The District's website came back to life sometime today. It was still down this morning, but now it can be viewed.
The first thing I looked for was the Agenda for the Special Called Board Meeting on December 3.
Although the District legally has until Monday, December 2, 5:00PM to post it online and at the District office, board meetings should be announced more than 24 hours in advance.
With the glitch in the website, it may be that someone will go in on Friday and post the Agenda.
If you are interested in the re-zoning issue affecting Catawba Trail Elementary students, you'll want to read the agenda and attend the Tuesday night meeting.
There probably won't be a Public Participation segment. If you want to influence the board members, call them (all of them) or email them before Tuesday. Names, phone numbers and email addresses are on the District's website. Find them on www.Richland2.org
Click on EXPLORE
Click on School Board
Click on MEMBERS
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
District website is down
The website for Richland 2 School District has been down all morning.
Many organizations will splash a message to alert viewers that they know their website is down. Not being an I.T. person, I don't know exactly how that works. But it's a super service to inform viewers that the problem is known and is being worked on.
Many organizations will splash a message to alert viewers that they know their website is down. Not being an I.T. person, I don't know exactly how that works. But it's a super service to inform viewers that the problem is known and is being worked on.
Monday, November 25, 2019
Bookman Road Elementary community meeting
Tonight's meeting at Bookman Road Elementary was well-done.
Attendance by parents was light. There were approximately eight parents there and about 15-20 District 2 staffers. Approximately 18 parents attended the first community meeting on this issue.
The District's Director of Planning, Will Simon, presented the reasoning for the re-districting that will result in about 240 students changing elementary schools. From an operations standpoint, it makes sense.
One school, Bookman, has been losing enrollment. The other, Catawba Trail, has been increasing.
The next step is the School Board's Special Called Meeting on December 3. This is when the Board will vote. Normally, votes are not taken at Special Called Meetings; this will be an exception.
And, normally, there is no Public Participation at Special Called Meetings. There is no reason why there cannot be. The Board could put Public Participation on the agenda. Will the Board Chair include it when the Agenda is set, which might be as early as tomorrow (Nov. 20)?
The location for the December 3rd meeting is geographically inconvenient. It's an attendance killer. My suspicious nature tells me there is a reason that the Board picked Jackson Creek Elementary for the voting meeting.
Watch the District's website for the agenda for the December 3 meeting. Hopefully, the District will post it before everyone leaves for the Thanksgiving holiday (Wed., Thurs., Fri.). The agenda must be posted before the end of the day on Monday, in order to meet the statutory FOIA rules.
Parents, if you still have concerns, call and email your School Board members. All of them. Names, email addresses and phone numbers are on the District's website.
The District received only four comments after the November 8 Report was prepared. That was many fewer than I would have guessed.
Attendance by parents was light. There were approximately eight parents there and about 15-20 District 2 staffers. Approximately 18 parents attended the first community meeting on this issue.
The District's Director of Planning, Will Simon, presented the reasoning for the re-districting that will result in about 240 students changing elementary schools. From an operations standpoint, it makes sense.
One school, Bookman, has been losing enrollment. The other, Catawba Trail, has been increasing.
The next step is the School Board's Special Called Meeting on December 3. This is when the Board will vote. Normally, votes are not taken at Special Called Meetings; this will be an exception.
And, normally, there is no Public Participation at Special Called Meetings. There is no reason why there cannot be. The Board could put Public Participation on the agenda. Will the Board Chair include it when the Agenda is set, which might be as early as tomorrow (Nov. 20)?
The location for the December 3rd meeting is geographically inconvenient. It's an attendance killer. My suspicious nature tells me there is a reason that the Board picked Jackson Creek Elementary for the voting meeting.
Watch the District's website for the agenda for the December 3 meeting. Hopefully, the District will post it before everyone leaves for the Thanksgiving holiday (Wed., Thurs., Fri.). The agenda must be posted before the end of the day on Monday, in order to meet the statutory FOIA rules.
