Why is this Seattle TV station's hour-long documentary important?
https://komonews.com/news/local/komo-news-special-seattle-is-dying?fbclid=IwAR2WHxESv1xOUT9Sal_gCM3IZa0qORkiMaA7fWfhy2a-MtrIO_X2yqzWZBs
Because it could spread here. Maybe it's already here.
Watch this KOMO-TV program. The title is "Seattle is dying?"
Yes, it's an hour long. Gather your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers and spend one hour together. Then get busy and actually do something about saving your neighborhood, your town, your city, your state, your country.
The problem is not solved by looking the other way. It's not solved by assigning fancy names. It is solved by Decision, Commitment and Action.
Every family, student, teacher, administrator, parent, voter, community member should watch this and find out how to DO something about this nationwide problem. It's not just Seattle. Or San Francisco. Or Los Angeles. It's everywhere.
Hold your elected representatives accountable. If they won't fix the problem, vote them out!
Stick with the documentary and learn what is happening in the tiny state of Rhode Island.
The answers? Enforcement and Intervention.
Watch the documentary. Then post your reaction below in the Comments.
Friday, December 6, 2019
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
Board Policy JICDA-R Level II
Richland 2 School Board Policy JICDA-R Level II identifies the misconduct of students that can lead to a Level II disciplinary action.
You can read the entire list on the district's website. Need the instructions to find that Policy? Look back on this blog or email me.
Level II is Disruptive Conduct. That's more serious than the Behavioral Misconduct of Level I. See the recent article here about Level I, just a few days ago.
According to the Board, Level II offenses have "... consequences of which tend to endanger the health or safety of themselves of others..."
Look at the list. "Tend to"???
Review the list of Level I offenses. A four-time repeat offender of Level I behavioral conduct "may" have his misconduct re-classified as Level II Disruptive Conduct. Not "will" or "shall"; the word used is "may". Lots of discretion there.
This carries Richland 2 right into the problem at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that resulted in 17 dead and 17 injured on February 14, 2018. When students get away with bad behavior, it can get worse.
Level II misconduct may justify both "administrative consequences and court proceedings".
Notice how the word "consequences" has crept into use over the years. Kids are not penalized or punished these days; now they suffer "consequences". (How many times did I hear in the business world - we don't have "problems" here; we have "opportunities". I was always popular, when I said, "No, we have problems.")
Look at some (not all) of the examples of Level II misconduct:
People are screaming about the school-to-prison pipeline. Well, maybe if kids learned to obey laws and not commit crimes, they wouldn't worry about being arrested and going to prison.
When crimes are minimized and dealt with an offenses, rather than as criminal acts, my guess is that many kids do not learn.
Level II offenses are dealt with by an administrator. He (or she) calls Mommy for a conference.
The administrator "may" refer to the SRO "only when the conduct rises to the level of criminality or the conduct presents an immediate safety risk." Look at the list again. See all those criminal acts? Again, "may" is used. So there could be internal district pressure to keep down the number of referrals to law enforcement.
Next: Level III - Criminal Conduct
You can read the entire list on the district's website. Need the instructions to find that Policy? Look back on this blog or email me.
Level II is Disruptive Conduct. That's more serious than the Behavioral Misconduct of Level I. See the recent article here about Level I, just a few days ago.
According to the Board, Level II offenses have "... consequences of which tend to endanger the health or safety of themselves of others..."
Look at the list. "Tend to"???
Review the list of Level I offenses. A four-time repeat offender of Level I behavioral conduct "may" have his misconduct re-classified as Level II Disruptive Conduct. Not "will" or "shall"; the word used is "may". Lots of discretion there.
This carries Richland 2 right into the problem at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that resulted in 17 dead and 17 injured on February 14, 2018. When students get away with bad behavior, it can get worse.
Level II misconduct may justify both "administrative consequences and court proceedings".
Notice how the word "consequences" has crept into use over the years. Kids are not penalized or punished these days; now they suffer "consequences". (How many times did I hear in the business world - we don't have "problems" here; we have "opportunities". I was always popular, when I said, "No, we have problems.")
