Watch this important fireside chat with Dennis Prager.
If you are a student, watch it.
If you are a parent, sit down with your children and watch it. Tell them to put their phones down. Then discuss it.
I am worried about communism and why so many people don't think it's bad. I grew up in the 1940s and the 1950s. My thoughts and beliefs formed them. Why do I fear socialism and the uninformed young people of today?
After you watch it, please comment below.
Friday, January 24, 2020
Saturday, January 18, 2020
R2 Ethics Poster
At last Tuesday's school board Regular Meeting, the inspiration moment was devoted to explaining the Ethical Principles poster that had been signed by all the board members and the taking of a group photo.
\You can view that segment near the beginning of the video-recording on YouTube. It's at 0:02:20 on the timer bar.
At the meeting I was immediately reminded of Amelia McKie's unpaid fines and fees balance of $51,750, owed to the South Carolina Ethics Commission. The fines are related a years' of unfiled required financial statements. In July 2018 the Commission issued a Decision & Order, and McKie basically thumbed her nose at the Commission and failed to make any payments toward her balance.
She could have avoided a substantial increase in the fees by making agreed-upon payments, but she did not. As a result, the Commission tacked on a $10,000 penalty at the end of 2018. Then, in July 2019 the Commission filed a Judgment in the Richland County Common Pleas Court.
What should be happening now is a collection effort by the South Carolina Department of Revenue. Collection action could include garnishing her income from the Richland 2 School District, other income or contract-work receipts, filing a lien on real estate, and taking of assets.
The DOR may be a failing collection agency, though, once you look at the $2.7 Million in outstanding debt owed to the Ethics Commission.
And then The State announced ethics problems of a second Richland County School Board member. James Shadd III owes $1,400 for unfiled financial documents related to his run for office in 2010.
Is this his first encounter with the Ethics Commission? Or did Shadd have a previous negotiated settlement with the Ethics Commission over different violations of ethics laws?
Ethics principles are like integrity and honesty and truth. You're either in or you're out. You reach the mark or you don't. There is no such thing as "very" or "almost" or "a little".
There is no reason for the Ethics Commission to negotiate on the $1,400 fine owed by Shadd. The State's reporter, Lucas DaPrile, wrote that Shadd told him on Friday (January 17, 2020) that he "was working to fix it." What Shadd should have dropped off at the Ethics Commission this week was a check for $1,400, as well as his campaign bank statements.
\You can view that segment near the beginning of the video-recording on YouTube. It's at 0:02:20 on the timer bar.
At the meeting I was immediately reminded of Amelia McKie's unpaid fines and fees balance of $51,750, owed to the South Carolina Ethics Commission. The fines are related a years' of unfiled required financial statements. In July 2018 the Commission issued a Decision & Order, and McKie basically thumbed her nose at the Commission and failed to make any payments toward her balance.
She could have avoided a substantial increase in the fees by making agreed-upon payments, but she did not. As a result, the Commission tacked on a $10,000 penalty at the end of 2018. Then, in July 2019 the Commission filed a Judgment in the Richland County Common Pleas Court.
What should be happening now is a collection effort by the South Carolina Department of Revenue. Collection action could include garnishing her income from the Richland 2 School District, other income or contract-work receipts, filing a lien on real estate, and taking of assets.
The DOR may be a failing collection agency, though, once you look at the $2.7 Million in outstanding debt owed to the Ethics Commission.
And then The State announced ethics problems of a second Richland County School Board member. James Shadd III owes $1,400 for unfiled financial documents related to his run for office in 2010.
Is this his first encounter with the Ethics Commission? Or did Shadd have a previous negotiated settlement with the Ethics Commission over different violations of ethics laws?
Ethics principles are like integrity and honesty and truth. You're either in or you're out. You reach the mark or you don't. There is no such thing as "very" or "almost" or "a little".
There is no reason for the Ethics Commission to negotiate on the $1,400 fine owed by Shadd. The State's reporter, Lucas DaPrile, wrote that Shadd told him on Friday (January 17, 2020) that he "was working to fix it." What Shadd should have dropped off at the Ethics Commission this week was a check for $1,400, as well as his campaign bank statements.
Friday, January 17, 2020
Two board members should resign
The State newspaper published a story today about $1,400 in unpaid fines owed to the South Carolina Ethics Commission by James Shadd III, who is a trustee on the board. Shadd is serving the last year of a 2016-2020 term,
According to reporter Lucas Daprile, the Ethics Commission assessed this fine for Shadd's failure to file 14 quarterly Campaign Disclosure Reports related to his 2010 run for 5th Circuit Solicitor.
According to the article, Shadd was warned by the Ethics Commission in January 2019 and again in March 2019. The fine was assessed on December 30, 2019.
How is it that an elected official who owes fines even for an unrelated run for a different office does not just pay what he owes.