Parents, if you still have concerns, call and email your School Board members. All of them. Names, email addresses and phone numbers are on the District's website.
The District received only four comments after the November 8 Report was prepared. That was many fewer than I would have guessed.
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Richland 2 Re-Zoning Meeting - Nov. 25,
The make-up meeting for parents concerned about the re-districting will be held tomorrow evening, Monday, November 25, 2019 at 6:00PM at Bookman Road Elementary School.
Parents were invited to provide feedback on a form on the District's website. Visit this District webpage for more information. To find it directly, go the www.Richland2.org. Click on Explore; click on News.
Richland 2 is proposing to re-zone Jacobs Creek and Forest Creek subdivisions from Catawba Trail Elementary to Bookman Road Elementary.
The proposal will be up for a vote at the Special Board Meeting scheduled for December 3, 2019, starting at 5:30PM. BE SURE TO CHECK THE AGENDA FOR THE LOCATION OF THIS SPECIAL-CALLED BOARD MEETING. IT MAY NOT BE AT R2i2.
Is it a "done deal"?
YOU can influence your board members by contacting them by phone and by e-mail and, most importantly, by showing up in person. Watch for the Agenda for the December 3rd Special Called Meeting. It should be online (on the District's website) this Wednesday, November 27 (the day before Thanksgiving), although the Board might postpone publishing it until the last minute (5:29PM on Monday, December 2, 2019, which will be 24 hours before the starting time of the meeting).
Read parent feedback via the above link to the District webpage.
Although the webpage informs parents that they can read feedback received as of November 20, the report published is dated November 8. My guess is that Richland 2 received an earful of complaints from parents and did not update its November 8 Report.
Page 1 of the Report indicates the District received only 80 responses from the Jacobs Creek Community. Seriously? And 91% of the respondents were against the proposed re-zoning (or unsure).
Read some of the parent comments.
If you have an interest in this re-zoning, be at the meeting tomorrow night.
Parents were invited to provide feedback on a form on the District's website. Visit this District webpage for more information. To find it directly, go the www.Richland2.org. Click on Explore; click on News.
Richland 2 is proposing to re-zone Jacobs Creek and Forest Creek subdivisions from Catawba Trail Elementary to Bookman Road Elementary.
The proposal will be up for a vote at the Special Board Meeting scheduled for December 3, 2019, starting at 5:30PM. BE SURE TO CHECK THE AGENDA FOR THE LOCATION OF THIS SPECIAL-CALLED BOARD MEETING. IT MAY NOT BE AT R2i2.
Is it a "done deal"?
YOU can influence your board members by contacting them by phone and by e-mail and, most importantly, by showing up in person. Watch for the Agenda for the December 3rd Special Called Meeting. It should be online (on the District's website) this Wednesday, November 27 (the day before Thanksgiving), although the Board might postpone publishing it until the last minute (5:29PM on Monday, December 2, 2019, which will be 24 hours before the starting time of the meeting).
Read parent feedback via the above link to the District webpage.
Although the webpage informs parents that they can read feedback received as of November 20, the report published is dated November 8. My guess is that Richland 2 received an earful of complaints from parents and did not update its November 8 Report.
Page 1 of the Report indicates the District received only 80 responses from the Jacobs Creek Community. Seriously? And 91% of the respondents were against the proposed re-zoning (or unsure).
Read some of the parent comments.
If you have an interest in this re-zoning, be at the meeting tomorrow night.
Friday, November 22, 2019
R2 Board still short two legal Trustees
It was almost a year ago that The Independent Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County reported that Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes had not filed their required Statements of Economic Interests Reports ("Statements") with the South Carolina Ethics Commission.
The first article in The Voice was on December 6, 2018. Reporter Michael Smith had done his homework, and his long article carefully detailed the problem.
It turned out that McKie had not filed Statements with the S.C. Ethics Commissions that were required for 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. By December 2018 she was subject to a Decision and Order by the Ethics Commission and was ordered to pay substantial fines and fees for those violations.
