Even since Hillary Clinton got caught using a private email server for official business, the country has held an opinion that "official" business ought to be conducted on "official" email accounts.
Why? Because the unofficial emails are hidden from public view.
Before moving to South Carolina in 2014, I raised this exact issue in Illinois, when certain members of the Woodstock (Ill.) City Council were using personal email accounts for official business.
I attended a training for appointed and elected public officials that was conducted by the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. Since I was not an appointed or elected official, I held my questions until the officials had asked all their questions. And then I asked about use of private email accounts for handling official business.
The trainers from the AG's office said that should not be done.
After the meeting, the trainers thanked me for my good questions. I appreciated that.
Right here in the Richland 2 School District, there are two people on the board who use personal email addresses. One is Trustee Monica Elkins-Johnson, whose email address is "puttingstudentsfirst2012@gmail.com".
The other is Trustee-elect Teresa Holmes, whose email address is "docholmesschoolboard2@gmail.com". I write "Trustee-elect", because Holmes has never legally taken the oath of office after filing her Statement of Economic Interests Report on December 4, 2018.
Apparently, the South Carolina School Boards Association (SCSBA) believes it is okay for a school board member to use a personal email address.
Well, it's not. And the reason it is not, is because there is no guarantee that such email correspondence will be found in response to a FOIA Request to the School District. Only if ALL the emails are on the School District's email server is there a greater assurance (still not perfect) that a FOIA response will be complete.
Even if a board member agrees to comply with a FOIA request, could there be a Hillary Moment. Of course, there could.
More importantly, what about after that board member's term has expired? If Elkins-Johnson or Holmes leaves the school board, how will she preserve ALL the school-related emails?
The answer? She won't. With one click, she can delete that email account and the entire history will be gone. Later she can say, "Oops." But those emails will be gone.
Now is the time for a Board Policy that requires all school board members to use a District-server email account for all school board business.
Is there a Board member who will request such a new Policy?
OK, I'll get the ball rolling. I, as a member of the public, will request this issue be placed on the Agenda for a Regular Meeting. SEE Board Policy BEDB - Board Agenda. "Items of business may be suggested by board members, staff members, or the public."
Monday, April 27, 2020
"State of Emergency" - Really?
The Richland 2 School Board is using the Governor's declaration of a state of emergency as its pretext for holding its Regular and Special Meetings via Zoom; i.e., away from the prying eyes of the public.
Telecasting the meeting is not the same as having the public and the press right in the same room, where the audience can keep an eye on the entire board (including grimaces, body language, side conversations, use of cell phones).
What is a "state of emergency"?
Using the language in the City of Columbia's Code (ART. II, Sec. 31), it is "A state of emergency shall be deemed to exist within the city whenever, during times of great public crisis, disaster, rioting, civil disturbance or catastrophe, or for any other reason, municipal public safety authorities are unable to maintain public order or afford adequate protection for lives, safety, health, welfare or property."
In Richland County, THERE IS NO "great public crisis, disaster, rioting, civil disturbance or catastrophe". Not even in the State of South Carolina.
And what makes Columbia's ordinance, or at least part of it, unconstitutional is the wording "or for any other reason".
The City of Columbia could presumably declare a state of emergency if Mayor Benjamin got a hangnail. Assuming he could bully a majority of the City Council into agreeing with him.
A dangerous part of the state-of-emergency ordinance in the City of Columbia is this section:
So, just when law-abiding citizens might need self-protection away from home, the City of Columbia says it is illegal.
See you in court, buddy.
So the pretext (state of emergency) for closing off a Richland 2 board meeting is false, and the public should protest loudly about it.
Telecasting the meeting is not the same as having the public and the press right in the same room, where the audience can keep an eye on the entire board (including grimaces, body language, side conversations, use of cell phones).
What is a "state of emergency"?
Using the language in the City of Columbia's Code (ART. II, Sec. 31), it is "A state of emergency shall be deemed to exist within the city whenever, during times of great public crisis, disaster, rioting, civil disturbance or catastrophe, or for any other reason, municipal public safety authorities are unable to maintain public order or afford adequate protection for lives, safety, health, welfare or property."
In Richland County, THERE IS NO "great public crisis, disaster, rioting, civil disturbance or catastrophe". Not even in the State of South Carolina.
And what makes Columbia's ordinance, or at least part of it, unconstitutional is the wording "or for any other reason".
