19 the sum of $17.50 + $5,058.28* is incorrect as $5525.78.
On the Report due 7/10/19 the sum of $17.50 + $5,208.28** is incorrect as $5725.78.
On the Report due 10/10/19 the sum of $17.50 + $5,208.28 is incorrect as $5725.78.
* $5,058.28 also was incorrect, because no expenditures were reported for that quarter.
** $5,208.28 also was incorrect, because no expenditures were reported for that quarter.
These reports are really simple to complete and file, especially when you don't have any change in expenditures.
Keep in mind that this person is one of seven making decisions affecting one Billion dollars in assets and money and thousands of employees and students.
And the person may not even be a legal member of the school board.
Role of the SRO
Just what is the role of the School Resource Officer (SRO)?
Is he there as a "friend" of students and staff? Or is he (or she) there first as a law-enforcement officer.
Board Policy KLGA addresses the SRO's role. Read the Policy, and then consider my request to the Richland 2 School Board. Here is my email to the Board, sent today:
Members of the Richland 2 School Board and trustees-elect McKie and Holmes,
The School District lacks the authority to grant statewide jurisdiction to SROs. It is the Sheriff's Dept. (their employer) that grants authority to its deputies, who are the SROs. I suggest the appropriate rewording of that sentence.
Is he there as a "friend" of students and staff? Or is he (or she) there first as a law-enforcement officer.
Board Policy KLGA addresses the SRO's role. Read the Policy, and then consider my request to the Richland 2 School Board. Here is my email to the Board, sent today:
Members of the Richland 2 School Board and trustees-elect McKie and Holmes,
Board Policy KLGA was adopted in April 2019 and is in need of revision. May I ask your attention to the following?
Please state specifically where on the District's website Level III and Level II offenses can be found. I have found them and will be addressing them. If you haven't read Why Meadow Died, I urge you to begin reading it. You'll see how disciplinary handling of criminal offenses led to the 2/14/2018 shooting in Parkland, Fla.
Jurisdiction
Page 2. "The school resource officer is granted statewide jurisdiction to arrest any persons committing crimes in connection with a school activity or school-sponsored event,"
The School District lacks the authority to grant statewide jurisdiction to SROs. It is the Sheriff's Dept. (their employer) that grants authority to its deputies, who are the SROs. I suggest the appropriate rewording of that sentence.
Under Roles and Responsibilities, this wording appears:
" ● Establish and maintain a close partnership with the school administration and staff to maintain a safe and constructive learning environment."
It is not the responsibility of the SRO to establish and maintain a constructive learning environment. I suggest removing "and constructive".
" ● Serve as a resource to administrators and staff concerning law enforcement and child welfare issues."
I suggest deleting "and child welfare". The deputy is a cop and will be less knowledgeable than those assigned to Child Welfare in the County and State.
"Develop educational programs and activities on topics such as crime prevention that will increase a student’s knowledge of and respect for the law and the function of law enforcement agency programs."
The deputy is a cop, not an educator. The School Board must be involved in, and approve, curricula involving "educational programs and activities". Parents must play a part in this, too, as should interested community members.
Memorandum of Understanding
Any deal made between District and the Sheriff's Department MUST be known to, and approved by, the School Board, not just by District Administration.
Friday, October 18, 2019
Another R2 student arrested!
Yet another Richland 2 high school student has been arrested. Are these threats (and commission) of crimes contagious? Who else is concerned about these reports?
This time it was a Westwood High School student. If you don't know where Westwood High School is, look it up on the District's website.
The student allegedly posted an online threat on Wednesday and, on Thursday, a school employee spotted it.
The student was identified only as 17 years old. Possibly male, since The State reporter mentioned "he" (the student) threatened to kill someone.
I say "possibly" male, because today's trend in reporting tends toward gender-neutral descriptions unless gender to known and available. Today's generation of reporters may not know, or may have forgotten, that "he" could mean he or she when not wishing to disclose gender. Too often we read in the printed media "they" being used to describe a single (one) person when wanting to avoid he or she.
OK, so out of 27,000 students there are going to be a few bad apples; right?
I'm curious what is being done in Richland 2 schools (high schools, middle schools and elementary schools) to create good citizens with critical thinking skills who wish to avoid committing crimes and finding themselves in jail with futures destroyed by dumb actions.
What race was the 17-year-old boy? Is there a hint in the news article, where the student's Instagram post reportedly included "better watch y'all back"?
Send the kid back to English class. Teach him the possessive case of "y'all". Shouldn't he have written "better watch y'all's back"? Or correct grammatically, "better watch your back".
OK, I'm assuming the kid was black. Maybe he is one of the young African-American males about whom Board Trustee Elkins-Johnson is so worried (Watch the 10/15/19 YouTube school board recording at 1:08:20 on the timer), when she made her comments at the board meeting on Tuesday night during the discussion about the two (white) employees who have been carrying concealed firearms as they go about the District administrative tasks. You know the ones; the ones who might appear aggressive or loud-spoken. (Are they really just boys who need to be understood culturally.)
This time it was a Westwood High School student. If you don't know where Westwood High School is, look it up on the District's website.
The student allegedly posted an online threat on Wednesday and, on Thursday, a school employee spotted it.
The student was identified only as 17 years old. Possibly male, since The State reporter mentioned "he" (the student) threatened to kill someone.
I say "possibly" male, because today's trend in reporting tends toward gender-neutral descriptions unless gender to known and available. Today's generation of reporters may not know, or may have forgotten, that "he" could mean he or she when not wishing to disclose gender. Too often we read in the printed media "they" being used to describe a single (one) person when wanting to avoid he or she.
OK, so out of 27,000 students there are going to be a few bad apples; right?