McKie was first elected to the Richland 2 School Board in November 2014. In June 2018 she was elected Board Chair for the term July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019. On November 6, 2018 she was re-elected to the School Board. When the election was certified on November 9, 2018 she became "qualified" as a Trustee. But she was not yet "eligible" to be a Trustee.
Holmes was elected on November 6, 2018 to her present four-year term on the School Board.
As a result of their failures to file the Statements, both violated S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A) when they took the oath of office on November 13, 2018.
This law reads, in part, "No public official, regardless of compensation, and no public member or public employee as designated in subsection (B) may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests in accordance with the provisions of this chapter with the appropriate supervisory office."
As of November 13, 2018 they had not filed their Statements. On November 13 they took the oath of office and attended that night's School Board meeting as officials. Therefore, they violated §8-13-1110(A). Thus, they did not lawfully take the oath of office. Thus, they are not legal board members.
On December 4, 2018 they filed their Statements. Thus, on December 4 they first became eligible to take the oath of office. They have not taken the oath of office.legally.
Yet they are allowed to continue to act as if they are Board Trustees. Therefore, they are usurping public office, violating S.C. Code of Laws Section 15-53-60. And the School District is paying them while they do so.
An additional problem for McKie is that she claimed, and was allowed by the Board to claim, her role as Board Chair after November 6, 2018 and until June 30, 2019. Since she was not a legal Board member, she could not legally hold the position as Board Chair. Her signature as Board Chair on bond documents is not legal.
The five legal members of the Board could refuse to allow McKie and Holmes to sit at the board until they legally take the oath of office. McKie and Holmes are, legally, no more a Board member than I am.
By refusing to act, has the full board become complicit in deceiving taxpayers and voters as to its legal composition?
Richland 2 School District has my request to be informed of the date, time and location for any ceremony to administer the oath of office, legally, to McKie and Holmes.
The South Carolina Ethics Commission filed a Judgment for $51,750 against McKie on July 10, 2019. Case No. 2019CP4003809 is languishing in the online court records, with no update since it was filed four months ago. The S.C. Department of Revenue should be the agency that collects on the Judgment by all legal means possible, including attachment of assets, home, bank accounts, automobiles and garnishment of wages (Richland 2 pays W-2 income to McKie as a school board trustee).
The first article in The Voice was on December 6, 2018. Reporter Michael Smith had done his homework, and his long article carefully detailed the problem.
It turned out that McKie had not filed Statements with the S.C. Ethics Commissions that were required for 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. By December 2018 she was subject to a Decision and Order by the Ethics Commission and was ordered to pay substantial fines and fees for those violations.
McKie was first elected to the Richland 2 School Board in November 2014. In June 2018 she was elected Board Chair for the term July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019. On November 6, 2018 she was re-elected to the School Board. When the election was certified on November 9, 2018 she became "qualified" as a Trustee. But she was not yet "eligible" to be a Trustee.
Holmes was elected on November 6, 2018 to her present four-year term on the School Board.
As a result of their failures to file the Statements, both violated S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A) when they took the oath of office on November 13, 2018.
This law reads, in part, "No public official, regardless of compensation, and no public member or public employee as designated in subsection (B) may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests in accordance with the provisions of this chapter with the appropriate supervisory office."
As of November 13, 2018 they had not filed their Statements. On November 13 they took the oath of office and attended that night's School Board meeting as officials. Therefore, they violated §8-13-1110(A). Thus, they did not lawfully take the oath of office. Thus, they are not legal board members.
On December 4, 2018 they filed their Statements. Thus, on December 4 they first became eligible to take the oath of office. They have not taken the oath of office.legally.
Yet they are allowed to continue to act as if they are Board Trustees. Therefore, they are usurping public office, violating S.C. Code of Laws Section 15-53-60. And the School District is paying them while they do so.