The City of Columbia could presumably declare a state of emergency if Mayor Benjamin got a hangnail. Assuming he could bully a majority of the City Council into agreeing with him.
A dangerous part of the state-of-emergency ordinance in the City of Columbia is this section:
"Sec. 7-35. - Prohibited acts.
During the existence of a proclaimed state of emergency when a curfew has been defined and imposed under the provisions of this article, it shall be unlawful for anyone subject to curfew to:
(1)
Be or travel upon any public street, alley or roadway or upon public property unless such travel is necessary to obtain medical assistance;
(2)
Possess off one's own premises, buy, sell, give away or otherwise transfer or dispose of any explosives, firearms, ammunition or dangerous weapon of any kind; ..."
So, just when law-abiding citizens might need self-protection away from home, the City of Columbia says it is illegal.
See you in court, buddy.
So the pretext (state of emergency) for closing off a Richland 2 board meeting is false, and the public should protest loudly about it.
4/28/20 Meeting Time Corrected
The District's announcement regarding the April 28, 2020 Regular Meeting of the school board has been corrected pertaining to the starting time. The Executive Session will begin shortly after 6:00PM and the Regular meeting will resume at 6:30PM.
The location of the Regular Meeting is not shown in the April 28th updated press release, nor is it shown on the Agenda. The Board apparently plans to meet only via Zoom, effectively eliminating the public and the press from attending the open meeting.
While the announcement states that the meeting will be conducted via Zoom, it does not state that the meeting will not be held in the open and at the regular meeting location, which is at R2i2. Very likely, it will be held entirely remotely, with each board member "attending" from his or her remote location.
The announcement by the District reads, "Due to the restrictions on public gatherings, the meeting will be held using the “Zoom” online meeting platform. The public will be able to view the meeting at http://www.richland2.org/livestream."
The District has failed to explain the "restrictions on public gatherings". Exactly what are they?
When the South Carolina Governor imposed restrictions on groups of more than three people, here is what he had in mind. According to The State newspaper on March 23, 2020,
Richland 2 School Board could meet in Open Meetings at R2i2 and employ seating with social-distancing. But it chooses not to. This violates State law.
And, by meeting remotely, the District also violates the requirement that a quorum be present. For Richland 2, a quorum is five. (There are only five legitimate board members; Trustees-elect McKie and Holmes have never legally taken the oath of office.) While the law apparently does not say that a quorum must be present in person, it does not say that it need not. And that's important! It is understood that the quorum must be present in person.
Except that Richland 2 School Board chooses to "interpret" the law, rather than follow it.
Should Richland 2 be following the law - exactly?
The location of the Regular Meeting is not shown in the April 28th updated press release, nor is it shown on the Agenda. The Board apparently plans to meet only via Zoom, effectively eliminating the public and the press from attending the open meeting.
While the announcement states that the meeting will be conducted via Zoom, it does not state that the meeting will not be held in the open and at the regular meeting location, which is at R2i2. Very likely, it will be held entirely remotely, with each board member "attending" from his or her remote location.
The announcement by the District reads, "Due to the restrictions on public gatherings, the meeting will be held using the “Zoom” online meeting platform. The public will be able to view the meeting at http://www.richland2.org/livestream."
The District has failed to explain the "restrictions on public gatherings". Exactly what are they?
When the South Carolina Governor imposed restrictions on groups of more than three people, here is what he had in mind. According to The State newspaper on March 23, 2020,
“It would apply to parties on the beach, to boisterous gatherings or concerts, to spontaneous gatherings or unruly gatherings in shopping centers, parking lots,” McMaster said. “Those are the kinds of things and we have all seen them.
The order does not apply to is [sic] law-abiding businesses or employers, McMaster said."
NOTE: "The order does not apply to is (sic) law-abiding businesses or employers, McMaster said." (emphasis added)
Richland 2 School Board could meet in Open Meetings at R2i2 and employ seating with social-distancing. But it chooses not to. This violates State law.
And, by meeting remotely, the District also violates the requirement that a quorum be present. For Richland 2, a quorum is five. (There are only five legitimate board members; Trustees-elect McKie and Holmes have never legally taken the oath of office.) While the law apparently does not say that a quorum must be present in person, it does not say that it need not. And that's important! It is understood that the quorum must be present in person.
Except that Richland 2 School Board chooses to "interpret" the law, rather than follow it.
Should Richland 2 be following the law - exactly?
