Open Letter to R.C. Elections Commission

 The following letter has been sent to the Richland County Elections Commission.

If a candidate for public office is elected and qualified to serve in that office, but never takes the oath of office legally, does that candidate-elect lose the entitlement to serve after some period of time?

We have a situation in Richland School District Two that involves two trustees-elect who have never taken the oath of office legally.

Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes were elected on November 6, 2018. They took an oath of office (illegally) on November 13, 2018 and began to serve (illegally). State law (SECTION 8-13-1110(A)) is clear that one must file a Statement of Economic Interest before taking the oath and beginning to serve.

Neither filed the SEI until December 4, 2018. On that date they became eligible to take the oath. But neither has done so. Yet they have been allowed to serve as if they are legitimate trustees.

Does the Richland County Elections Commission take an interest in candidates-elect who usurp public office?

Are District 2 Employees at risk?

Trustees of the Richland 2 School District receive certain monetary benefits for performing official duties. These benefits include

Monthly compensation (could be $900/month) for attending two Regular Meetings. Trustees also attend Special-Called Meetings.

The District pays membership dues in professional associations, such as the South Carolina School Boards Association.

The District would also reimburse mileage and other expenses for attending meetings, workshops, seminars and other events. Did the District pay for Teresa Holmes to go to a national school boards meeting in Washington, DC in January 2019, two months after she was elected? She wasn't even a legal school board member at the time.

And what about monies paid for Amelia McKie to be a Region 8 Director of the South Carolina School Boards Association? She too is not even a legal school board member.

Now, what about District monies paid to or for a person who is a trustee-elect but not a legitimate Trustee of the School Board?

There are two women in that category: Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes. They have never legally taken the oath of office, which S.C. law requires before they can enter office.

The District was first asked (by me) to swear in McKie and Holmes legally as early as February or March 2019. The Board has never discussed this in open session.

The District confirmed today (8/20/2020)  that the last oath of office administered for board members was on November 13, 2018. That was three weeks before McKie and Holmes filed their required Statements of Economic Interest with the S.C. Ethics Commission.

Who is responsible for distributing taxpayer monies (District funds) to McKie and Holmes? The employee who is pressing "Pay" on a district computer is the one processing the payment. But would it be fair to nail that low-paid employee with a State or Federal crime for just doing her job?

Or should a department manager be charged and suffer the penalties?

Or may the District's Officer in charge of the larger Department?

Or maybe the superintendent?

Or is the Board responsible? They've known about the problem for over a year. Would FBI or SLED agents show up at a Board meeting and just take all of them into custody in one fell swoop?

What Does Richland Two's Lawyer Say?

Since February 2019 I have been complaining to the Richland 2 School Board that it has two women on the board illegally. A few other community members also complained.

Amelia McKie and Teresa Holmes were elected on November 6, 2018. They took the oath of office on November 13, 2018 and began serving.

The problem?

While they were duly elected and "qualified" to serve, they were not "eligible" to take the oath of office on November 13, 2018 or to begin serving.

Why not?

Neither had filed her Statement of Economic Interest (SEI) with the S.C. Ethics Commission.

What does the law say?

"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."  [emphasis added]

Crystal clear; right? First you file the SEI. Then you take the oath of office. Then you begin serviing.

Surely, by now the Board has gotten an opinion from the attorney for the School District. What did she say?

There is only one thing she could say. "Read the law. That is what the law says."

An attorney will not tell you whether you can break a law. An attorney will only tell you what the consequences are of breaking a law. 

Is there anything unclear about the law?

What part of the law do trustees-elect McKie and Holmes not understand? Next time you see them, ask them.

Richland 2 Candidates

According to the State election website, the following have filed as candidates for the Richland School District Two election on November 3, 2020. Three seats are open.

If anyone is listed who is not a candidate in Richland 2, please let me know. It was difficult to navigate the State Election Commission website to find these names. There was no intention to omit anyone and no intention to list anyone erroneously. Names are listed alphabetically by last name.

