Notice to Richland 2 Teachers:
When the School Board approved the revision of Board Policy GBEB Staff Conduct on October 29, 2019, did you become subject to risk of a Misconduct charge?
At the October 29, 2019 School Board meeting, that seemed to be the case. But the wording in GBEB got changed somewhere between the end of the Board Meeting and publication of the revised Policy.
Read the revised Policy and the now-unemphasized line "possessing weapons on school property (unless otherwise authorized by law)".
The Policy now reads differently than approved by the School Board at its October 29, 2019 Regular Meeting. On that night the Board approved this language: "possessing weapons on district [sic] property (See policy JICI for items categorized as weapons.)"
On October 29 the Board removed "(unless otherwise authorized by law)" and did not accept the previously-proposed addition of "and the superintendent". It added "(See policy JICI for items categorized as weapons.)" At 1:05:34 on the YouTube recording of the October 29, 2019 School Board meeting Trustee-elect Amelia McKie was allowed to re-state her motion - "I move to approve Policy GBEB Staff Conduct as presented." Note that it was "presented" as removing "(unless otherwise authorized by law) and the superintendent" and including the "See policy JICI..." language.
But the relevant line in Board Policy GBEB, as it now reads on the District's website, states that (Misconduct includes) "possessing weapons on school property (unless otherwise authorized by law)"
In JICI a weapon is, generally, any item that could be used as a weapon.
How did "(See policy JICI for items categorized as weapons.)" get dropped from the version published now under Board Policies on the District's website? JICI never should have been part of the revision of GBEB, because JICI applies to students, not to staff or other employees. But the Board approved inserting it.
It can't just be dropped somewhere between the end of the Board meeting and the publication of the revision on the website.
Did the School Board understand the implications of dropping "(unless otherwise authorized by law)" from the Policy on October 29? Who added it back in? And who changed the word "district" (in the version before the Board) to "school" (in the published Policy), modifying property?
Would it have been a good idea for the School Board to request advice on wording from the gun community? Terminology in firearms laws is confusing. One of the problems, as I see it, is that the majority on the Board appears to be left-leaning and anti-gun. This is why involving the community is important.
[Edited 11/10/19: It may be that the staff just hasn't gotten around yet to publishing the revised Policy GBEB, because the revision date of 10/29/19 does not appear in the Policy that can be viewed online.]
Thursday, November 7, 2019
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
What happened one year ago? 11/6/2018
On November 6, 2018 Amelia McKie was re-elected to the Richland 2 School Board, and Teresa Holmes was elected to the Board.
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
When was the November 6, 2018 election certified?
According to the Richland County Board of Elections office, the November 6, 2018 election was certified on November 9, 2018.
When is one week following the certification of that election? November 16, 2018.
However, Richland 2 conducted a school board meeting on November 13, three days before the election.
McKie and Holmes took the oath of office on November 13, 2018 and sat that evening on the Board.
Come back here on November 13 for more about serious problems that started on November 13.
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
When was the November 6, 2018 election certified?
According to the Richland County Board of Elections office, the November 6, 2018 election was certified on November 9, 2018.
When is one week following the certification of that election? November 16, 2018.
However, Richland 2 conducted a school board meeting on November 13, three days before the election.
McKie and Holmes took the oath of office on November 13, 2018 and sat that evening on the Board.
Come back here on November 13 for more about serious problems that started on November 13.
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Use of Force Against Disruptive Students
At the last two Richland 2 School Board meetings a member of the public has mentioned two incidents when a School Resource Officer (SRO) used force against a student.
One was the October 2015 incident at Spring Valley High School. A student, Shakara (last name?), a minor, had been disruptive, and an assistant principal and the SRO were summoned to the classroom. Niya Kenny leaped to her feet and began recording with her cell phone, also uttering a disparaging phrase about Deputy Ben Fields, the SRO. After Shakara refused to follow the SRO's directions, he removed her from her desk.