An additional problem for McKie is that she claimed, and was allowed by the Board to claim, her role as Board Chair after November 6, 2018 and until June 30, 2019. Since she was not a legal Board member, she could not legally hold the position as Board Chair. Her signature as Board Chair on bond documents is not legal.
The five legal members of the Board could refuse to allow McKie and Holmes to sit at the board until they legally take the oath of office. McKie and Holmes are, legally, no more a Board member than I am.
By refusing to act, has the full board become complicit in deceiving taxpayers and voters as to its legal composition?
Richland 2 School District has my request to be informed of the date, time and location for any ceremony to administer the oath of office, legally, to McKie and Holmes.
The South Carolina Ethics Commission filed a Judgment for $51,750 against McKie on July 10, 2019. Case No. 2019CP4003809 is languishing in the online court records, with no update since it was filed four months ago. The S.C. Department of Revenue should be the agency that collects on the Judgment by all legal means possible, including attachment of assets, home, bank accounts, automobiles and garnishment of wages (Richland 2 pays W-2 income to McKie as a school board trustee).
Utah school arms teachers
In Utah County, Utah folks are serious about protecting their children in schools.
Read/watch this NBC report on arming of teachers.
When the Richland 2 School Board went the other way, when it revised Board Policy GBEB, was it a short-sighted, ill-conceived move? Not only did the R2 Board take away the authority of two Emergency Services Department employees to carry firearms on school grounds, it also removed the language ("unless otherwise authorized by law") from that Policy.
Although the Board voted on October 29, 2019 to revise Policy GBEB, the revised policy has yet to be published on the District's website.
Richland 2 took a step backwards in the defense and protection of students and staff, when it made its October 29th decision. The policy, as the revised version reads, now makes possession of weapons on school grounds an act of Misconduct by a teacher or staff member. Is there anyone who thinks that will not be a reason for termination of employment?
A teacher or staff member cannot now commute to/from work with his personal-protection weapon in his car and then park that car on school grounds. A teacher cannot leave her pepper spray in her car. Better leave that baseball bat at home. Keep in mind that weapon will now be defined as any item that could be used as a weapon.
If the student policy (JICI) definition of weapon is really to apply to the employee policy GBEB, and then extended beyond employee to contracted workers, could SROs be in violation of GBEB. How would Richland 2 disciplinary action be taken against them?
What Richland 2 needs is a well-thought-out policy to protect students, teachers, staff and visitors.
Understanding that at least five of the Richland 2 School Board Trustees are anti-gun, how are they going to make a decision that allows their charges to protect themselves (and those for whom they are responsible) from an armed attacker?
They might hate guns, but how will they answer this one question?
If a school is in lock-down and a teacher is barricaded in her classroom with 20 students, and a madman with a gun is breaking down the door to enter and harm those students and her, isn't that teacher going to hope she has a gun to defend her students and herself?
If your answer is "No", please explain in the comment section below.
Read/watch this NBC report on arming of teachers.
When the Richland 2 School Board went the other way, when it revised Board Policy GBEB, was it a short-sighted, ill-conceived move? Not only did the R2 Board take away the authority of two Emergency Services Department employees to carry firearms on school grounds, it also removed the language ("unless otherwise authorized by law") from that Policy.
Although the Board voted on October 29, 2019 to revise Policy GBEB, the revised policy has yet to be published on the District's website.
Richland 2 took a step backwards in the defense and protection of students and staff, when it made its October 29th decision. The policy, as the revised version reads, now makes possession of weapons on school grounds an act of Misconduct by a teacher or staff member. Is there anyone who thinks that will not be a reason for termination of employment?
A teacher or staff member cannot now commute to/from work with his personal-protection weapon in his car and then park that car on school grounds. A teacher cannot leave her pepper spray in her car. Better leave that baseball bat at home. Keep in mind that weapon will now be defined as any item that could be used as a weapon.
If the student policy (JICI) definition of weapon is really to apply to the employee policy GBEB, and then extended beyond employee to contracted workers, could SROs be in violation of GBEB. How would Richland 2 disciplinary action be taken against them?
