On the District's homepage is a listing of Upcoming Events.
At the bottom of the homepage, if you click on "21 JUL Richland Two Board Meeting", you'll see that the starting time for the meeting is 6:30pm. If you click on that time, you'll read that the meeting will be from 6:30pm-8:30pm at R2i2.
If you show up at R2i2 at 6:25pm, you'll find the parking lot empty and the building locked.
If you try to tune in online at 6:30pm, you will have missed the first 90 minutes of the meeting, because it actually will start at 5:00pm. Well, actually, it starts at 4:30pm and then immediately adjourns to Executive Session for 30 minutes.
The open session reconvenes at 5:00pm. This is when the public meeting begins.
Saturday, July 18, 2020
Friday, July 17, 2020
District bombs on new Public Participation plan
How are your mind-reading skills? You are going to need them.
As the board prepared to vote on July 9 to re-instate Public Participation, Libby Roof, Chief Communications Officer for the District, explained (at 49:05 on the video-recording) that the public would be able to submit written comments by early afternoon on the day of the board meeting via a Google document that would become available when the notice of the board meeting was posted. Then the comments (up to three minutes per comment) would be read to the board during the meeting. The printed comments would be given to the board.
I came away from that meeting thinking there would be a link on the agenda that would take a reader to the comment form. That isn't how it will work. You must find the form on the District's website.
When I examined the agenda for the July 21st board meeting, I found nothing that would tell me where to find the comment form.
Late Friday afternoon, an email from the District to media contacts provided a link to the location of the Comment Form on the District website. Here is that link:
www.richland2.org/School-Board/Public-Participation
The big question is, how will a member of the public ever find that form? The District has made it unnecessarily difficult for the public by hiding the form on the website.
Where is it?
Go to the the District's website at www.Richland2.org
Click on EXPLORE
Click on School Board
Click on PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Scroll down, fill out the form, and submit it by 1:00PM on the day of the board meeting
UPDATE: 7/18/20 3:35PM The District's homepage now shows that there is a process for submitting comments for Public Participation.
As the board prepared to vote on July 9 to re-instate Public Participation, Libby Roof, Chief Communications Officer for the District, explained (at 49:05 on the video-recording) that the public would be able to submit written comments by early afternoon on the day of the board meeting via a Google document that would become available when the notice of the board meeting was posted. Then the comments (up to three minutes per comment) would be read to the board during the meeting. The printed comments would be given to the board.
I came away from that meeting thinking there would be a link on the agenda that would take a reader to the comment form. That isn't how it will work. You must find the form on the District's website.
When I examined the agenda for the July 21st board meeting, I found nothing that would tell me where to find the comment form.
Late Friday afternoon, an email from the District to media contacts provided a link to the location of the Comment Form on the District website. Here is that link:
www.richland2.org/School-Board/Public-Participation
The big question is, how will a member of the public ever find that form? The District has made it unnecessarily difficult for the public by hiding the form on the website.
Where is it?
Go to the the District's website at www.Richland2.org
Click on EXPLORE
Click on School Board
Click on PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Scroll down, fill out the form, and submit it by 1:00PM on the day of the board meeting
UPDATE: 7/18/20 3:35PM The District's homepage now shows that there is a process for submitting comments for Public Participation.
What's a KAREN? Part 2
FoxNews.com carried this headline on July 17.
It's interesting how fluid the internet is. And why hard-printed copy, such as a printed dictionary, is so important. You can read something today on the internet, and next week you can't find it.
On July 1 I found one definition of a KAREN as a racial slur. Today? Not to be found.
Why was I looking up KAREN today? Lightfoot's slur against the White House press secretary reminded me of the slur tossed by Columbia's own Chris Leevy Johnson in a Facebook post right after James Shadd was elected Chair of the Richland 2 School Board. At 6:37PM on June 30, Johnson, a pastor with Brookland Northeast Baptist Church and a funeral director at Leevy's Funeral Home, referred to Richland 2 Trustee Lindsay Agostini as a "KAREN".He posted a message on his Facebook page just minutes after Shadd was elected, and this post is still there today.
Johnson's post was later sent to James Shadd by Tameika Isaac Devine on June 30 at about 10:30PM, with her message: "Congratulations, James Shadd. Please read Pastor Chris' post below."