The press went crazy locally and nationally and repeatedly broadcast and published Kenny's video. No media ever published an earlier video that, I've been told, showed Shakara slapping Dep. Fields three times. That's called battery on a peace officer, for those of you unfamiliar with criminal law. Kenny's "Glamour Shots" photo was used in the media, rather than her booking photo at the jail in Columbia. The photo was taken by a McClatchy Company photographer from California in Columbia to cover the floods, and it was taken in The State's interview room. What other arrested person gets that kind of treatment?
Fields lost his job and is suing to get it back.
The mistake made at Spring Valley High School was that the policy in place was not followed. When the teacher summoned the assistant principal, the AP should have instructed the teacher to take all the other students and leave the classroom. That would have removed Shakara's audience. At that point, the AP should have been able to "reason" with her. If that didn't work, the AP should have called the SRO. As soon as it become a criminal matter and not a school disciplinary matter, then the SRO does whatever is necessary. Richland 2 policy was not followed; NASRO policy was not followed.
A more recent incident involved three students at Richland Northeast High School who were beating and kicking a student on the ground. The SRO used his taser. The media didn't even name both adult students. If the public knew the circumstances and the size of one of those "children", they would understand why the SRO used his taser after kid refused to end his assault on the kid on the ground.
An SRO will use such degree of force as is necessary to stop an assault and battery. A taser is a low-level, less-than-lethal weapon. If a student refuses to follow an SRO's order to stop an assault or battery, then the SRO will attempt to restrain his physically. If that doesn't work, a taser will be used. If that doesn't work, then additional force will be used..The kid on the ground being beaten must be protected.
"Kids" come today in all sizes, shapes, weights. Many of them are "of generous size". Specific information should be gained before judgments are made.
One was the October 2015 incident at Spring Valley High School. A student, Shakara (last name?), a minor, had been disruptive, and an assistant principal and the SRO were summoned to the classroom. Niya Kenny leaped to her feet and began recording with her cell phone, also uttering a disparaging phrase about Deputy Ben Fields, the SRO. After Shakara refused to follow the SRO's directions, he removed her from her desk.
The press went crazy locally and nationally and repeatedly broadcast and published Kenny's video. No media ever published an earlier video that, I've been told, showed Shakara slapping Dep. Fields three times. That's called battery on a peace officer, for those of you unfamiliar with criminal law. Kenny's "Glamour Shots" photo was used in the media, rather than her booking photo at the jail in Columbia. The photo was taken by a McClatchy Company photographer from California in Columbia to cover the floods, and it was taken in The State's interview room. What other arrested person gets that kind of treatment?
Fields lost his job and is suing to get it back.
The mistake made at Spring Valley High School was that the policy in place was not followed. When the teacher summoned the assistant principal, the AP should have instructed the teacher to take all the other students and leave the classroom. That would have removed Shakara's audience. At that point, the AP should have been able to "reason" with her. If that didn't work, the AP should have called the SRO. As soon as it become a criminal matter and not a school disciplinary matter, then the SRO does whatever is necessary. Richland 2 policy was not followed; NASRO policy was not followed.
A more recent incident involved three students at Richland Northeast High School who were beating and kicking a student on the ground. The SRO used his taser. The media didn't even name both adult students. If the public knew the circumstances and the size of one of those "children", they would understand why the SRO used his taser after kid refused to end his assault on the kid on the ground.
An SRO will use such degree of force as is necessary to stop an assault and battery. A taser is a low-level, less-than-lethal weapon. If a student refuses to follow an SRO's order to stop an assault or battery, then the SRO will attempt to restrain his physically. If that doesn't work, a taser will be used. If that doesn't work, then additional force will be used..The kid on the ground being beaten must be protected.
"Kids" come today in all sizes, shapes, weights. Many of them are "of generous size". Specific information should be gained before judgments are made.
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Does every school need an SRO?