Lindsay Agostini

Monica Elkins

Deon Jacobs

LaShonda McFadden

Rhonda Meisner

James Mobley

James Jamie Shadd

Lawrence Superstar Terry

Dee Bell Williams

Maryann Wright

A prominent attorney in Columbia, with whom I had discussed the Ethics Commission problems and the illegal usurping of office by two current school board trustees-elect (not named here), suggested that I ought to run for the school board. He said it would give me a broader platform for calling attention to the serious problems of the Richland 2 Board. He also said, 'But you don't want to win."

I knew that. There is no way I'd ever be able to put up with the present composition of the Board.

Mail, email go unanswered

 Why does Richland School District Two's board chair, James Shadd, fail to respond to mail and email?

On July 4 I emailed James Shadd. In addition to congratulating him on his election as Board Chair, I expressed disappointment in the June 30 Facebook posting by his long-time friend, Pastor Chris Leevy Johnson. Johnson had posted a racial slur on Facebook, referring to Board colleague Lindsay Agostini as "KAREN". I also expressed disappointment that Tameika Isaac Devine forwarded Johnson's slur to Shadd.

I reminded him that McKie and Holmes have never taken the oath of office legally and requested a meeting with him to discuss that.

No reply.

On July 27 I sent Shadd a letter by Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested. It was delivered to District 2 on July 31, and I received the green card on August 1. The letter was delivered to Agent, who signed for it as "Covid-19".

On August 2 I emailed Shadd, asking for the identity of "Covid-19"  No response.

Shadd has not responded to the July 27 letter, in which I suggested that he, as a lawyer, would understand S.C. Code of Laws 8-13-1110(A) and that McKie and Holmes still had not taken the oath of office legally.

I also suggested that he, as a lawyer and officer of the court, might have an obligation to correct the problem being caused by McKie and Holmes usurping public office. Usurping occurs when any person " intrude(s) into, or unlawfully hold(s) or exercise(s) any public office" (S.C. Code of Laws 15-63-60). Does Shadd have a legal obligation, as a lawyer holding the position as Board Chair, to cause McKie and Holmes to take the oath of office or cease sitting at the board?

On August 10 I emailed Shadd to ask if he had received my July 27 letter. No response.

In the absence of a reply from Shadd or the District, I filed a FOIA request on August 11 for the identity of "Covid-19" and for the name of the District's employee who delivered my July 27 Certified Mail letter to Shadd. The FOIA Response from the District is expected by August 25.

I remember telling the board, in person, in February or March, 2019, that this issue (about McKie and Holmes being on the board illegally) is not going away. When will it go away? It will go away when they take the oath of office legally or cease sitting at the board.

Who else is concerned about the full legality of the seven-member Board?

Taxes not paid? Can't run for office

We need a law here in South Carolina like the law in Louisiana.

According to The Advocate newspaper in Baton Rouge, "To qualify to run for public office, candidates must certify [emphasis in the original] that they have filed state income tax returns for each of the five previous years."

A candidate for mayor-president in East Baton Rouge has an unclear record regarding payment of her state income taxes. 

There were questions about more than one year's return, and an appeals court ruled against her. She can't run for office. The fight is probably not over.

The point is, pay your income taxes by the due date. Then you don't end up in hot water. You avoid fines, late fees, court action and liens. And a bad reputation.

But owing state income in South Carolina? Big deal, when it comes to running for office.

Source:  https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_ebc31d76-dd7f-11ea-8f73-5bbc6bd03114.html

Board Fiasco on BEDGA

Last Tuesday the school board considered proposed policy BEDGA, which allows the superintendent to reject a request from a board member for information. Should the superintendent, in his sole opinion, deem a school board member's request as unusual or excessive, he can deny it. At that point the board member would have to seek a majority decision of the board to force the superintendent to comply with the request.

When you consider the make-up of the current board and the issues, BEDGA effectively blocks a proper request after the superintendent denies it. He can count on Holmes, McKie, Shadd, Caution-Parker, and Manning to give him anything he wants. So much for independent thinkers!