Look at some (not all) of the examples of Level II misconduct:
- use of an intoxicant (on school grounds)
- fighting
- harassment
- stealing
- threats against others
- abusive language to staff
- simple assault
- unlawful assembly
- use of forged notes or excused
People are screaming about the school-to-prison pipeline. Well, maybe if kids learned to obey laws and not commit crimes, they wouldn't worry about being arrested and going to prison.
When crimes are minimized and dealt with an offenses, rather than as criminal acts, my guess is that many kids do not learn.
Level II offenses are dealt with by an administrator. He (or she) calls Mommy for a conference.
The administrator "may" refer to the SRO "only when the conduct rises to the level of criminality or the conduct presents an immediate safety risk." Look at the list again. See all those criminal acts? Again, "may" is used. So there could be internal district pressure to keep down the number of referrals to law enforcement.
Next: Level III - Criminal Conduct
What is special about December 4?
December 4, 2019 marks the one-year anniversary of the date when Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes first became eligible to take the oath of office as Richland 2 School Board members.
December 4, 2018 was the first date when they could legally take the oath of office and assume their official responsibilities.
Prior to December 4, 2018 they were "qualified" to serve as school board members, but they were not eligible to do so. That's because they had not filed their Statement of Economic Interests Reports (SEI) with the South Carolina Ethics Commission.
They did take the oath of office on November 13, 2018, but they did so in violation of South Carolina Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A).
Taking the oath of office illegally is the same as not taking it at all.
The law is clear. First, you file the SEI. Then you take the oath.
Until they take the oath of office legally, they are not Board Members.
Yet they are permitted to sit on the Board, attend Executive Sessions, hear confidential student matters, vote on Motions, get professional memberships and travel paid for and receive a monthly pay check.All illegally.
Once they do take the oath of office legally, then the Board will have to review all decisions that were swayed by the votes of McKie and Holmes. For example, when the Board voted on the Resolution to allow removing a Board officer, the motion failed on a vote of 3-4, with McKie and Holmes voting against it. When their votes are removed, the decision becomes 3-2, and it passes.
The Board and the District have never explained to voters why it considers McKie and Holmes as legal board members. According to South Carolina law, they are not. According to the Ethics laws (part of S.C. law), they are not. The District is apparently relying on "interpretations" of the laws.
If so, the District should be willing to say what those "interpretatoins" are.
December 4, 2018 was the first date when they could legally take the oath of office and assume their official responsibilities.
Prior to December 4, 2018 they were "qualified" to serve as school board members, but they were not eligible to do so. That's because they had not filed their Statement of Economic Interests Reports (SEI) with the South Carolina Ethics Commission.
They did take the oath of office on November 13, 2018, but they did so in violation of South Carolina Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A).
Taking the oath of office illegally is the same as not taking it at all.
The law is clear. First, you file the SEI. Then you take the oath.
Until they take the oath of office legally, they are not Board Members.
Yet they are permitted to sit on the Board, attend Executive Sessions, hear confidential student matters, vote on Motions, get professional memberships and travel paid for and receive a monthly pay check.All illegally.
Once they do take the oath of office legally, then the Board will have to review all decisions that were swayed by the votes of McKie and Holmes. For example, when the Board voted on the Resolution to allow removing a Board officer, the motion failed on a vote of 3-4, with McKie and Holmes voting against it. When their votes are removed, the decision becomes 3-2, and it passes.
The Board and the District have never explained to voters why it considers McKie and Holmes as legal board members. According to South Carolina law, they are not. According to the Ethics laws (part of S.C. law), they are not. The District is apparently relying on "interpretations" of the laws.
If so, the District should be willing to say what those "interpretatoins" are.
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
Embarrassing Pause at Board Meeting
At tonight's Special Called Board Meeting there was one voting item on the Agenda.
After the Public Participation segment, at which a Ms. Parker (if I heard her name correctly) spoke on the re-zning issue, it was time for the board to consider the next item on the agenda.
But first ... Ms. Parker was the only parent to address the board on the re-zoning of two neighborhoods, so that their students would be transferred from Catawba Trail Elementary to Bookman Road Elementary. She said she had spoken with a number of other parents, and they weren't coming to this meeting because they thought it was a done deal; that the board intended to vote to approve.
At the meeting I counted five Board members present: Manning, Agostini, McKie, Caution-Parker, and Shadd. Elkins-Johnson and Holmes were not there.