Saturday, April 25, 2020
4/28/20 Regular Meeting
The following email was sent to the five legitimate board members of Richland 2 School District, the two trustees-elect (McKie and Holmes), the superintendent, the District's legal counsel, and the District's advisor on Robert's Rules of Order.
If you are interested in attending Tuesday's meeting, you might show up in person. State law makes all meetings of public bodies open. Will the District arrange socially-distant seating? Or will it just refuse admittance to the public, thus risking censure or legal action for prohibiting public attendance?
If you are interested in attending Tuesday's meeting, you might show up in person. State law makes all meetings of public bodies open. Will the District arrange socially-distant seating? Or will it just refuse admittance to the public, thus risking censure or legal action for prohibiting public attendance?
Members of the Board and Trustees-elect McKie and Holmes,
There is a conflict in information between that published on the District's website as the starting times for the executive (6:00PM) and open (6:30PM) sessions and the times shown in Mrs. Abdus-Saboor's email today, which states the executive session starts at 5:30PM and the open session at 6:00PM.
Regarding the 4/28/20 Agenda,
The 4/21/20 Special-Called Meeting Minutes, attached to the 4/28/20 Regular Meeting Agenda, do not reflect that the meeting was 100% remote without public attendance. The Minutes also do not mention the Live-streaming.
Will you please not approve the Agenda for the 4/28/20 Regular Meeting as prepared, and make a Motion for it to be corrected before it is approved?
State law requires that an Agenda state the location of the meeting of the public body. The 4/28/20 Agenda does not state a location.
SECTION 30-4-60. Meetings of public bodies shall be open.
Every meeting of all public bodies shall be open to the public unless closed pursuant to Section 30-4-70 of this chapter.
Every meeting of all public bodies shall be open to the public unless closed pursuant to Section 30-4-70 of this chapter.
SECTION 30-4-80. Notice of meetings of public bodies.
(A) All public bodies, except as provided in subsections (B) and (C) of this section, must give written public notice of their regular meetings at the beginning of each calendar year. The notice must include the dates, times, and places [emphasis added] of such meetings.
(A) All public bodies, except as provided in subsections (B) and (C) of this section, must give written public notice of their regular meetings at the beginning of each calendar year. The notice must include the dates, times, and places [emphasis added] of such meetings.
Mrs. Abdus-Saboor's email indicates that the Regular Meeting will be held at R2i2, but the Agenda does not.
I presume that the public can attend the open meeting, as allowed by State law and that seating with regard to social-distancing will be arranged.
Item 4.1 includes the Consent Agenda.
Before the Agenda is approved, will you please make a Motion that the Minutes be corrected?
The Minutes should reflect:
- that no Member of the Board was present in person;
a. that a quorum was not present in person.
- that the public was prohibited from attending the open meeting, because the meeting was not held in a public-meeting
location;
- that no roll call was taken;
- that all seven Members attended remotely and none in the presence of one another;
- that there was no Motion or vote in the meeting to permit one or more board member to attend remotely
- that there was no explanation as to why any Member attended remotely (Board Policy BEDM):
a. The allowance in BEDM for teleconferencing does not include the current circumstances (pandemic or Governor's order);
b. There was no approval of any Member's request to attend by teleconference;
c. There was no disclosure of any person(s) present in the location from which a member was participating.
d. There was no admonition to members to refrain from using cellphones, email, texting, etc. during the meeting.
- that the meeting was Live-streamed.
This is important for any future legal challenge to the Board's meeting in such a manner that no member of the public could attend the Open Meeting in person. The SCSBA is wrong, when it advises that making the meeting "available to the public in real-time" (live-streaming) meets the "open to the public" requirement.
When the Board temporarily suspended Public Participation until the end of this month, it did not address attendance by the public. It only eliminated the three-minute speaking opportunity.
Agenda Item 7.1 did not include publication of the Homeschool Application in the Agenda. Is there such an urgency to this, that it must be voted on at its first reading?
Agenda Item 7.2 There is no attachment of the formal wording of the proposed change to Board Policy BE. The general explanation in a narrative sentence is inadequate notice to Board Members of detail, in expectation of a vote on first reading. On its surface, there is no need for such authority. A "No" vote is called for.
I suggest a Motion to remove item 7.2 from the Agenda at the beginning of the meeting.
As fiduciaries of the District, it is imperative that you know and follow the law and your Policies scrupulously. Failure to do so may constitute dereliction of duty.
