Here we go, folks - "Addressing Systems of Inequity"

You will not want to miss this special-called meeting for Tuesday, December 15, 2020, at 5:30PM in the conference room on the second level at R2i2.

Just catch it on Zoom, since there won't be any public participation. Unless you want to be in the back of the room and express displeasure at any woke presentation that you hear.

My first question is, why didn't they just combine this with last week's school board meeting?

First of all, you have to have inequity. And there has to be a system of it. Only then can you address it! Who dreamed up this agenda? Normally, it's the Board Chair and the Superintendent who set the agenda. Was this the Board's idea or is it another pet project of the superintendent (like his 100 Premier Men of Color to be hired)? Now there's a system of inequity!

Okay, what will it be?

The 1619 Project?

Systemic racism?

White fragility?

School-to-prison pipeline?

I'll tell you the first system of inequity that should be addressed! It's why this board allows two women to be seated on the board illegitimately and one (of the two) who has a $51,750 debt to the S.C. Ethics Commission still hanging over her head! 

Once they solve that inequity, I'll be more open to listening to others.

Protocol ignored at 12/8/2020 Board Meeting

On the agenda for the December 8, 2020 Executive Session was a student disciplinary item. Could the parents of that student claim that the board failed to take action and therefore the matter is settled?

I did not attend the December 8, 2020 board meeting from its onset at 5:30PM, but I watched the video this morning.

Board Chair James Manning was not in attendance (in person), and the meeting was opened by the Acting Chair, Vice Chair Teresa Holmes. (I won't belabor the point here that she is not a legitimate board member and cannot serve as Vice Chair.)

Although she was elected to the board in November 2018 (and has never legally taken office), she also has not learned the protocol for conducting meetings. She's had plenty of time to learn some of the rules for running a meeting, as she could be called on at any time to substitute for the Board Chair.

When she opened the meeting at 5:30PM, she asked for a motion to enter Executive Session.

The superintendent interrupted and asked for a "point of privilege". The correct thing for him to do (and he should know this) is to wait to be acknowledged and to be granted permission by the (Acting) Chair. The Chair might or might not grant that privilege. However, he launched right into his request.

He asked that the board make a motion to remove an item from the agenda for the Executive Session. That was the correct form for his request, since the superintendent is not a board member and cannot make a motion.

Holmes then asked for a second. That was an error. 

A board member needed to make the motion. Then, after a second and any discussion, there would have to be a vote.

Instead, a faint voice apparently indicated a second. Holmes failed to state who seconded the motion. There was no discussion. There was a hand vote and Manning, who was not present in person (but was attended by telephone), voted in the affirmative. (There had been no mention that he was attending by telephone!) Holmes stated that the motion passed but did not report the vote. The motion to remove the item from the Executive Session agenda and the vote were not shown to the public.

Then Holmes asked for a motion to go into Executive Session. 

Because no board member made the motion to remove the student disciplinary issue from the agenda for the Executive Session, does this invalidate the removal of the item? Did it legally remain on the agenda? Were the student and parent(s) waiting to enter the Executive Session and be heard? Did the Board's failure to act on the agenda item result in a de facto decision in the student's favor?

At 6:00PM the open meeting was called to order by Holmes, and she asked for a vote to "come out of Executive Session." The vote was 7-0 to adjourn the Executive Session. There was no vote to re-convene the open session.

This board needs advice! Without a Parliamentarian, the Board often disregards protocol. The correct motion is to re-convene the open session, not to "come out of Executive Session." This error has been made for months.

Manning called back in, and his telephonic attendance was never disclosed to the public.

When will this Board schedule a intensive training session with the Robert's Rules of Order expert, Attorney Helen McFadden?

Is this really an answer?

On October 26, 2020 I emailed Supt. Davis about a rumor I had heard involving the Blythewood High School football team. The rumor was that the team had stayed in the locker room until after the National Anthem had been played. I wondered whether the rumor was true.

When I had not received any acknowledgement or reply from Supt. Davis by last Tuesday, I addressed the lack of response at the Regular Board Meeting. On Wednesday I emailed BHS Athletic Director Mizzell and asked him to inform the superintendent, so that a reply could be sent to me.

Notice that I did not ask AD Mizzell to reply to me. I wouldn't want him to risk his job by doing so!

Yesterday afternoon Supt. Davis did reply. Here it is.

