Should Board Members pay for meals?

When box dinners are provided for board members and staff at board meetings, should board members have to pay for them? Or have the price added to their taxable W-2 monthly income?

How much does a box dinner cost from Schlotsky's? $12.00 with delivery?

I think the part that "got" me at the December 8th board meeting was the board member who carried out two boxed meals. If a dinner is provided and eaten at the meeting, then maybe, m-a-y-b-e, the taxpayers could bear that cost.

When a board member carries out two meals, that's a no-pass from me. Was she taking them home? Feed family? Eat them herself? 

That's not what taxpayer money is for.

If the District is over-ordering, then it should cut down its future orders.

Tonight's special called board meeting - a waste

 5:57PM I'm out of there.

What a waste of time! I can't believe that grown people, adults, supposed professionals, school board members would sit there for that drivel. Who dreamed up that program?

If you want to see a little of it, you'll have to wait through nine minutes of silence for it to start. No excuses were offered for the delay. As soon as Supt. Davis opened with "with great pride and joy..." I started to check out.

When Chief Diversity and Multi-Culture Inclusion officer Helen Grant began speaking, she gushed away and was almost giddy about her topic tonight.

By 5:57PM I'd had enough. So glad I did not go in person. When I saw the agenda item, I expected what just they began spouting. 

You'd think the KKK was riding through the streets of Richland County. Well, it's not. 

Five people attended in person tonight. Monica Elkins was there by phone, although the Board Chair made no mention of her telephonic attendance. 

Lindsay Agostini was not there and was not mentioned. 

Since two of the six in attendance are not legitimate board members, there was no quorum (five) and the meeting should not have been held, even though the board vote to consent to the agenda was inconsequential.

An Anti-COVID Strategy

I recommend to your reading a presentation titled "A Sensible and Compassionate Anti-COVID Strategy," given on October 9, 2020 by a Stanford professor. And in it he refers to the Great Barrington Declaration which, as of today, has been signed onto by more than 51,000 medical and public health scientists and medical practitioners and by almost 700,000 concerned citizens.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya's presentation is at https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/sensible-compassionate-anti-covid-strategy/

See the true fatality rate for COVID-19 (it's much lower than you may think);

Read his explanation of "herd immunity";

Read why schools should re-open and why lockdowns hurt more than they help.

Great Barrington Declaration:  www.gbdeclaration.org

 

Northwestern University gets it - - wrong!

 

Is she Dr. Biden? Or Mrs. Biden? Or Ms. Biden? Do you even know what advanced degree Jill Biden holds? Does it matter whether it's M.D. or Ph.D. or Ed.D?

I remember the first time a woman ever-so-proudly told me she had just gotten her Ph.D. We were on an escalator in Kansas City. I said, "Oh, that's too bad." I think her attitude of superiority had something to do with it. Or maybe that she was about 6'0" and was standing a couple of steps ahead of me on the ascending escalator.

For many years I have considered those with Ph.D's and Ed.D's and other non-M.D's as non-doctors. A doctor, to me, is a medical doctor. They have initials like M.D. or D.O. or D.C. after their names. The others have doctorates, and most of them worked hard for them. But, to me, they aren't the same, and I don't call them "Dr. ___." Standards vary from graduate school to graduate school. 

For example, on the Richland 2 school board, there are three women with doctorate degrees. All three have Ed.D. after their names. 

When they are recognized to speak by the Board Chair, they should be addressed as Trustee ____. Well, at least two of them should. The third should be addressed by her correct legal title, Trustee-elect.

But not as Dr. ____. They are equal members of the board and deserve no elevated approbation because of some educational degree received many years ago. 

You can read this article about Joseph Epstein, a former lecturer at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. The article says that Epstein hadn't even been a lecturer there since 2002. So why is Northwestern even weighing in? I guess they are just getting in line to suck up to the new president.

Epstein made the disgraceful error of writing that Jill Biden's use of Dr. before her name “sounds and feels fraudulent, not to say a touch comic". As a result, Northwestern U. "canceled" him.

And here are today's the three magic words. A statement is attributed to Northwestern University:    “Northwestern is firmly committed to equity, diversity and inclusion, and strongly disagrees with Mr. Epstein’s misogynistic views.”

Why is Epstein's words "misogynistic"? Men use Ed.D. and other initials for doctorates after their names!

Don't miss Tuesday night's (Dec. 15) special-called board meeting, where the focus will be "Addressing Systems of Inequity". 

Woke comes to Richland 2. (Actually, it's already here.)  R2i2 at 5:30PM. Limited seating. Wear your mask. 

McKie Ethics Debt - still unpaid!!!

Richland 2 School Board Trustee-elect Amelia McKie still owes $51,750 to the South Carolina Ethics Commission!

Why hasn't she paid even one penny toward this debt?

The Ethics Commission filed a $51,750 judgment against McKie in the Richland County Common Pleas Court on July 10, 2019. That was one year after the Ethics Commission's Decision and Order that covered fines for several violations of ethics laws over a period of years.

The S.C. Department of Revenue is the agent for the Ethics Commission and is supposed to be collecting this debt. Why isn't it doing its job? Why doesn't the DOR garnish her wages that the District is illegally paying her for the board position?

I refer to McKie as "trustee-elect" because that is her legal title. McKie has never taken the oath of office legally. She did take an oath of office on November 13, 2018, but she was not eligible to do so because she had not filed her Statement of Economic Interests (SEI) with the Ethics Commission. She filed that SEI on December 4, 2018, but she has never taken the oath of \office since.

Why the five legal members of the board have tolerated her unlawful position on the board is anyone's guess. It's actually not too hard to figure out. She is getting "a little help from her friends" - those who make up the majority of the Richland 2 Board. They seem not to be concerned with laws or ethics.

Why did the Board reward McKie with the nomination to serve on the board of the South Carolina School Boards Association? She cannot legally hold the SCSBA Region 8 Director position.

McKie is not a legal member of the Richland 2 School Board; not because of her $51,750 debt, but because she has never taken the oath of office legally. How simple it would be to do so. It would take one minute to be sworn in legally. Then the Richland 2 District would have to wipe the mud off its face and nominate her properly to the SCSBA. 

And the SCSBA would have to wipe the mud off its own face. It knows about McKie's illegitimate occupancy of the Richland 2 board position.

(This article appeared as a Letter to the Editor in The Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County.)

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?