There was some conversation at the front of the room that was not spoken into the microphones, After the vote on the re-zoning, Mrs. Agostini left. That left four - not a quorum.
There had been a comment made during the board's discussion on the re-zoning issue, I looked around to see who was speaking. It was a woman's voice, and I couldn't find anyone in the room who seemed to be speaking.
After Mrs. Agostini left, I realized that Dr. Elkins-Johnson was attending by telephone. Surprise! Maybe Ms. Holmes also attended by telephone. I'll read the Minutes to find out.
When the Agenda item for the re-zoning was up, Board Chair James Manning asked for a Motion. There was an inordinately long delay. I mean, L-O-N-G. No one spoke up. NO Trustee was willing to make the motion. I believe Mr. Manning asked a second time. After another, but shorter and still embarrassing, pause, Mrs. Agostini made the motion.
What was wrong with the Trustees? Why did they all sit there like bumps on a log, unwilling to make the Motion?
Mrs. Agostini deserves NO criticism for stepping up to the plate and doing her duty. But the others?
Most of the discussion could not be heard. Mrs. Agostini did speak into her microphone.
Mrs. McKie did not, plus she turned away from the microphone to look at other board members while she was speaking. She has said before that she has a soft voice; she knows she cannot be heard. So the board should buy her some voice lessons and tell her to lean forward and speak directly into the microphone.
James Shadd asked questions and made comments. He too could not be heard. He speaks softly, does not project his voice and speaks down below the microphone.
Caution-Parker had virtually nothing to say. At least she chewed her gum with her mouth closed.
It was very difficult to hear everything that Dr. Elkins said. The microphone that was positioned near the speaker did not amplify her voice well.
When the board heard from an expert on Robert's Rules of Order recently, they must have heard the speaker say that they had the right to hear and be heard. Does that apply to the audience and staff, too?
Board Policy DEBM requires that Board Members are able to hear and be heard AND it requires that telephonic comments be "audible or otherwise discernable to the public in attendance at the meeting's location." THIS BOARD POLICY WAS VIOLATED TONIGHT.
And, if telephonic communications must be audible and discernable to the public in attendance at a meeting's location, then the comments from Board Members also should be audible and discernable!
The vote on the re-zoning was 7-0, if I heard Mr. Manning correctly. When I looked at the board seated there, there were only five, so I thought the vote was 5-0-0-0 (Yes-No-Abstain-Not Voting). Supt. Davis does not vote. I didn't see any hands raised. How did they vote? The count was too fast for electronic voting.
An important item needs to added to the meeting agenda. At every meeting, the Chair should tell the Secretary to "call the roll". Ascertain who is there and who is not there. If someone is attending by telephone, that should be acknowledged and recorded.
If anyone, including a telephone attendee, leaves the meeting, that should be acknowledged verbally and recorded.
After the Public Participation segment, at which a Ms. Parker (if I heard her name correctly) spoke on the re-zning issue, it was time for the board to consider the next item on the agenda.
But first ... Ms. Parker was the only parent to address the board on the re-zoning of two neighborhoods, so that their students would be transferred from Catawba Trail Elementary to Bookman Road Elementary. She said she had spoken with a number of other parents, and they weren't coming to this meeting because they thought it was a done deal; that the board intended to vote to approve.
At the meeting I counted five Board members present: Manning, Agostini, McKie, Caution-Parker, and Shadd. Elkins-Johnson and Holmes were not there.
There was some conversation at the front of the room that was not spoken into the microphones, After the vote on the re-zoning, Mrs. Agostini left. That left four - not a quorum.
There had been a comment made during the board's discussion on the re-zoning issue, I looked around to see who was speaking. It was a woman's voice, and I couldn't find anyone in the room who seemed to be speaking.
After Mrs. Agostini left, I realized that Dr. Elkins-Johnson was attending by telephone. Surprise! Maybe Ms. Holmes also attended by telephone. I'll read the Minutes to find out.
When the Agenda item for the re-zoning was up, Board Chair James Manning asked for a Motion. There was an inordinately long delay. I mean, L-O-N-G. No one spoke up. NO Trustee was willing to make the motion. I believe Mr. Manning asked a second time. After another, but shorter and still embarrassing, pause, Mrs. Agostini made the motion.
