Here is how you conduct a teleconference. Maybe I should have written this over the week-end and sent it to the Richland 2 School Board. No doubt there are manuals and experts available. There is probably even a Teleconferencing for Dummies.
- Provide a telephone number that can be called for the public to join the Livestream event. The S.C.School Boards Assn. (SCSBA) provided this guidance ("If telephonic methods are used, the public must (emphasis in the original) be provided a call-in number,
preferably one with the ability to mute the public participants). Richland 2 did not do that!
- Test the system thoroughly ahead of time. Make sure the lines (telephone, computer) work! Work out the bugs ahead of time.
- Provide the board members with a private telephone number to call, if the line of communication is broken or impaired.
- Inform the board of proper teleconferencing conduct.
- The Chair is in charge. Don't talk until recognized. And then, keep it short. No grandstanding.
- When the meeting starts, the Chair should direct the Secretary to call the roll.
- The Secretary should call out the name of each board member and the Supt.
- The verbal response is "Present in person" or "Present by remote connection".
- Last night there was no identification of remote attendees until the Board & Supt. Comments. There was only a brief mention after the vote on the Consent Agenda that some board members were tele-conferencing.
- Upon completing the roll call, the Secretary announces the number present in person, the number attending remotely, the number absent or excused, and whether a quorum is present. (A quorum needs to be present in person.)
- The Chair moves forward with business.
- Provide the public with a separate Help Line telephone number to call or text, if the Livestream breaks down or if they cannot hear or understand what is being broadcast. A staff member could receive those messages and inform the Chair that the public cannot hear or understand.
- If the public cannot hear or understand, the meeting must stop until the problem is corrected.
- During Livestream (audio only) events, the Secretary should call the roll for every vote. Richland 2 is a public body. The public is entitled to be told what is happening.
- When the Secretary calls the roll, the response from a member should be Yea, Nay, Abstain. If the member does not respond to the first or second call, the Secretary announces that Trustee __(name)__ is not voting.
- The Secretary announces the number of Yeas and Nays and whether the motions passes or fails.
- The correct reporting of a failed motion is "The vote is 2-5. The motion fails."
When entering Executive Session, a roll call vote should be taken. When telephonic attendance is involved, the member must confirm that no one is present who can overhead any part of the meeting, including the remote member's spoken words.
- Members attending by telephone are to provide their reason for so doing (Board Policy)
- Currently, the Chair reports who made and seconded the motion to end Executive Session. That is not necessary.
- What is necessary, and is not done, is a roll call vote to re-convene the public session. The Board never does this. Which means that, legally, the Regular Meeting never has re-convened. This should be by roll call vote.
- Every member should be instructed to interrupt and speak up if s/he cannot hear everything that is being said.
- Likewise, no member should interrupt and just begin speaking. When a member has something to say, s/he should attract the attention of the Chair and, if attending remotely, provide his/her last name. Not only will it be clear to the Chair who is speaking, but also the Public will know.
- Members need to be reminded that Board Policy instructs members to address only the Chair. This rule is not followed, even in non-Livestream meetings.
During audio Livestream meetings, the Chair should ask the Secretary to call the roll and report the result for every vote on a motion. Otherwise, the public cannot know what is happening.
I'm sure there are additional procedures, and a teleconferencing consultant could advise the board.
If you have ideas for improving last night's call, post them in comments below. Or email them to gusphilpott@gmail.com Your name or email address will not be published, unless you approve.
Wednesday, April 1, 2020
Tuesday, March 31, 2020
Failures of Tonight's Livestream of Board Meeting
I'd really like to be able to say good things about tonight's Livestream of the Richland 2 Board Meeting.
1. The open session started on time at 5:30PM
2. The open session resumed at 6:00PM
Now, let me list the failures.
- Before 5:30PM there was utter audio confusion.
- No call-in telephone number was provided.
- At 5:30PM no roll call was taken. It was impossible to know who was present in person, who was present by telephone, and whether any board member was absent.
- Confusion continued as the open session moved into Executive Session.
- The open session re-convened at 6:00PM.
- No roll call was taken.
- No mention of those who had telephoned into the meeting.
- No reason given for their attending by phone, as required in the Board Policy.
- Motion to approve agenda. Vote was 6-1. The Nay vote was not identified.
- After the Consent Agenda was approved 7-0, the Chair mentioned some were tele-conferencing.
* Those who were teleconferencing should have been identified at the beginning of the meeting. The reason for their so doing should have been explained. The Chair should have made certain that all could hear and be heard.