Supt. Davis wrote, "After reviewing your question my office has determined that the alleged actions stated in your original email are neither a violation of current Board policy or school rules, therefore no further action is required on the part of the district or school administration." 

I re-read both my October 26th email and my December 9 email. I did not ask whether a violation of current Board policy or school rules had occurred. I asked f the rumor was true. His reply obfuscates the issue.

For the less-informed, "Obfuscation is the obscuring of the intended meaning of communication by making the message difficult to understand, usually with confusing and ambiguous language." Thanks, Wikipedia.

Why do you suppose the superintendent didn't just say it either happened or it didn't happen?

Reading between the lines, it is easy now to conclude that the actions of the BHS football team more than likely did occur. And that there is more to this story.

Are you on the Blythewood HS football team? Like to give me some information with an absolute guarantee of confidentiality? Are you a parent with information? Same guarantee. My sources for stories know they can depend on privacy and confidentiality! Call 847/971-7083. Block your number, if you want. Email me at gusphilpott@gmail.com from a blind email address (or your own). Same guarantee.

According to the Bengals' schedule -

On Oct. 2 the Bengals played Northwestern (Rock Hill) at Blythewood H.S..

On Oct. 16, the Bengals played Spring Valley at Spring Valley H.S.

On Oct. 23 the Bengals played Ridge View at Ridge View H.S.

Principal chooses potato over Biden; gets fired

Do we have this kind of oversight and censorship (censure-ship!) in Richland 2?

Former elementary school principal Amy Sacks is suing Perkiomen Valley Public School District in Collegeville, Pennsylvania. A parent complained about racism, apparently in regard to Amy's private posting on Facebook that she would have voted for a potato, rather than for Joe Biden.

Did it take only one complaint by a parent to torpedo that 20-year educator's career?

Are potatoes now a protected category against discrimination?

How do Richland 2 teachers fare, when they express themselves differently than the woke crowd here?

Prediction for Richland 2 Security Services

The District has announced a new Safety and Security Officer, Marq Claxton. In a press release, the District provided Claxton's extensive background with NYPD.

Claxton's LinkedIn profile indicates his experience with NYPD was 1985-2005. He was Chief of Security at Voorhees College (Denmark, S.C.) from July 2019-October 2020. Where was he during the fourteen years between 2005-2019? His LinkedIn profile mentions President of Goodwine LLC (2013-Present). What's that? It seems to have no internet presence that can be found through a Google search.

Here is my 2¢ worth for what is coming for Richland 2. This is based on what I saw happen in Illinois when McHenry County College hired a former California police officer to run its campus security operations. 

When you hire a cop (and I like cops) for a civilian job, you'd better believe that cop ideas are going to be showing up very soon. Did the school board consider that? Do you remember any public board meeting when this new position was discussed? Was it handled in confidential Executive Session and never revealed until today's press release?

I predict that Richland 2 will create its own police department and convert its security (non-police) employees to sworn police officers. They will have official police duties and will be armed. They will have powers of arrest and will exercise them.

Now, I don't have any problem with armed police officers (or even armed security officers or armed teachers) on campus. If the need arises to defend students, teachers, staff, visitors, etc., I want a legally- and responsibly-armed person nearby.

You may remember that in February 2018, right after the shooting in Parkland, Florida, I asked the board to survey parents, teachers, staff and community members on the topic of arming teachers. Two parents later that night were allowed to speak (without being registered before the start of the meeting) and stated their opposition to arming teachers. (Did anyone that night realize that I had not proposed arming teachers? I asked for a survey!)

Why do I see this coming?

The Richland County Sheriff's Department charges Richland 2 BIG BUCKS for the 30-or-so School Resource Officers (SRO). First-year SRO cost was reported at a school board meeting as being about $150,000 for the officer "and equipment". That's "renting" the equipment, not buying it.

Frankly, an SRO is a waste of Richland 2's money. Yes, if an SRO is needed, it'll be good for him to be there, IF he is in the vicinity of the need. Most of the time, an incident could be handled on campus while a deputy was responding to a call-for-service; i.e., dialing the sheriff's department and requesting a deputy.

For a lot less money than is currently being spent, Richland 2 could provide its own trained, qualified and armed security staff.

McHenry County College bought two Ford Interceptors. These were "desperately needed" to patrol its small campus and small parking lots for the relatively-small (7,000? and mostly part-time) campus crowd. Two police-equipped Ford Interceptors??? Seriously?