What was wrong with the Trustees? Why did they all sit there like bumps on a log, unwilling to make the Motion?
Mrs. Agostini deserves NO criticism for stepping up to the plate and doing her duty. But the others?
Most of the discussion could not be heard. Mrs. Agostini did speak into her microphone.
Mrs. McKie did not, plus she turned away from the microphone to look at other board members while she was speaking. She has said before that she has a soft voice; she knows she cannot be heard. So the board should buy her some voice lessons and tell her to lean forward and speak directly into the microphone.
James Shadd asked questions and made comments. He too could not be heard. He speaks softly, does not project his voice and speaks down below the microphone.
Caution-Parker had virtually nothing to say. At least she chewed her gum with her mouth closed.
It was very difficult to hear everything that Dr. Elkins said. The microphone that was positioned near the speaker did not amplify her voice well.
When the board heard from an expert on Robert's Rules of Order recently, they must have heard the speaker say that they had the right to hear and be heard. Does that apply to the audience and staff, too?
Board Policy DEBM requires that Board Members are able to hear and be heard AND it requires that telephonic comments be "audible or otherwise discernable to the public in attendance at the meeting's location." THIS BOARD POLICY WAS VIOLATED TONIGHT.
And, if telephonic communications must be audible and discernable to the public in attendance at a meeting's location, then the comments from Board Members also should be audible and discernable!
The vote on the re-zoning was 7-0, if I heard Mr. Manning correctly. When I looked at the board seated there, there were only five, so I thought the vote was 5-0-0-0 (Yes-No-Abstain-Not Voting). Supt. Davis does not vote. I didn't see any hands raised. How did they vote? The count was too fast for electronic voting.
An important item needs to added to the meeting agenda. At every meeting, the Chair should tell the Secretary to "call the roll". Ascertain who is there and who is not there. If someone is attending by telephone, that should be acknowledged and recorded.
If anyone, including a telephone attendee, leaves the meeting, that should be acknowledged verbally and recorded.
Monday, December 2, 2019
Public Participation added to 12/3/19 Agenda
A revised Agenda was published today for tomorrow's Special Called Board Meeting on the re-zoning issue, and a Public Participation session has been added.
The meeting will start on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 5:30PM.
Note the location: Jackson Creek Elementary School, 7150 Trenholm Road Extension (29223).
Following the Public Participation segment, the next item on the agenda is "Item 4.1 Approval: Rezoning Jacobs Creek and Forest Creek."
And following that, the Board will wade through 30 proposed revisions to board policies.
It will be important for all five legal board members to be present at the December 3rd meeting, so that the board has a quorum. Trustees-Elect McKie and Holmes have yet to take the oath of office legally and become official board members. The District continues to consider them as official members and will do so until a successful challenge corrects the situation that has existed since November 13, 2018.
The five legal members are Trustees Manning, Agostini, Elkins-Johnson, Shadd, and Caution-Parker.
If one of them is absent, legally there will not be a quorum, and the expected vote to pass the motion to rezone Jacobs Creek and Forest Creek can be challenged.
The meeting will start on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 5:30PM.
Note the location: Jackson Creek Elementary School, 7150 Trenholm Road Extension (29223).
Following the Public Participation segment, the next item on the agenda is "Item 4.1 Approval: Rezoning Jacobs Creek and Forest Creek."
And following that, the Board will wade through 30 proposed revisions to board policies.
It will be important for all five legal board members to be present at the December 3rd meeting, so that the board has a quorum. Trustees-Elect McKie and Holmes have yet to take the oath of office legally and become official board members. The District continues to consider them as official members and will do so until a successful challenge corrects the situation that has existed since November 13, 2018.
The five legal members are Trustees Manning, Agostini, Elkins-Johnson, Shadd, and Caution-Parker.
If one of them is absent, legally there will not be a quorum, and the expected vote to pass the motion to rezone Jacobs Creek and Forest Creek can be challenged.