Dr. Harry Miley presented information at last night's board meeting about School Resource Officers (SRO) and their cost. You can watch his presentation on the YouTube recording after it is posted. (Edit: fast-foward to 29:30 on the timer)
State funding will add four SROs to the Richland 2 schools. How many are there now? 23.
Fifteen elementary schools do not have SROs.
Do they need them?
Do you know what the risk of a student's being killed at school with a gun is? 1:614,000,000.
What will additional SROs cost?
In response to a question from Mr. Manning, Dr. Miley quoted figures of $130,000 for first-year capital costs per SRO, plus $55,000 in operating costs per SRO. That's $180,000 per SRO!!! The District contracts with the Richland County Sheriff's Department for SROs.
Whoa! Where is the padding???
While I'm not in favor of Richland 2 having its own police department (as did a junior college back in Illinois where I lived), it could probably provide an armed, trained, qualified, school security officer for $50,000 and about $10,000 or less in "operating costs".
State funding will add four SROs to the Richland 2 schools. How many are there now? 23.
Fifteen elementary schools do not have SROs.
Do they need them?
Do you know what the risk of a student's being killed at school with a gun is? 1:614,000,000.
What will additional SROs cost?
In response to a question from Mr. Manning, Dr. Miley quoted figures of $130,000 for first-year capital costs per SRO, plus $55,000 in operating costs per SRO. That's $180,000 per SRO!!! The District contracts with the Richland County Sheriff's Department for SROs.
Whoa! Where is the padding???
While I'm not in favor of Richland 2 having its own police department (as did a junior college back in Illinois where I lived), it could probably provide an armed, trained, qualified, school security officer for $50,000 and about $10,000 or less in "operating costs".
Employees at risk of Misconduct?
Are all employees of Richland 2 now at risk for being disciplined for Misconduct?
The school board last night revised Board Policy GBEB so that it now reads, in part,
"The following list includes, but is not limited to, actions that are considered misconduct while on duty or on or off district property, or at any time when the conduct would disrupt the educational environment or impair the employee's ability to be effective:
" * possessing weapons on school property (See policy JICI for items categorized as weapons.)"
What does Board Policy JICI say about weapons?
"While on school grounds, in school buildings, on buses or at school-related functions, students will not possess any item capable of inflicting injury or harm (hereinafter referred to as a weapon) to persons or property when that item is not used in relation to a normal school activity at a scheduled time for the student. No vehicles parked on school property may contain firearms ..."
"It is a felony offense, punishable by a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for five years, or both, to carry a weapon as referenced above on school property."
Let's say that an otherwise law-abiding, responsibly-armed teacher or staff member with a South Carolina concealed weapons permit chooses to be armed while commuting to and from work. Upon arrival at school, she or he must, according to state law, store the firearm securely (specified in the law) in the vehicle parked on school grounds.
Do the policy now mean that a staff member cannot store his/her firearm securly in his car, as allowed by state law?
First of all, JICI applies to students, not to teachers or other staff. How will the District reconcile this conflict in Policy language? Or will it?
Richland 2 has declared that some act is a felony, when the fact is that it may not be. Does JICI now apply to staff and teachers, even though nothing in Board Policy seems to specifically say so?
Now that Richland 2 is going to define a weapon as "any item capable of inflicting injury or harm", what kind of problem has it just created?
What items are capable of inflicting injury or harm? Just check out any woman's handbag. Keys? Comb? Nail file? Hair spray? High-heeled shoes? Roll of quarters? Each is capable of being used to inflict injury or harm. What about hands? Feet? Forehead? Any practitioners of karate on the staff?
Amelia McKie brought up again the substitution of "firearms" for "weapons" she apparently cannot understand that a firearm is a weapon. The original problem came up when the public and the Board found out that two Richland 2 Emergency Services Department employees were carrying guns at work.
The superintendent said last night that he sent a Memorandum to the two ES employees. Is a Memorandum only advisory? Did he specifically rescind the authorization that had previously allowed them to carry on school grounds?