The article also comments on the $51,750 in fines and fees owed by Amelia McKie, who is a trustee-elect of the school board. I write "trustee-elect" (rather than trustee) because she has never taken the oath of office legally.
McKie and Shadd should "do the right thing" and clear out. In Shadd's case he should resign.
In McKie's case, the District and the Board should stop denying the facts and the very clearly-worded state law and block her from further duties, responsibilities and pay. McKie is usurping public office.
The laws are in place to remove her, but the South Carolina Office of Attorney General will not act to remove her.
The new Debtors' List on the Ethics Commission's website (ethics.sc.gov) is dated 1/13/2020 and includes the debts of both Shadd and McKie. The total owed the Ethics Commission is a whopping $2,762,979.31. Every dollar should be collected!
According to reporter Lucas Daprile, the Ethics Commission assessed this fine for Shadd's failure to file 14 quarterly Campaign Disclosure Reports related to his 2010 run for 5th Circuit Solicitor.
According to the article, Shadd was warned by the Ethics Commission in January 2019 and again in March 2019. The fine was assessed on December 30, 2019.
How is it that an elected official who owes fines even for an unrelated run for a different office does not just pay what he owes.
The article also comments on the $51,750 in fines and fees owed by Amelia McKie, who is a trustee-elect of the school board. I write "trustee-elect" (rather than trustee) because she has never taken the oath of office legally.
McKie and Shadd should "do the right thing" and clear out. In Shadd's case he should resign.
In McKie's case, the District and the Board should stop denying the facts and the very clearly-worded state law and block her from further duties, responsibilities and pay. McKie is usurping public office.
The laws are in place to remove her, but the South Carolina Office of Attorney General will not act to remove her.
The new Debtors' List on the Ethics Commission's website (ethics.sc.gov) is dated 1/13/2020 and includes the debts of both Shadd and McKie. The total owed the Ethics Commission is a whopping $2,762,979.31. Every dollar should be collected!
Text messages subject to FOIA?
When a school board trustee receives text messages and/or email during the public portion of the school board meeting and replies to them, are those messages subject to FOIA?
During the January 7, 2019 Special-Called Board Meeting Trustee Caution-Parker received multiple messages on her cell phone.
Beginning at 1:38:55 on the video-recording, her cell phone screen lit up while she was away from her Board Chair. A second message came in as she returned to her chair.
She can be seen reading it, scrolling through messages and tapping out a reply.
How does the Secretary of the school board pay attention to what is being said in the meeting, when she is paying attention to her phone?
And, worse, she then voted on a motion. Did she have any idea what she voting on?
Is there a Board Policy about use of cell phones, including texting, by Board members during public meetings?
I wonder what the Robert's Rules of Order expert would have to say about this at her next advisory session with the Board.
Board members should put away their cell phones during Board meetings, whether the meeting is open or closed.
During the January 7, 2019 Special-Called Board Meeting Trustee Caution-Parker received multiple messages on her cell phone.
Beginning at 1:38:55 on the video-recording, her cell phone screen lit up while she was away from her Board Chair. A second message came in as she returned to her chair.
She can be seen reading it, scrolling through messages and tapping out a reply.
How does the Secretary of the school board pay attention to what is being said in the meeting, when she is paying attention to her phone?
And, worse, she then voted on a motion. Did she have any idea what she voting on?
Is there a Board Policy about use of cell phones, including texting, by Board members during public meetings?
I wonder what the Robert's Rules of Order expert would have to say about this at her next advisory session with the Board.
Board members should put away their cell phones during Board meetings, whether the meeting is open or closed.
Senate Rules. Good enough for Board?
The Rules for the Senate's impeachment trial of President Trump have been published.
If they are good enough for the U.S. Senate, are they good enough for the Richland 2 School Board?
Take a look at the rules as published by Business Insider.
Keep quiet.
Stay off iPhones. Check electronic devices outside the room.
Remain seated.
No side-conversations.
Attend all proceedings.
No outside reading materials.
Some of these would be good rules for Board meetings.
If they are good enough for the U.S. Senate, are they good enough for the Richland 2 School Board?
Take a look at the rules as published by Business Insider.
Keep quiet.
Stay off iPhones. Check electronic devices outside the room.
Remain seated.
No side-conversations.
Attend all proceedings.
No outside reading materials.
Some of these would be good rules for Board meetings.
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Adjournment Enthusiasm
It was nice to see the School Board happy and excited at the end of the January 14, 2020 Regular Meeting.
When Board Chair Manning called for the vote to adjourn, there was a reason he asked for the members to vote by holding their hands high.
Were they just happy that the meeting was ending at 2:13:00?
Did they get a sudden surge of energy, when they realized the meeting was not going to last three hours?
Look at the enthusiasm of Trustee Caution-Parker. What made her come to life in such a manner?
I know the answer to that question.