Board Policy JICDA-R Level I
In his book Why Meadow Died, Andrew Pollack explained the policies of the Broward County (Fla.) School District that contributed to the school shooting in Parkland on February 14, 2018. In its decision to slow down the "school-to-prison pipeline", administrators down-graded violations and dealt with them administratively, rather than asking the Broward County Sheriff's Department to deal with them. Students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (and other schools in that district) were able to rack up disciplinary actions that should have been dealt with more firmly, but instead they ended up with a "pass".
If they didn't get too many disciplinary punishments, they stayed in school. At the end of the school year, the slate was wiped clean and the count started all over at the beginning of the next year.
Students looked like they had clean records. Result? Seventeen died; seventeen were injured.
Now take a hard look at Board Policy JICDA-R. Go the the District's website; click on EXPLORE; click on School Board; then on BOARD POLICIES; then on the left side click on J-STUDENTS; then on JICDA Code of Conduct. JICDA-R is just under that.
Read carefully the list of offenses and the required or recommended dispositions. Offenses can even include conduct off school grounds. Did you know that?
There are three levels of offenses:
The teacher is not only expected to teach; the teacher becomes the disciplinarian.
Let's say s/he is trying to deal with a student who has lied, cheated, used abusive language toward another student, etc. The teacher is expected to maintain a record of the misconduct and the action taken. The Policy does not call for "counting" the number of offenses. A student could violate one today, another tomorrow, another next week, etc.
How does a teacher deal with the student who is a constant problem?
The Policy does not require the teacher to report or submit a record to anyone. So the misconduct does not follow a student from grade to grade.
Next up? Level II - Disruptive Conduct
If they didn't get too many disciplinary punishments, they stayed in school. At the end of the school year, the slate was wiped clean and the count started all over at the beginning of the next year.
Students looked like they had clean records. Result? Seventeen died; seventeen were injured.
Now take a hard look at Board Policy JICDA-R. Go the the District's website; click on EXPLORE; click on School Board; then on BOARD POLICIES; then on the left side click on J-STUDENTS; then on JICDA Code of Conduct. JICDA-R is just under that.
Read carefully the list of offenses and the required or recommended dispositions. Offenses can even include conduct off school grounds. Did you know that?
There are three levels of offenses:
- Level I - Behavioral Misconduct
- Level II - Disruptive Conduct
- Level III - Criminal Conduct
The teacher is not only expected to teach; the teacher becomes the disciplinarian.
Let's say s/he is trying to deal with a student who has lied, cheated, used abusive language toward another student, etc. The teacher is expected to maintain a record of the misconduct and the action taken. The Policy does not call for "counting" the number of offenses. A student could violate one today, another tomorrow, another next week, etc.
How does a teacher deal with the student who is a constant problem?
The Policy does not require the teacher to report or submit a record to anyone. So the misconduct does not follow a student from grade to grade.
Next up? Level II - Disruptive Conduct
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Ring doorbell - Got one? Getting one?
Worried about what the kiddies will be doing when they are not in school later this month? Have they completed training as Porch Pirates? Are they following the Amazon Prime trucks around Richland County?
Got a Ring doorbell? Have you heard all the promotion about the Neighbors app and how you can send your video to the Richland County detectives? Is your video also going to Ukraine? Maybe along with your WiFi passwords?
Read this article: https://gizmodo.com/dont-buy-anyone-a-ring-camera-1840070640?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
By the way, before you register your guns on whatever that program is that the Richland County Sheriff's Department is recommending (in case they are stolen), think about the confiscation risk, if one of those big-mouth Democrat presidential candidates gets elected and decides to make your guns illegal. Then RCSD will know just what guns you have and where they are. When the SWAT team rolls up, it'll be too late.
Just store your guns securely and know where your list of make/model/serial number is.
Got a Ring doorbell? Have you heard all the promotion about the Neighbors app and how you can send your video to the Richland County detectives? Is your video also going to Ukraine? Maybe along with your WiFi passwords?
Read this article: https://gizmodo.com/dont-buy-anyone-a-ring-camera-1840070640?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
By the way, before you register your guns on whatever that program is that the Richland County Sheriff's Department is recommending (in case they are stolen), think about the confiscation risk, if one of those big-mouth Democrat presidential candidates gets elected and decides to make your guns illegal. Then RCSD will know just what guns you have and where they are. When the SWAT team rolls up, it'll be too late.
Just store your guns securely and know where your list of make/model/serial number is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)