I am currently researching the details and timing that resulted in this very unusual policy, but the part about Tuesday's meeting that should appall you is the huge disrespect shown to one board member by the superintendent and two other board members, including the board chair.

View the replay of the board meeting on YouTube; the discussion of BEDGA starts at 19:12 on the timer.

Mrs. Agostini led with a Motion to send BEDGA to the South Carolina Attorney General for a legal Opinion. After too long a pause, Dr. Elkins-Johnson seconded the motion, keeping the motion alive for discussion.

The person making the Motion (Mrs. Agostini) should have been recognized to speak first on the Motion. But Shadd recognized Dr. Elkins ahead of her. Dr. Elkins had a question for the superintendent about whether a proposed policy had ever been sent to the AG for an opinion. Then she erred by asking whether he felt that sending it to the AG was needed or if it was something he could answer for the board.

WRONG QUESTION. It doesn't matter whether he felt it was needed. It is the Board's prerogative to get a legal opinion from the AG. And the superintendent certainly cannot give a legal opinion to the board!

The superintendent began answering at 20:28. First he answered that he didn't know of any school district that had done so. That should have been the end of his answer. Then he said that the attorney for the school district had crafted the policy. He has faith that the attorney knows and understands the law. Then Dr. Elkins asked again for the superintendent's opinion, so that she'd be able to decide how to vote.

It didn't matter what the superintendent thought. Anyone thinking about this would surmise that the superintendent would not want the AG to issue an opinion. There were five board members ready to vote in favor of BEDGA without an opinion from the AG, so why possibly muddy the water??? 

The superintendent then proceeded to elaborate on a previous AG opinion that does NOT apply to the proposed policy. And on and on he went. At this point the board chair should have interrupted him. But the most of the board members do not understand Robert's Rules of Order. The superintendent ran off the rails by dragging out his explanation of the AG's previous opinion that did not apply to the Motion.

Then he threw in "documents that are deemed to be over-reaching". In. his. opinion. He kept harping on the previous Opinion, which Mrs. Agostini already knew did not apply, which was why she was asking for BEDGA to be sent to the AG.

I have written previously that the superintendent can say in 500-1000 words what could be said in 25 words. He loves his own voice and self-importance. And the board lets him get away with it.

At 24:05 he said that the documents that Mrs. Agostini did request were given to her. True? False? As Snopes would say, MIXED. What the superintendent did not say was that he had refused to meet her request and only provided the answer two weeks later. So his statement at the board meeting was misleading and deceitful.

Later he said he had responded in a timely manner. No! If that were true, yesterday's discussion wouldn't have been occurring and no time or money would have been wasted on crafting BEDGA.

Then the superintendent expressed concern from "this administration" (he loves speaking in the third person) and brought up the Board's Code of Ethics, insinuating that Mrs. Agostini had violated the Code of Ethics. That's absurd. If there is one ethical person on the school board, it is Mrs. Agostini.

The superintendent then went on to broaden his examples beyond the current question, and the board chair let him get away with it. Had there been a Parliamentarian in the meeting, he would have been shouting "Point of Order" and shut down the superintendent.

When the superintendent whined to the previous board chair, James Manning, about Mrs. Agostini's request for an email earlier this year, Manning asked the School District's attorney, Kathryn Mahoney, to draft a policy.  It was the superintendent who brought up his wish for this policy. He shoveled Agostini's previous information request to "outside the scope and responsibility of the board".

Then he said that he personally thinks BEDGA is necessary for the District and that he never thought they'd be in this position. What a load of horse manure!

At 26:55 Mrs. Agostini raised her hand to speak, but Dr. Elkins continued. Dr. Elkins asked to see any policies of other school district's before voting.

At 27:49 Mrs. Agostini "respectfully" disagreed with the superintendent about "financial information". Information given to the board at the January 7, 2020 board meeting was inconsistent with that which was later related to employees. THAT is what her request was about - the request for information that the superintendent did not want to provide.