Lindsay Agostini said on October 14 that she is not necessarily opposed to armed employees. I also am not opposed, so long as the proper policy is in place. McKie had a hard time following Agostini's comment that night. Was she thinking about what she wanted to say next, rather than listening to the comment being made? Agostini was talking about the possibility of a future policy; no further question or comment was necessary.
You can view the entire discussion on YouTube, as soon as the District posts the recording.
Also, watch the comment of Kate Williams. Apparently, she was overlooked in the first Public Participation period, and Board Chair Manning moved her up, rather than making her wait for the second Public Participation period. If I heard her correctly, her statement included positions of NASRO (National Association of School Resource Officers), some of which (ex., monthly range qualifications for armed school personnel) are excessive. Few law-enforcement officers (LEO) go to the range on a monthly basis. Many departments require only annual qualification. Any LEO can go to a range as often as he wants, using his own practice ammo.
The school board last night revised Board Policy GBEB so that it now reads, in part,
"The following list includes, but is not limited to, actions that are considered misconduct while on duty or on or off district property, or at any time when the conduct would disrupt the educational environment or impair the employee's ability to be effective:
" * possessing weapons on school property (See policy JICI for items categorized as weapons.)"
What does Board Policy JICI say about weapons?
"While on school grounds, in school buildings, on buses or at school-related functions, students will not possess any item capable of inflicting injury or harm (hereinafter referred to as a weapon) to persons or property when that item is not used in relation to a normal school activity at a scheduled time for the student. No vehicles parked on school property may contain firearms ..."
"It is a felony offense, punishable by a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for five years, or both, to carry a weapon as referenced above on school property."
Let's say that an otherwise law-abiding, responsibly-armed teacher or staff member with a South Carolina concealed weapons permit chooses to be armed while commuting to and from work. Upon arrival at school, she or he must, according to state law, store the firearm securely (specified in the law) in the vehicle parked on school grounds.
Do the policy now mean that a staff member cannot store his/her firearm securly in his car, as allowed by state law?
First of all, JICI applies to students, not to teachers or other staff. How will the District reconcile this conflict in Policy language? Or will it?
Richland 2 has declared that some act is a felony, when the fact is that it may not be. Does JICI now apply to staff and teachers, even though nothing in Board Policy seems to specifically say so?
Now that Richland 2 is going to define a weapon as "any item capable of inflicting injury or harm", what kind of problem has it just created?
What items are capable of inflicting injury or harm? Just check out any woman's handbag. Keys? Comb? Nail file? Hair spray? High-heeled shoes? Roll of quarters? Each is capable of being used to inflict injury or harm. What about hands? Feet? Forehead? Any practitioners of karate on the staff?
Amelia McKie brought up again the substitution of "firearms" for "weapons" she apparently cannot understand that a firearm is a weapon. The original problem came up when the public and the Board found out that two Richland 2 Emergency Services Department employees were carrying guns at work.
The superintendent said last night that he sent a Memorandum to the two ES employees. Is a Memorandum only advisory? Did he specifically rescind the authorization that had previously allowed them to carry on school grounds?
Lindsay Agostini said on October 14 that she is not necessarily opposed to armed employees. I also am not opposed, so long as the proper policy is in place. McKie had a hard time following Agostini's comment that night. Was she thinking about what she wanted to say next, rather than listening to the comment being made? Agostini was talking about the possibility of a future policy; no further question or comment was necessary.
You can view the entire discussion on YouTube, as soon as the District posts the recording.
Also, watch the comment of Kate Williams. Apparently, she was overlooked in the first Public Participation period, and Board Chair Manning moved her up, rather than making her wait for the second Public Participation period. If I heard her correctly, her statement included positions of NASRO (National Association of School Resource Officers), some of which (ex., monthly range qualifications for armed school personnel) are excessive. Few law-enforcement officers (LEO) go to the range on a monthly basis. Many departments require only annual qualification. Any LEO can go to a range as often as he wants, using his own practice ammo.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)