- BEDH was considered. McKie could not be heard. Agostinis said she did not support the suspension of Public Participation. Shadd could not be heard. McKie could not be heard or understood. Shadd could not be heard as he addressed the Supt. He apparently turned his head toward the Supt. and away from his microphone. The vote was 6-1. The Nay vote was not identified..
- The discussion of the 2020-2021 Calendar was a 3-ring circus. Elkins-Johnson ultimately withdrew her motion, but the Chair still called for a vote. Where was the copy of Robert's Rule of Order?
- 6;50PM Why does McKie constantly suck up to Supt. Davis? She rambled on and on, just grabbing mic time. The Chair should cut her off.
- Finally, at 6:57PM, when Board & Supt. Comments started, the Chair disclosed who was attending by phone. Five Board members were on the phone. Agostini, McKie, Holmes, Caution-Parker, Elkins-Johnson.
- This meant the Board did not have a quorum of five present in person at the meeting.
- I content a public body must have a quorum present in person to hold a valid public meeting.
- Only Manning and Shadd were present in person.
- This very likely means that tonight's meeting was not a valid, legal meeting of the public body.
Wait, one more good thing to say. Shadd did not have anything to say during the Board & Supt. Comments.
- When the motion to adjourn was made, there was a voice vote which could not be heard. The Chair should have called the name of each board member and waited for the Yes or No response. The Chair announced "It's unanimous" and the Livestream instantly cut off. Presumably he continued to say that the meeting was adjourned. Otherwise, everybody must still be sitting there.
The bottom line? This board doesn't have a clue how to conduct a meeting when a number of members attend by phone. Hopefully they will seek expert advice before they try it again.
1. The open session started on time at 5:30PM
2. The open session resumed at 6:00PM
Now, let me list the failures.
- Before 5:30PM there was utter audio confusion.
- No call-in telephone number was provided.
- At 5:30PM no roll call was taken. It was impossible to know who was present in person, who was present by telephone, and whether any board member was absent.
- Confusion continued as the open session moved into Executive Session.
- The open session re-convened at 6:00PM.
- No roll call was taken.
- No mention of those who had telephoned into the meeting.
- No reason given for their attending by phone, as required in the Board Policy.
- Motion to approve agenda. Vote was 6-1. The Nay vote was not identified.
- After the Consent Agenda was approved 7-0, the Chair mentioned some were tele-conferencing.
* Those who were teleconferencing should have been identified at the beginning of the meeting. The reason for their so doing should have been explained. The Chair should have made certain that all could hear and be heard.
- BEDH was considered. McKie could not be heard. Agostinis said she did not support the suspension of Public Participation. Shadd could not be heard. McKie could not be heard or understood. Shadd could not be heard as he addressed the Supt. He apparently turned his head toward the Supt. and away from his microphone. The vote was 6-1. The Nay vote was not identified..
- The discussion of the 2020-2021 Calendar was a 3-ring circus. Elkins-Johnson ultimately withdrew her motion, but the Chair still called for a vote. Where was the copy of Robert's Rule of Order?
- 6;50PM Why does McKie constantly suck up to Supt. Davis? She rambled on and on, just grabbing mic time. The Chair should cut her off.
- Finally, at 6:57PM, when Board & Supt. Comments started, the Chair disclosed who was attending by phone. Five Board members were on the phone. Agostini, McKie, Holmes, Caution-Parker, Elkins-Johnson.
- This meant the Board did not have a quorum of five present in person at the meeting.
- I content a public body must have a quorum present in person to hold a valid public meeting.
- Only Manning and Shadd were present in person.
- This very likely means that tonight's meeting was not a valid, legal meeting of the public body.
Wait, one more good thing to say. Shadd did not have anything to say during the Board & Supt. Comments.
- When the motion to adjourn was made, there was a voice vote which could not be heard. The Chair should have called the name of each board member and waited for the Yes or No response. The Chair announced "It's unanimous" and the Livestream instantly cut off. Presumably he continued to say that the meeting was adjourned. Otherwise, everybody must still be sitting there.
The bottom line? This board doesn't have a clue how to conduct a meeting when a number of members attend by phone. Hopefully they will seek expert advice before they try it again.
Public Participation or Attendance?
The Richland 2 School Board is poised to act at tonight's board meeting to suspend Public Participation. Board Policy BEDH is on the agenda as an item preceding the usual Public Participation segment.
The Board is apparently unable to distinguish between public participation (speaking at meetings) and public attendance (sitting and observing the meeting). Why is it wanting to suspend Public Participation? Why does it want to silence the public? Why is it infringing on the First Amendment rights of the public?