Was that Devine's way of saying Thanks to the superintendent for directing the school district's bond attorney firm to give some legal work to Devine's very small law firm? The superintendent got the board to approve his authority to so order Burr Forman McNair in January 2019. My guess is that most board members did not even read or understand that directive sentence in the nine pages of Resolution they were asked to approve.
Why would Johnson be calling Trustee Agostini a "KAREN"? Why would he be calling her anything? Is it a racial slur? Is it appropriate language for a pastor at a large church and a man associated with a large Columbia funeral home, well-known in the black community?
Should he face censure by the church and criticism by Leevy's for his comment?
What Johnson didn't mention was "why" Agostini voted against Shadd for Board Chair and "why" she voted "No" on the superintendent's evaluation and contract extension.
Chicago's Lightfoot calls White House's McEnany a 'Karen' after reported 'derelict mayor' slight
The FoxNews online reporter went on to explain what a Karen" is - "a pejorative term that has come to prominence to label a demanding, middle-aged white woman who displays a sense of overbearing entitlement in various societal confrontations." A "perjorative term", eh?It's interesting how fluid the internet is. And why hard-printed copy, such as a printed dictionary, is so important. You can read something today on the internet, and next week you can't find it.
Jun 26, 2020 - The "Karen" meme is being used to describe women who commit acts that are perceived to be racist in public,... (www.insider.com)
On July 1 I found one definition of a KAREN as a racial slur. Today? Not to be found.
Why was I looking up KAREN today? Lightfoot's slur against the White House press secretary reminded me of the slur tossed by Columbia's own Chris Leevy Johnson in a Facebook post right after James Shadd was elected Chair of the Richland 2 School Board. At 6:37PM on June 30, Johnson, a pastor with Brookland Northeast Baptist Church and a funeral director at Leevy's Funeral Home, referred to Richland 2 Trustee Lindsay Agostini as a "KAREN".He posted a message on his Facebook page just minutes after Shadd was elected, and this post is still there today.
Johnson's post was later sent to James Shadd by Tameika Isaac Devine on June 30 at about 10:30PM, with her message: "Congratulations, James Shadd. Please read Pastor Chris' post below."
Was that Devine's way of saying Thanks to the superintendent for directing the school district's bond attorney firm to give some legal work to Devine's very small law firm? The superintendent got the board to approve his authority to so order Burr Forman McNair in January 2019. My guess is that most board members did not even read or understand that directive sentence in the nine pages of Resolution they were asked to approve.
Why would Johnson be calling Trustee Agostini a "KAREN"? Why would he be calling her anything? Is it a racial slur? Is it appropriate language for a pastor at a large church and a man associated with a large Columbia funeral home, well-known in the black community?
Should he face censure by the church and criticism by Leevy's for his comment?
What Johnson didn't mention was "why" Agostini voted against Shadd for Board Chair and "why" she voted "No" on the superintendent's evaluation and contract extension.
Catch the District's homepage today
Be sure to catch the District's homepage today at www.Richland2.org
The schools' re-opening plan is featured.
The new officers of the board for 2020-2021 are shown.
The superintendent's photo and mention of his evaluation got the most important position which, for a newspaper or a webpage, is top right. And his photo got the largest size; larger even that the three photo sizes of the board's officers, combined.
The gushing comments of Amelia McKie, trustee-elect of the school board (and unofficial member of the board since November 13, 2018), are almost over-powering. She spoke with the same glowing terms at the board meeting. If she were an employee, you'd think she was looking for a promotion.
The superintendent was awarded an "overall distinguished" evaluation, along with a one-year extension of his employment contract to 6/30/2024.
The District's web article did not mention that the vote on his evaluation and contract was 6-1, not unanimous. The article also did not mention why the vote was 6-1, although the dissenting trustee did speak up and inform the public. Her reason was significant and should have affected the evaluation. But she is in the minority on the board.
The Board majority (the "Squad") will band together and get everything it wants, and it will give the superintendent everything he wants. There are four (sometimes five) who rule the roost. And not just because a majority of four out of seven will control. It's "which" four.
The public, the voters, is entitled to seven independent minds looking carefully at everything it is to control and direct. That hasn't been the case for some time. I wonder sometimes if certain members of the board even bother to read all the material on which they will be expected to vote at a board meeting. There is no reason to think that will change now.