Board Members, you are relying too heavily on faulty advice from the SCSBA. Please make your own decisions in doing what is best for Richland School District Two, with guidance from your own legal counsel.
Respectfully,
Gus Philpott
847/971-7083
cc: Kathryn Mahoney
Helen McFadden
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
April 21 Special Meeting Livestream - Grade? D-
Richland 2 School Board needs a class in Livestream. And an instruction that the board meeting by Livestream should be conducted exactly like a face-to-face board meeting. In other words, dress for business!
What went right?
The meeting started. Late, but it started.
What went wrong?
The Chair called for the first Motion of the meeting, and NO ONE promptly responded. It's pitiful how they all wait for someone else to do it. You'd think they were being asked to throw the switch to drop the guillotine. Why didn't the Vice Chair quickly approve the motion? Or the Board Secretary?
And then Trustee-elect McKie called for the wrong Motion. Hello???
Somebody, even the Chair, should have corrected her with "Point of Order". Her buddy, the other Trustee-elect, could have done that. Did no one else notice?
The four-minute delay in starting should have been covered with a message pop-up splashed on the screen to inform viewers to stand by. How many wondered whether the lack of action was because of a problem on their own computer?
The District should provide a number to which a text could be sent when there is a livestream problem.
Board members were apparently not coached on how to participate in a Livestream meeting regarding sound, speaking, identifying yourself before speaking, preventing audio feedback, silencing cell phones. You know, the basics.
The video quality was terrible. Most names on the video frames could not be read.
The seven board members' images should have been prioritized across the top, rather than scattered haphazardly on the screen.
The meeting-control moderator should have muted all, which would have eliminated background noises and cell phones.
If a board member wished to speak, there is probably a "Raise Hand" button and the Chair would call on him or her.
Trustee Agostini raised the question about the need for this meeting. Several others should have spoken on this and supported her question. Instead, the others must have been studying their fingernails, because no one else spoke up.
The superintendent's update could have been five minutes in length, instead of 16. You can watch the re-run yourself and determine how much was "filler".
The board trustees are Fiduciaries. They are supposed to be knowledgeable about business and conduct-of-business rules. And the protocol presented in Robert's Rules of Order. They are not elected to be good, non-confrontational buddies. Yes, they should get along. But, first of all, their obligation is to the taxpayers in the District.
What went right?
The meeting started. Late, but it started.
What went wrong?
The Chair called for the first Motion of the meeting, and NO ONE promptly responded. It's pitiful how they all wait for someone else to do it. You'd think they were being asked to throw the switch to drop the guillotine. Why didn't the Vice Chair quickly approve the motion? Or the Board Secretary?
And then Trustee-elect McKie called for the wrong Motion. Hello???
Somebody, even the Chair, should have corrected her with "Point of Order". Her buddy, the other Trustee-elect, could have done that. Did no one else notice?
The four-minute delay in starting should have been covered with a message pop-up splashed on the screen to inform viewers to stand by. How many wondered whether the lack of action was because of a problem on their own computer?
The District should provide a number to which a text could be sent when there is a livestream problem.
Board members were apparently not coached on how to participate in a Livestream meeting regarding sound, speaking, identifying yourself before speaking, preventing audio feedback, silencing cell phones. You know, the basics.
The video quality was terrible. Most names on the video frames could not be read.
The seven board members' images should have been prioritized across the top, rather than scattered haphazardly on the screen.
The meeting-control moderator should have muted all, which would have eliminated background noises and cell phones.
If a board member wished to speak, there is probably a "Raise Hand" button and the Chair would call on him or her.
Trustee Agostini raised the question about the need for this meeting. Several others should have spoken on this and supported her question. Instead, the others must have been studying their fingernails, because no one else spoke up.
The superintendent's update could have been five minutes in length, instead of 16. You can watch the re-run yourself and determine how much was "filler".
The board trustees are Fiduciaries. They are supposed to be knowledgeable about business and conduct-of-business rules. And the protocol presented in Robert's Rules of Order. They are not elected to be good, non-confrontational buddies. Yes, they should get along. But, first of all, their obligation is to the taxpayers in the District.
Monday, April 20, 2020
April 21st Agenda - further amended
The Agenda for the April 21st Special-Called Board Meeting has now been further amended.
Item 3.1 now is "New Business - No Action Requested" and the topic is Superintendent Update COVID-19.
What's wrong with this?