Should the board approve the suspension, presumably they will deem their action effective immediately, thereby preventing any member of the public from speaking tonight.
The problem?
Item 4 on the agenda is approval of the agenda. The agenda contains Public Participation as Item 7. If the board, as part of Item 6, suspends Public Participation, they should be able to only make it effective for future meetings. Since Public Participation will already have been approved as part of tonight's meeting, how will they be able to prevent someone from speaking?
And why would they do so?
The next problem with tonight's meeting is the announced exclusion of the public from tonight's public board meeting. An open meeting of a public body, such as a school board, cannot exclude the public. But the District has announced its intention to do so. It seems to consider audio-streaming as the equivalent of being present at a meeting. IT IS NOT.
Who authorized the District to announce a restriction that eliminates the public from tonight's meeting? Did the Administration (represented by Supt. Baron Davis) make that decision on its (his) own? Certainly, the Board never met to consider or approve that.
And a false reason is given, when the District states on its website: "Due to the restrictions on public gatherings related to the coronavirus, the public will not be able to attend the meeting..." This is false!
Gov. McMaster issued an Executive Order prohibiting gatherings of three or more people, but he meant groups of people on the streets, in parks, in neighborhoods, etc. He did not mean people at home, at work, or at law-abiding businesses.
So the public can attend tonight's meeting, except the School District is saying it cannot. This is clearly a violation of its authority and of the law. And even of the Constitution.
So much for being a law-abiding business.
I write this with full appreciation for the seriousness of the COVID-19 threat. The public is smart enough to make its own decisions. Perhaps it is illegal (against the Governor's mandate, as the District calls it) for even the Board to meet in executive or open session, even without an audience.
What the Board should do is create seating for tonight's meeting with regard to social-distancing, and then permit attendance by a number limited to specified seats. You know, like President Trump does at his press conferences. All the chairs are there, but reporters are scattered throughout the room.
The Board is apparently unable to distinguish between public participation (speaking at meetings) and public attendance (sitting and observing the meeting). Why is it wanting to suspend Public Participation? Why does it want to silence the public? Why is it infringing on the First Amendment rights of the public?
Should the board approve the suspension, presumably they will deem their action effective immediately, thereby preventing any member of the public from speaking tonight.
The problem?
Item 4 on the agenda is approval of the agenda. The agenda contains Public Participation as Item 7. If the board, as part of Item 6, suspends Public Participation, they should be able to only make it effective for future meetings. Since Public Participation will already have been approved as part of tonight's meeting, how will they be able to prevent someone from speaking?
And why would they do so?
The next problem with tonight's meeting is the announced exclusion of the public from tonight's public board meeting. An open meeting of a public body, such as a school board, cannot exclude the public. But the District has announced its intention to do so. It seems to consider audio-streaming as the equivalent of being present at a meeting. IT IS NOT.
Who authorized the District to announce a restriction that eliminates the public from tonight's meeting? Did the Administration (represented by Supt. Baron Davis) make that decision on its (his) own? Certainly, the Board never met to consider or approve that.
And a false reason is given, when the District states on its website: "Due to the restrictions on public gatherings related to the coronavirus, the public will not be able to attend the meeting..." This is false!
Gov. McMaster issued an Executive Order prohibiting gatherings of three or more people, but he meant groups of people on the streets, in parks, in neighborhoods, etc. He did not mean people at home, at work, or at law-abiding businesses.
So the public can attend tonight's meeting, except the School District is saying it cannot. This is clearly a violation of its authority and of the law. And even of the Constitution.
So much for being a law-abiding business.
I write this with full appreciation for the seriousness of the COVID-19 threat. The public is smart enough to make its own decisions. Perhaps it is illegal (against the Governor's mandate, as the District calls it) for even the Board to meet in executive or open session, even without an audience.
What the Board should do is create seating for tonight's meeting with regard to social-distancing, and then permit attendance by a number limited to specified seats. You know, like President Trump does at his press conferences. All the chairs are there, but reporters are scattered throughout the room.
Monday, March 30, 2020
Who runs District 2? The S.C. School Boards Assn.???
The agenda for tomorrow's School Board meeting has changed.
A media release today revealed more information about the trap being sprung on the public tomorrow night.
If you've read recent articles here, the Board was going to be asked by Adminstration to approve undisclosed revision(s) to Board Policy BEDH (Public Participation) on a first reading, and the attachment explaining that was omitted from the original agenda.
Now we know. Now we know what the Board Chair and the Superintendent knew last week when they put together the agenda for the March 31, 2020 Regular Meeting.