Is Ford licking its chops and getting ready to respond to an RFP for two (or more) police vehicles? 

You may also remember that I spoke in favor of the two men on the security staff being armed, but I thought the responsibility and authority should be granted by the school board and not by the superintendent. What did the board decide, in its infinite wisdom? The board rescinded a long-standing approval of firearms possession on campus by the two security department staffers. A 20-year agreement, made by a previous superintendent, was overturned. Both men were former police officers.

That's what happens when you have an anti-gun majority on a school board. All they hear is "gun", and anything after that is bad, bad, bad.

My guess is that at least six board members today are anti-gun. Will Claxton swing enough weight to keep Richland 2 safe?

Here is Richland 2's press release:

COLUMBIA, S.C. – Richland Two is welcoming a new safety and security officer. The superintendent recently recommended and the Richland Two Board of Trustees approved the hiring of Marquez “Marq” Claxton as the district’s Safety and Security Officer. Claxton’s duties and responsibilities include assisting in the planning, direction, and oversight of district safety/security programs; planning and conducting investigations to support a wide variety of both criminal and administrative proceedings; and providing safety and emergency response training as needed. 

Claxton, a native New Yorker, has resided in South Carolina for over a decade. He retired from the New York Police Department (NYPD) in 2005 where he was a first responder to the September 11 World Trade Center attack. During Claxton’s NYPD career, he had a wide range of assignments, including undercover operations in the Narcotics Division, working as a Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Coordinator, an Identity Theft Coordinator and as an investigator in Precinct Detective Squad, routinely investigating crimes ranging from burglaries to homicides. Since coming to the Palmetto State, Claxton has worked at Voorhees College in Denmark, as Director of Safety & Security. He is a Director for the Black Law Enforcement Alliance and is a national television media contributor on policing and law enforcement issues, frequently appearing on cable news networks, MSNBC and CNN.

Claxton will report to Richland Two’s Chief Operations Officer. He is married and has three children.

Respect the U.S. Flag

During the public participation segment this evening, I read the following statement to the board.

Members of the Board and Supt. Davis,

My name is Gus Philpott.

In many places in the United States professional, college and high school sports players are “taking a knee” when the National Anthem is played.

In order to prevent such gross disrespect of the United States Flag in the Richland 2 School District, I request the Board to formulate a policy that clarifies respect for the U.S. Flag.

This policy should provide that at any school event no player will take a knee or in any other way show any sign of disrespect, including not taking the field before the National Anthem is played. I heard a rumor recently that a Blythewood High School football team stayed off the field until the National Anthem was played. I attempted to learn whether there was any truth to the rumor, but Supt. Davis has not replied to my October 26^th email yet. The Board and Coach Mizzell received a copy of my email to the superintendent.

As a concerned member of the community I offer to participate in the drafting of a policy that addresses this subject.

Thank you.

\

When the public participation was introduced tonight, the Acting Chair stated that no names were to be mentioned. That isn't actually how the Board Policy reads, but I was careful not to mention any names. I didn't dare risk getting gaveled into submission.

Robert's Rules Training - desperately needed

Tonight's Regular Meeting of the Richland 2 school board started on time. Manning's chair was empty. Four legal trustees were present. That is not a quorum.  No business could be conducted.

Present were Holmes (Acting Chair), Caution-Parker (Secretary), Agostini, Elkins, McFadden, and McKie. That's six people, but there were only four legitimate trustees present and two trustees-elect.

Just after the meeting was called to order by Holmes, an incoming call's ringing could be heard over a microphone. It sounded like someone said, "Someone's calling in."

As the meeting progressed, motions were made, seconded and voted on. Votes were 6-1 and 7-0. How could the vote be a total of seven? Manning's chair was empty.

What was missing was any explanation to the other board members and to the public that James Manning had apparently called in to attend by telephone (if that's what the ringing phone meant).

I guess I'm going to have to spend $18 on my own copy of Robert's Rules of Order and stop relying on the library's copy. I'm pretty sure telephonic attendance and protocol are covered in Robert's Rules.

What should have happened is the Chair should have announced that Manning would not be attending in person and would attend by telephone, which is permitted under Board policy. In many public bodies the board votes to permit such telephonic attendance. They don't just sweep it under the table.

I can appreciate that the Acting Chair might not know the rules. Then it's the job of the superintendent to coach her, so that protocol is followed.