Mrs. Agostini had circulated information to board members about the inherent right of elected officials to get information. She re-stated her request to send BEDGA to the AG for an opinion.

At 30:00 the superintendent began with "As I stated earlier,..."  Since he had already stated it earlier, there was no need to re-state whatever he was about to say. Remember, his remarks had started six minutes earlier.

The superintendent said no information was denied to the board member. He said the information was requested and it was provided. "And it was done in a timely matter." No, he provided it two weeks later!

The superintendent stated - incorrectly - that the earlier opinion from the A.G. applied [to this situation]. If it did, Mrs. Agostini would not have been requesting that BEDGA be sent to the A.G. Why should the superintendent get away with deceiving the board?

(31:00) "This information, and I am going to speak frankly, was solely requested for the purpose of the superintendent's evaluation (there he goes in the third person one more time) to mark the superintendent low in his ability to do his job..."

Where was Board Chair Shadd? Taking a nap? He should have cut Baron Davis off and should have admonished him not to speculate on Mrs. Agostini's reason for requesting the information that she did! Then the superintendent used the word "justification". At that point (31:22) Mrs. Agostini raised her hand to be recognized. At 31:36 she raised her hand again. And again at 31:40 she raised her hand.

Then the superintendent acknowledged that he had said previously that schools would not have to spend their money (the reference is to special monies, including to media specialists) before the end of the fiscal year (June 30). Then he "schooled" the board on their responsibilities...  

Supt. Davis has a lot of gall to lecture the board on their responsibilities. That is NOT in his job description. (At 32:43 and 33:05 Mrs. Agostini again raised her hand.)

The superintendent continued, "This policy was created as a safeguard. It is unfortunate that we are here, but it is solely result of a lack of professionalism and trust as it relates to one board member and the superintendent." (At 33:28 again Mrs. Agostini raised her hand to be called on.)

Dr. Elkins and Mrs. Agostini attempted to be recognized. Shadd asked Mrs. Agostini if her remark was related to the Motion. (What did he think - that she wanted to order pizza?) She explained that it was related to what the superintendent had just said.

She should have been allowed to defend herself against the vicious, demeaning and unprofessional attack by the superintendent, but Shadd allowed Elkins to speak first.

Dr. Elkins asked if then-Board chair Manning had come before the board, before he went to the District's attorney to have the policy drafted. He could have answered Yes or No, but he didn't. Then Manning complained (36.25) about the amount of time being spent on the issue

Manning was wrong about a clear effort to "undermine the credibility of the superintendent". The issue is the authority of the board, and Manning threw Agostini under the bus with his statement. Manning disrespected his fellow board member by labeling her motion an "inappropriate request". (At 37:38 Mrs. Agostini again raised her hand to be recognized.)

Manning said he was responsible for requesting the drafting of the policy. Manning then said, "I'm frankly tired of arguing about this policy." 

While Shadd was summarizing the previous A.G. Opinion, Manning interrupted at 39:18 and asked for the vote to be called. NOTE: Mrs. Agostini was still waiting to be recognized. Shadd continued to read and summarize a court opinion.

Then Shadd said that Manning had called for the vote and asked the board to vote.

SHADD TOTALLY IGNORED MRS. AGOSTINI AND FAILED TO GIVE HER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE SUPERINTENDENT'S UNPROFESSIONAL ATTACK.

At 40:25 Mrs. Agostini against raised her hand while Shadd was re-stating the Motion. Robert's Rules of Order said that the party making the Motion should be the one to re-state it.

Mrs. Agostini asked to change her vote, and Shadd was not going to let her, until Manning interrupted with how to do it. The vote had not yet been finalized. Shadd just does not know how to conduct the business of the Board Chair. 

The vote on Mrs. Agostini's motion was announced as 6-1. Then the vote was correctly stated as 1-6. Her motion failed. Discussion ended on her motion at 41:50.