An "update" is just that. The superintendent should be making a report to the board. Unless the superintendent is going to ask the board to consider doing something (besides just listening to an "update"), then it is a only Report and not "New Business - No Action Requested".
If the superintendent is asking the board to consider something on which they will be expected to vote next week, April 28, then his Update should have been attached to the Agenda and called something other than an update. The Board members deserve to get it in advance of the meeting, so that they can study it and prepare questions for him to answer while he gives his "update".
Before each board meeting, the board chair (James Manning) and the superintendent put their heads together and settle on the agenda, which is then laid on the board members.
The Continuing Resolution, already on the agenda, has been moved to Item 4.1. That whole item could have waited until the next Regular Meeting, one week from now on April 28.
Will any board member ask what the rush was and why a Special Meeting was called in the first place?
Somewhere in the Board Policies Robert's Rules of Order is mentioned. This board doesn't seem to have a clue what Robert's Rules is all about.
This board needs a skilled Parliamentarian who stands ready to correct the board when it veers off-course. There are many times during board meetings when the board should be steered back on-course or informed through a Point-of-Order that what they are doing or saying is wrong.
Probably a Parliamentarian should be a non-Board position, contracted and paid, and insulated from influence by any board member or administrator.
Item 3.1 now is "New Business - No Action Requested" and the topic is Superintendent Update COVID-19.
What's wrong with this?
An "update" is just that. The superintendent should be making a report to the board. Unless the superintendent is going to ask the board to consider doing something (besides just listening to an "update"), then it is a only Report and not "New Business - No Action Requested".
If the superintendent is asking the board to consider something on which they will be expected to vote next week, April 28, then his Update should have been attached to the Agenda and called something other than an update. The Board members deserve to get it in advance of the meeting, so that they can study it and prepare questions for him to answer while he gives his "update".
Before each board meeting, the board chair (James Manning) and the superintendent put their heads together and settle on the agenda, which is then laid on the board members.
The Continuing Resolution, already on the agenda, has been moved to Item 4.1. That whole item could have waited until the next Regular Meeting, one week from now on April 28.
Will any board member ask what the rush was and why a Special Meeting was called in the first place?
Somewhere in the Board Policies Robert's Rules of Order is mentioned. This board doesn't seem to have a clue what Robert's Rules is all about.
This board needs a skilled Parliamentarian who stands ready to correct the board when it veers off-course. There are many times during board meetings when the board should be steered back on-course or informed through a Point-of-Order that what they are doing or saying is wrong.
Probably a Parliamentarian should be a non-Board position, contracted and paid, and insulated from influence by any board member or administrator.
Sunday, April 19, 2020
An Education - the hard way
Over the past week I have helped a Richland County homeowner who took in a homeless couple. Now he can't get them out.
The couple has five kids; 9, 8, 4, 5 months, 3 weeks. His and hers. The homeowner felt sorry for them after they got kicked out of their prior housing (hotel? motel?) and didn't want the seven to have to live in their car.
Here's the Warning: if you take someone into your home, even if they don't pay rent, you become a Landlord and they become your Tenants. As Tenants, they acquire property rights to your house.
To get them out, you will have to evict them. And the courts are closed.
So you are stuck.
Before you make any similar offer, call your lawyer. Understand your rights before you make a decision.
Unfair? It doesn't matter whether you think this is unfair. You'll be stuck as a victim of South Carolina law.
You might ask yourself: "Who makes dumb laws like these?" Call your State Rep or Senator, and ask his or her viewpoint on this law. If you don't like that viewpoint, there is an election coming up.
Vote 'em out.
The couple has five kids; 9, 8, 4, 5 months, 3 weeks. His and hers. The homeowner felt sorry for them after they got kicked out of their prior housing (hotel? motel?) and didn't want the seven to have to live in their car.
Here's the Warning: if you take someone into your home, even if they don't pay rent, you become a Landlord and they become your Tenants. As Tenants, they acquire property rights to your house.
To get them out, you will have to evict them. And the courts are closed.
So you are stuck.
Before you make any similar offer, call your lawyer. Understand your rights before you make a decision.
Unfair? It doesn't matter whether you think this is unfair. You'll be stuck as a victim of South Carolina law.
You might ask yourself: "Who makes dumb laws like these?" Call your State Rep or Senator, and ask his or her viewpoint on this law. If you don't like that viewpoint, there is an election coming up.
Vote 'em out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)