The attachment with the proposed revision still is not attached to the agenda, but the revised agenda explains it. Of course, you can't tell that it is a revised agenda, because the revision is not so noted on it. Here it is.
"Per the recommendation of the S.C. School Board Association in light of the global health emergency, the board will consider a recommendation to suspend Policy BEDH Public Participation At Meetings."
There is no state-wide order to limit group size of attendance at "law-abiding businesses". The School Board could be considered such a "law-abiding business" (except for those times when it doesn't follow the law).
While limited public attendance to a meeting might be a good idea, the Administration asks the Board to lay it off on the S.C. School Boards Association (SCSBA). The Board should take full responsibility on its own shoulders and not try to slough this off on the SCSBA.
EVERY member of the Richland 2 Board should vote NO on this - for several reasons.
It is the public to which the Board is responsible.
The SCSBA does not run Richland School District Two!!!
The Board could create social-distancing with proper placement of chairs in the board meeting room and limit - but not prohibit - public attendance.
Public Participation is still on the agenda, and the board should hear from the public - in public.
A media release today revealed more information about the trap being sprung on the public tomorrow night.
If you've read recent articles here, the Board was going to be asked by Adminstration to approve undisclosed revision(s) to Board Policy BEDH (Public Participation) on a first reading, and the attachment explaining that was omitted from the original agenda.
Now we know. Now we know what the Board Chair and the Superintendent knew last week when they put together the agenda for the March 31, 2020 Regular Meeting.
The attachment with the proposed revision still is not attached to the agenda, but the revised agenda explains it. Of course, you can't tell that it is a revised agenda, because the revision is not so noted on it. Here it is.
"Per the recommendation of the S.C. School Board Association in light of the global health emergency, the board will consider a recommendation to suspend Policy BEDH Public Participation At Meetings."
There is no state-wide order to limit group size of attendance at "law-abiding businesses". The School Board could be considered such a "law-abiding business" (except for those times when it doesn't follow the law).
While limited public attendance to a meeting might be a good idea, the Administration asks the Board to lay it off on the S.C. School Boards Association (SCSBA). The Board should take full responsibility on its own shoulders and not try to slough this off on the SCSBA.
EVERY member of the Richland 2 Board should vote NO on this - for several reasons.
It is the public to which the Board is responsible.
The SCSBA does not run Richland School District Two!!!
The Board could create social-distancing with proper placement of chairs in the board meeting room and limit - but not prohibit - public attendance.
Public Participation is still on the agenda, and the board should hear from the public - in public.
Sunday, March 29, 2020
District 2 is lying to the public
On Richland 2's website is this message. It's not all that easy to find, but it's there.
The problem is with the truthfulness of the statement "Due to the restrictions on public meetings..."
There are currently NO restrictions on meetings in homes, at work, or of law-abiding businesses. Gov. McMaster made this exception to his prohibition on gatherings of three or more people.
It is important to actually watch public meetings. Unless you can see the members of the public body, you will not know when they are having side conversations that cannot be overheard by the audience or even by other board members. Everything is supposed to be heard by everybody there.
You also will not know when members of the public body (school board) are reading or sending text messages or email. It's bad enough when board members can't live without checking their messages during a public meeting.
And the public won't know who is arriving late or leaving early, if you can't see the board meeting.
You won't see the grimaces and the disdain shown by one board member toward another.
You won't see the body posture of others, when one board member rambles endlessly just to have "microphone time".
You won't be able to lean forward and cup your hand to your ear, when a board member mumbles into a microphone with a hand in front of the mouth.
And you won't be there to speak during the Public Participation segment that is on the agenda.
If three board members are absent, you won't be able to ask the board not to hold an illegal meeting. If four are present in person, that's not a quorum. And a quorum of five is required to hold a public meeting of this school board. I believe that calling in by phone does not get counted toward a quorum.
AUDIO OF BOARD MEETING STREAMING LIVE
The Richland Two Board of Trustees will hold a regularly scheduled meeting on March 31, 2020. Executive session will begin at 5:30 p.m and public session will resume at 6 p.m. Due to the restrictions on public gatherings related to the coronavirus, the public will not be able to attend the meeting but are invited to listen to live streamed audio at www.richland2.org/livestream.The problem is with the truthfulness of the statement "Due to the restrictions on public meetings..."
There are currently NO restrictions on meetings in homes, at work, or of law-abiding businesses. Gov. McMaster made this exception to his prohibition on gatherings of three or more people.