What Richland 2 needs is a well-thought-out policy to protect students, teachers, staff and visitors.
Understanding that at least five of the Richland 2 School Board Trustees are anti-gun, how are they going to make a decision that allows their charges to protect themselves (and those for whom they are responsible) from an armed attacker?
They might hate guns, but how will they answer this one question?
If a school is in lock-down and a teacher is barricaded in her classroom with 20 students, and a madman with a gun is breaking down the door to enter and harm those students and her, isn't that teacher going to hope she has a gun to defend her students and herself?
If your answer is "No", please explain in the comment section below.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Board Meeting Minutes and FOIA
This week's speaker at the Special Called Board Meeting on November 19, 2019 commented on requirements for Meeting Minutes. The speaker was retired attorney Helen McFadden.
The five minimum things that must be in Minutes are (See 21:40 on the YouTube recording):
Ms. McFadden watched 6-8 hours of meetings and has never seen any member recuse himself. She assumed they are doing that. (They aren't, but perhaps no situation has arisen that would require it.)
Recently I suggested to the Board that a statement be included in the Minutes about the superintendent's cancellation of employees' right to carry a firearm at work on school grounds. I had read the Minutes after the Agenda was published and before the Board approved the Minutes, but no member of the Board felt included to request that his statement be included in the Minutes.
When you read the Minutes of a meeting, it is very difficult to know what took 1½-3 hours in a meeting. District Meetings could be much more complete.
RECUSAL
At 1:08:27 on the recording Ms. McFadden pointed out that Richland 2 does not have a Board Policy on prejudice or bias, which is applicable to administrative hearings. She mentioned racial prejudice, religious prejudice, gender-based prejudice for matters of prejudice and bias.
Prejudice and bias are reasons for a board member to recuse himself or herself.
Her comment caused me to wonder whether at least three board members might have to recuse themselves from certain votes in the future, because they have spoken so extensively, persuasively and often on behalf of the District's black students. Could their attention to this one segment of the District's student body be considered prejudice or bias?
Ms. McFadden will be invited back to present a second part of her overall presentation. Hopefully, the District will give the public more than the 24 hours' notice of this special meeting that she mentioned earlier in her presentation, when she addressed the requirements of South Carolina state law.
The five minimum things that must be in Minutes are (See 21:40 on the YouTube recording):
- Date and Place
- Who is present and who is absent
- Substance of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided
- Recording the vote
- Any other information that is asked to be included by a member. "A member of the Board has an absolute right to get a reasonable amount of information included in the record and must put into the record in writing any recusal under Title VIII,: she said.
Ms. McFadden watched 6-8 hours of meetings and has never seen any member recuse himself. She assumed they are doing that. (They aren't, but perhaps no situation has arisen that would require it.)
Recently I suggested to the Board that a statement be included in the Minutes about the superintendent's cancellation of employees' right to carry a firearm at work on school grounds. I had read the Minutes after the Agenda was published and before the Board approved the Minutes, but no member of the Board felt included to request that his statement be included in the Minutes.
When you read the Minutes of a meeting, it is very difficult to know what took 1½-3 hours in a meeting. District Meetings could be much more complete.
RECUSAL
At 1:08:27 on the recording Ms. McFadden pointed out that Richland 2 does not have a Board Policy on prejudice or bias, which is applicable to administrative hearings. She mentioned racial prejudice, religious prejudice, gender-based prejudice for matters of prejudice and bias.
Prejudice and bias are reasons for a board member to recuse himself or herself.
Her comment caused me to wonder whether at least three board members might have to recuse themselves from certain votes in the future, because they have spoken so extensively, persuasively and often on behalf of the District's black students. Could their attention to this one segment of the District's student body be considered prejudice or bias?
Ms. McFadden will be invited back to present a second part of her overall presentation. Hopefully, the District will give the public more than the 24 hours' notice of this special meeting that she mentioned earlier in her presentation, when she addressed the requirements of South Carolina state law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)