I'm curious what is being done in Richland 2 schools (high schools, middle schools and elementary schools) to create good citizens with critical thinking skills who wish to avoid committing crimes and finding themselves in jail with futures destroyed by dumb actions.
What race was the 17-year-old boy? Is there a hint in the news article, where the student's Instagram post reportedly included "better watch y'all back"?
Send the kid back to English class. Teach him the possessive case of "y'all". Shouldn't he have written "better watch y'all's back"? Or correct grammatically, "better watch your back".
OK, I'm assuming the kid was black. Maybe he is one of the young African-American males about whom Board Trustee Elkins-Johnson is so worried (Watch the 10/15/19 YouTube school board recording at 1:08:20 on the timer), when she made her comments at the board meeting on Tuesday night during the discussion about the two (white) employees who have been carrying concealed firearms as they go about the District administrative tasks. You know the ones; the ones who might appear aggressive or loud-spoken. (Are they really just boys who need to be understood culturally.)
Thursday, October 17, 2019
Wrong information on guns carried on school grounds
During the long discussion on carrying weapons at the October 15 board meeting, Supt. Davis said that the two employees (Director and Asst. Director of Emergency Services) were not carrying openly on school grounds. They carried concealed firearms.
Then he said (at 1:05:30), "they did have the authorization to do so", meaning to carry openly.
No, they didn't. South Carolina state law does not allow civilians to carry handguns in the open.
Had the two employees carried openly, they could have been arrested.
Did Supt. Davis mean that he had authorized them to violate state law? That's probably not what he meant.
State guns laws are very specific, technical, and very difficult to understand. Even those who have studied them closely will listen carefully to a question and then try to answer it by what the law really says.
And whether the two employees were even "authorized by law" to carry on school grounds is open to interpretation and to question. Both men may be retired law-enforcement officers. Federal law allows retired (just just former, but retired) officers to carry. But once they take a job, they are no longer "retired".
And I would posit that a retired law-enforcement officer loses his privilege to carry, once he accepts employment, especially in a school, which is, as I understand it, specifically identified as a Gun-Free Zone under Federal law.
A school superintendent cannot grant permission for an employee to break State or Federal laws.
Then he said (at 1:05:30), "they did have the authorization to do so", meaning to carry openly.
No, they didn't. South Carolina state law does not allow civilians to carry handguns in the open.
Had the two employees carried openly, they could have been arrested.
Did Supt. Davis mean that he had authorized them to violate state law? That's probably not what he meant.
State guns laws are very specific, technical, and very difficult to understand. Even those who have studied them closely will listen carefully to a question and then try to answer it by what the law really says.
And whether the two employees were even "authorized by law" to carry on school grounds is open to interpretation and to question. Both men may be retired law-enforcement officers. Federal law allows retired (just just former, but retired) officers to carry. But once they take a job, they are no longer "retired".
And I would posit that a retired law-enforcement officer loses his privilege to carry, once he accepts employment, especially in a school, which is, as I understand it, specifically identified as a Gun-Free Zone under Federal law.
A school superintendent cannot grant permission for an employee to break State or Federal laws.
Box cutter? Tool or Weapon?
Want to drive me crazy?
It's a great thing that I could not hear Trustee Shadd mumbling in a low voice at the school board meeting on October 15, when he asked about a box cutter in a shop class. If a teacher has a box cutter in a shop class, does he have a weapon?
And later Teresa Holmes made a refereence to box cutters.
As I saw in the audience, I thought, "I have a weapon right here in my hand." I was holding an EnerGel Liquid Gel Ink writing pen full of blue ink. Is that a weapon?
Are my eyeblasses weapons? Are my hands weapons? My feet? Is a No. 2 pencil a weapon? What about a nail file and a hair clip? What about the buckle on my belt? Heck, what about the belt itself? Or my shoelaces?
The board room Tuesday night was full of weapons!!!
This nonsense drives me crazy.
We have trustees on the school board who apparently cannot discern between a tool and a weapon. Sure, this will anger them to read this. Well, it angered me to hear them waste public time with that drivel.
Yes, a box cutter is a weapon if someone holds it up to my neck and threatens to slice off my head.
No, it is NOT a weapon when used to cut open a box!!!
When Mr. Shadd mentioned knives and said "of a certain length", the staffer seemed to be agreeing. But I don't think the policy refers to length. If a student shows up with his Swiss Army Knife on his belt, he's going to jail.
It's a great thing that I could not hear Trustee Shadd mumbling in a low voice at the school board meeting on October 15, when he asked about a box cutter in a shop class. If a teacher has a box cutter in a shop class, does he have a weapon?
And later Teresa Holmes made a refereence to box cutters.
As I saw in the audience, I thought, "I have a weapon right here in my hand." I was holding an EnerGel Liquid Gel Ink writing pen full of blue ink. Is that a weapon?
Are my eyeblasses weapons? Are my hands weapons? My feet? Is a No. 2 pencil a weapon? What about a nail file and a hair clip? What about the buckle on my belt? Heck, what about the belt itself? Or my shoelaces?
The board room Tuesday night was full of weapons!!!
This nonsense drives me crazy.
We have trustees on the school board who apparently cannot discern between a tool and a weapon. Sure, this will anger them to read this. Well, it angered me to hear them waste public time with that drivel.
Yes, a box cutter is a weapon if someone holds it up to my neck and threatens to slice off my head.
No, it is NOT a weapon when used to cut open a box!!!
When Mr. Shadd mentioned knives and said "of a certain length", the staffer seemed to be agreeing. But I don't think the policy refers to length. If a student shows up with his Swiss Army Knife on his belt, he's going to jail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)