When Board Chair Manning called for the vote to adjourn, there was a reason he asked for the members to vote by holding their hands high.
Were they just happy that the meeting was ending at 2:13:00?
Did they get a sudden surge of energy, when they realized the meeting was not going to last three hours?
Look at the enthusiasm of Trustee Caution-Parker. What made her come to life in such a manner?
I know the answer to that question.
Bond Resolution approved by Board
At the January 14, 2020 Regular Meeting of the School Board there was a Resolution presented to the Board for approval.
Several procedural errors occurred on the way to the vote.
The Resolution was not attached to the original Agenda for the meeting. Because it was not, the public was kept in the dark as to its contents.
At the January 14th Meeting I addressed the board during the Public Participation segment. You can view that portion of the board's meeting on the video-recording of the meeting on YouTube at 0:51:07 on the counter.
After I completed my remarks, Board Chair James Manning stated that the Resolution had been placed on the website at the beginning of the meeting.
At least one Trustee read carefully the eight-page Resolution. In addition pointing out a couple of errors in construction of the Resolution, she made a motion to strike this sentence from Section 22: "Burr Forman is authorized to associate co-counsel at the direction of the Superintendent."
You have to know the background of that sentence to understand the motion to strike it.
One year ago the Board considered and passed a long Resolution presented by the Administration that included a sweetheart deal for a small, two-woman, black-owned law firm in Columbia. That Resolution gave the Superintendent the authority to order the huge, experienced, professional law firm of Burr Forman to give a chunk of bond business to Jabber & Isaac, PA as co-counsel. The special deal for co-counsel was at the very end of the lengthy Resolution last year.
Is there a special friendship between one of the principals at Jabber & Isaac and one of the Richland 2 board members?
Last year I examined the website of Jabber & Isaac, PA. At that time the website listed numerous areas of practice for that firm. School bond work was not one of them. Today, school bond work is still not listed.
I have no doubt that Burr Forman provides the inclusivity and diversity sought by the District. Frannie Heizer is a female. I suspect Burr Forman hires many black professionals and staff.
The District must spend its money on professionals with the skills and expertise to do the job right the first time. The District should not tell its legal experts to take on apprentices (and pay them), based on race or gender.
Superintendent Davis gave the board fair warning (1:45:30) that he's not giving up on the co-counsel plans, when he made his remarks during the Board and Superintendent Comments. He stated his intention to include "co-counsel" in future Bond Resolutions.
The Board was wise to vote 7-0 to strike that deal from the Resolution. They will have to be their toes for every Bond Resolution in the future.
Frankly, the vote surprised me. I figured that 4-5 of the Board members would vote No on the Resolution but, this time, they came through on behalf of the taxpayers.
Several procedural errors occurred on the way to the vote.
The Resolution was not attached to the original Agenda for the meeting. Because it was not, the public was kept in the dark as to its contents.
At the January 14th Meeting I addressed the board during the Public Participation segment. You can view that portion of the board's meeting on the video-recording of the meeting on YouTube at 0:51:07 on the counter.
After I completed my remarks, Board Chair James Manning stated that the Resolution had been placed on the website at the beginning of the meeting.
At least one Trustee read carefully the eight-page Resolution. In addition pointing out a couple of errors in construction of the Resolution, she made a motion to strike this sentence from Section 22: "Burr Forman is authorized to associate co-counsel at the direction of the Superintendent."
You have to know the background of that sentence to understand the motion to strike it.
One year ago the Board considered and passed a long Resolution presented by the Administration that included a sweetheart deal for a small, two-woman, black-owned law firm in Columbia. That Resolution gave the Superintendent the authority to order the huge, experienced, professional law firm of Burr Forman to give a chunk of bond business to Jabber & Isaac, PA as co-counsel. The special deal for co-counsel was at the very end of the lengthy Resolution last year.
Is there a special friendship between one of the principals at Jabber & Isaac and one of the Richland 2 board members?
Last year I examined the website of Jabber & Isaac, PA. At that time the website listed numerous areas of practice for that firm. School bond work was not one of them. Today, school bond work is still not listed.
I have no doubt that Burr Forman provides the inclusivity and diversity sought by the District. Frannie Heizer is a female. I suspect Burr Forman hires many black professionals and staff.
The District must spend its money on professionals with the skills and expertise to do the job right the first time. The District should not tell its legal experts to take on apprentices (and pay them), based on race or gender.
Superintendent Davis gave the board fair warning (1:45:30) that he's not giving up on the co-counsel plans, when he made his remarks during the Board and Superintendent Comments. He stated his intention to include "co-counsel" in future Bond Resolutions.
The Board was wise to vote 7-0 to strike that deal from the Resolution. They will have to be their toes for every Bond Resolution in the future.
Frankly, the vote surprised me. I figured that 4-5 of the Board members would vote No on the Resolution but, this time, they came through on behalf of the taxpayers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)