I recall one board meeting when a trustee asked a question of a staff member after a presentation had been made. Somewhat hesitantly, but bravely, that staffer said (something like), "That information is in the board packet that you got before the meeting." Obviously, that trustee had not read the material in the board packet. How often does that happen?
The schools' re-opening plan is featured.
The new officers of the board for 2020-2021 are shown.
The superintendent's photo and mention of his evaluation got the most important position which, for a newspaper or a webpage, is top right. And his photo got the largest size; larger even that the three photo sizes of the board's officers, combined.
The gushing comments of Amelia McKie, trustee-elect of the school board (and unofficial member of the board since November 13, 2018), are almost over-powering. She spoke with the same glowing terms at the board meeting. If she were an employee, you'd think she was looking for a promotion.
The superintendent was awarded an "overall distinguished" evaluation, along with a one-year extension of his employment contract to 6/30/2024.
The District's web article did not mention that the vote on his evaluation and contract was 6-1, not unanimous. The article also did not mention why the vote was 6-1, although the dissenting trustee did speak up and inform the public. Her reason was significant and should have affected the evaluation. But she is in the minority on the board.
The Board majority (the "Squad") will band together and get everything it wants, and it will give the superintendent everything he wants. There are four (sometimes five) who rule the roost. And not just because a majority of four out of seven will control. It's "which" four.
The public, the voters, is entitled to seven independent minds looking carefully at everything it is to control and direct. That hasn't been the case for some time. I wonder sometimes if certain members of the board even bother to read all the material on which they will be expected to vote at a board meeting. There is no reason to think that will change now.
I recall one board meeting when a trustee asked a question of a staff member after a presentation had been made. Somewhat hesitantly, but bravely, that staffer said (something like), "That information is in the board packet that you got before the meeting." Obviously, that trustee had not read the material in the board packet. How often does that happen?
Thursday, July 16, 2020
Friendships before Law?
Should friendships come before the law?
Board members should be friendly toward one another. This makes for more progress, when decisions are made by voting on Motions for action at the school board level.
The school board is governed by the laws of the State of South Carolina and by Board Policies. Board Policies can be found on the District's website: www.richland2.org
After you get there, click on EXPLORE (top right); then
Click on School Board; then
Click on BOARD POLICIES; then
Click on B (left side)
Since about February 2019 I have complained to the board that Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes are not legitimate board members. Why aren't they?
State law (S.C. Code of Laws 8-13-1110) reads, in part
"SECTION 8-13-1110. Persons required to file statement of economic interests.
"(A) No public official, regardless of compensation, and no public member or public employee as designated in subsection (B) may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests in accordance with the provisions of this chapter with the appropriate supervisory office..."
Boiling it down to its simplest: (A) No public official... may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests..."
And that's exactly what McKie and Holmes did. They took the oath of office and entered up official duties on November 13, 2018, three weeks before the filed their Statements of Economic Interests with the S.C. Ethics Commission on December 4, 2018. AND they have not taken the oath since December 4, 2018.
Because they took the oath before they were eligible to do so, it's like they never took it and they are not yet legitimate members of the school board. McKie and Holmes are usurping public office - a second violation of South Carolina law.
Now, here's the pickle. James Shadd is the recently-elected (by the school board) Board Chair. James Shadd is an attorney. As a law school graduate and member of the South Carolina Bar, he should have no difficulty understanding the law. And insisting that the school board follow it.
If he doesn't?
Does he become complicit in the violations of the law?
Does an ethical problem arise, when he allows continued violation of the law?
The Board has attempted to say that it cannot act. Seriously? Since McKie and Holmes are not lawfully entitled to sit at the Board desks, all James Shadd will need to do is ask the RCSD deputy to remove them.
I emailed the Board Chair on July 4 saying, in part, "I'd like to be in touch with you about the failure of Amelia and Teresa to take the oath of office legally (S.C. Code of Laws §8-13-1110(A)) and how this should be corrected. I'm happy to meet with you in person or via a video chat."
Today is July 16. There has been no acknowledgement or reply.
Board members should be friendly toward one another. This makes for more progress, when decisions are made by voting on Motions for action at the school board level.
The school board is governed by the laws of the State of South Carolina and by Board Policies. Board Policies can be found on the District's website: www.richland2.org
After you get there, click on EXPLORE (top right); then
Click on School Board; then
Click on BOARD POLICIES; then
Click on B (left side)
Since about February 2019 I have complained to the board that Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes are not legitimate board members. Why aren't they?