It is important to actually watch public meetings. Unless you can see the members of the public body, you will not know when they are having side conversations that cannot be overheard by the audience or even by other board members. Everything is supposed to be heard by everybody there.
You also will not know when members of the public body (school board) are reading or sending text messages or email. It's bad enough when board members can't live without checking their messages during a public meeting.
And the public won't know who is arriving late or leaving early, if you can't see the board meeting.
You won't see the grimaces and the disdain shown by one board member toward another.
You won't see the body posture of others, when one board member rambles endlessly just to have "microphone time".
You won't be able to lean forward and cup your hand to your ear, when a board member mumbles into a microphone with a hand in front of the mouth.
And you won't be there to speak during the Public Participation segment that is on the agenda.
If three board members are absent, you won't be able to ask the board not to hold an illegal meeting. If four are present in person, that's not a quorum. And a quorum of five is required to hold a public meeting of this school board. I believe that calling in by phone does not get counted toward a quorum.
Can Board meet on March 31?
Earlier in March South Carolina Governor McMaster issued an order that groups of 50 or more shall not gather. This is part of South Carolina's response to the coronavirus COVID-19 problem.
Later this month Governor McMaster tightened his order, which now prohibits gatherings of three or more people and grants authority to law enforcement to break up gatherings of this size. He explained that his order "does not apply to homes, work places, or law-abiding businesses."
Will Richland 2 cancel its March 31 board meeting?
A quorum of the seven board members is required to hold a meeting. Richland 2 has defined a quorum as five (5). I believe the law is intended to mean that a quorum must be present in person.
If there aren't five board members present in person on March 31, any attempt to conduct business will be illegal. All the Board Chair can do is announce that no meeting can take place. I believe Richland 2 cannot have a legal quorum with fewer than five present in person. Any other board members attending by telephone should not be counted in determining whether a quorum exists..
If there are not five board members present Tuesday night, then Richland 2 will not be a "law-abiding business" and one of the Richland County Sheriff's Department deputies present should break up the meeting, as ordered by Gov. McMaster. Will he?
Later this month Governor McMaster tightened his order, which now prohibits gatherings of three or more people and grants authority to law enforcement to break up gatherings of this size. He explained that his order "does not apply to homes, work places, or law-abiding businesses."
Will Richland 2 cancel its March 31 board meeting?
A quorum of the seven board members is required to hold a meeting. Richland 2 has defined a quorum as five (5). I believe the law is intended to mean that a quorum must be present in person.
If there aren't five board members present in person on March 31, any attempt to conduct business will be illegal. All the Board Chair can do is announce that no meeting can take place. I believe Richland 2 cannot have a legal quorum with fewer than five present in person. Any other board members attending by telephone should not be counted in determining whether a quorum exists..
If there are not five board members present Tuesday night, then Richland 2 will not be a "law-abiding business" and one of the Richland County Sheriff's Department deputies present should break up the meeting, as ordered by Gov. McMaster. Will he?
Is Richland 2 pulling a fast one?
When Richland 2 school district published the agenda for the March 31, 2020 Regular Meeting (re-scheduled from March 24), I noticed immediately that the proposed revision to Board Policy BEDH had not been attached to the agenda.
Omitting it is the equivalent of keeping it secret from the public. This provokes a second question. Do the board members know what is in the revision?
This morning an equally-important change in the Agenda jumped out at me.
Notice Item 6 in the agenda, which can be viewed on the District's website.
Go to www.Richland2.org
Click on EXPLORE (top right)
Click on School Board
Click on AGENDA
Under Meetings, click on Regular Board Meeting
Click on View the Agenda
Scroll down the list on the left
Usually, "New Business - Action Requested" follows Public Participation.
However, for the March 31 meeting, this item is in the agenda twice. The first time is before Public Participation. Why is this important?
Because the proposed revisions to Board Policy BEDH address Public Participation!!!
The Board will be asked to approve the revisions, yet the Board has never seen the proposed revisions. Normally, the proposed revisions are presented for discussion and considered in a first reading, and then a vote is taken at a following meeting.
But not this time.
Administration is violating Board Policy by jumping the line with this item. Why?
What if the Board hasn't even received a copy of the proposed revisions yet?
Why is this item placed ahead of Public Participation?
The proper place for it is in Item 10 "New Business - No Action Requested"
Now, the superintendent knows this. The Board Chair knows it. Why the change???
Will the public be allowed to question this on March 31, before the Board votes? Not according to the agenda. Public Participation occurs after the board considers Item 6.1.
The agenda for meetings is compiled by the Board Chair and the superintendent. Will there be some fireworks at the March 31 meeting? See you there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)