State law (S.C. Code of Laws 8-13-1110) reads, in part
"SECTION 8-13-1110. Persons required to file statement of economic interests.
"(A) No public official, regardless of compensation, and no public member or public employee as designated in subsection (B) may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests in accordance with the provisions of this chapter with the appropriate supervisory office..."
Boiling it down to its simplest: (A) No public official... may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests..."
And that's exactly what McKie and Holmes did. They took the oath of office and entered up official duties on November 13, 2018, three weeks before the filed their Statements of Economic Interests with the S.C. Ethics Commission on December 4, 2018. AND they have not taken the oath since December 4, 2018.
Because they took the oath before they were eligible to do so, it's like they never took it and they are not yet legitimate members of the school board. McKie and Holmes are usurping public office - a second violation of South Carolina law.
Now, here's the pickle. James Shadd is the recently-elected (by the school board) Board Chair. James Shadd is an attorney. As a law school graduate and member of the South Carolina Bar, he should have no difficulty understanding the law. And insisting that the school board follow it.
If he doesn't?
Does he become complicit in the violations of the law?
Does an ethical problem arise, when he allows continued violation of the law?
The Board has attempted to say that it cannot act. Seriously? Since McKie and Holmes are not lawfully entitled to sit at the Board desks, all James Shadd will need to do is ask the RCSD deputy to remove them.
I emailed the Board Chair on July 4 saying, in part, "I'd like to be in touch with you about the failure of Amelia and Teresa to take the oath of office legally (S.C. Code of Laws §8-13-1110(A)) and how this should be corrected. I'm happy to meet with you in person or via a video chat."
Today is July 16. There has been no acknowledgement or reply.
Who Decides on Re-opening of Schools?
Who will make the decision on the re-opening of Richland 2 schools?
Will it be the superintendent or will it be the School Board? Or the State Department of Education? Or the South Carolina School Boards Association? Or Red for Ed? Or the U.S. Department of Education?
There is no doubt that the final decision belongs in the hands of the Richland 2 School Board. The superintendent will make a recommendation. The majority of the school board will rubber-stamp it. The school board bears the responsibility, and it is the board that shouldn't duck that responsibility.
The decision belongs AT the school board level. These are the people elected by the voters to direct the school district. Aside from the fact that two people sit on the board illegally, there are five legal members, a quorum, who can make the decision.
Will it be the superintendent or will it be the School Board? Or the State Department of Education? Or the South Carolina School Boards Association? Or Red for Ed? Or the U.S. Department of Education?
There is no doubt that the final decision belongs in the hands of the Richland 2 School Board. The superintendent will make a recommendation. The majority of the school board will rubber-stamp it. The school board bears the responsibility, and it is the board that shouldn't duck that responsibility.
The decision belongs AT the school board level. These are the people elected by the voters to direct the school district. Aside from the fact that two people sit on the board illegally, there are five legal members, a quorum, who can make the decision.
Monday, July 13, 2020
Does Media Manipulate Readers
Does media manipulate readers? Remember the story from Seattle about the driver who ran over two protesters during a Black Lives Matter demonstration that closed I-5 in both directions?
Answer these questions before reading the rest of the story.
Was the driver white or black?
Were the BLM protesters black or white?
Now read this article, "Selective Media Reporting Further Fuels Our Racial Divide",
by John R. Lott, Jr.
Were your answers correct?
Prof. Lott is a respected researcher, well-known for his book More Guns, Less Crime. Within the article, he has this to say about the media:
"Race and politics increasingly divide Americans, and selective media reporting is largely to blame. The media, not President Donald Trump, is fanning the flames of violence."
How can you combat this divide? Get the facts before chiseling your opinion in stone.
Answer these questions before reading the rest of the story.
Was the driver white or black?
Were the BLM protesters black or white?
Now read this article, "Selective Media Reporting Further Fuels Our Racial Divide",
by John R. Lott, Jr.
Were your answers correct?
Prof. Lott is a respected researcher, well-known for his book More Guns, Less Crime. Within the article, he has this to say about the media:
"Race and politics increasingly divide Americans, and selective media reporting is largely to blame. The media, not President Donald Trump, is fanning the flames of violence."
How can you combat this divide? Get the facts before chiseling your opinion in stone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)