School Board disarms SROs

No, not the Richland 2 School Board (yet).

The Epoch Times reports that the Monroe County (Ind.) Community School Corporation (Bloomington area) has voted to disarm School Resource Officers (SRO).

Trustee Jacinda Townsend Gides lied in a meeting, when she said, “There has been no instance where an SRO prevented a school shooting with the discharge of a weapon.” See the article for the explanation of her lie.

"Gides also said she supported disarming officers because seeing the officers with guns in the school 'causes quite a bit of fear in me.'” I wonder if she has ever considered therapy. Do oncoming cars worry her? Many are operated by impaired or drunk drivers.

There's your typical view from the Left, and I hope that Monroe County students, parents and staff don't pay a high price for her stupidity.

Schools are known as Gun-Free Zones (GFZ), often considered easy pickings for criminals. A SRO is the first line of defense. One of the reasons that so few schools are sites of mass shootings is that SROs are armed.

This image appears are her Facebook page. Maybe voters will take to heart at election time. They are stuck with her until 2024.

June 29th - board officer election

Now is the time to start lobbying board members to elect the right people to officer positions on the School Board. The board will elect three officers for the 2021-2022 school year on June 29th.

Who should be elected?

Chair? #1 choice is Lindsay Agostini for Chair. She has strong business sense and good leadership skills. I think you can count on shorter meetings and closer following of Robert's Rules of Order. The introductions for Inspiration Moment speakers will be shorter and the Inspiration Moment will return to a "Moment", instead of a long-winded speech.

#2 Vice Chair? Monica Scott (formerly, Elkins)

#3 Secretary? James Manning.

Lindsay and Monica carefully read the board packets before meetings. This is obvious from the questions they ask and the points they raise.

McFadden was elected last November and is learning the ropes. It's too soon for an Officer position.

Caution-Parker is a "fixture" on the board, just keeping a seat warm. 

No one should be elected an officer who is not a legitimate member of the board. This rules out McKie and Holmes. Neither has ever taken the oath of office legally. Plus McKie still owes $51,000+ to the S.C. Ethics Commission.

McKie should be replaced as the District's representative to the South Carolina School Boards Association, for the same reasons.

Handcuff a 10-year-old?

Should a 10-year-old female student be handcuffed?

The worms are coming out of the woodwork. A student at Springdale Elementary School (Lexington 2 School District) went out of control this week, resulting in her being handcuffed briefly until she settled down.

I don't need to know any more about it. If the girl was hurting other students and emotionally out-of-control, sometimes handcuffs are needed. She calmed down and they were removed. Right?

What the girl ought to be afraid of is what's going to happen when Momma gets her home. That ain't gonna happen, though. Pass the microphone. And open up that new bank account.

Stand back, everyone. Let Attorney Bamberg through. And Attorney Bakari Sellers (if he's back from North Carolina). 

Now the mom is holding press conferences, and local folks in One Common Cause, Black Lives Matter South Carolina, EmpowerSC, the Racial Justice Network, and the South Carolina Black Activist Coalition are all jumping on the gravy train and planning a rally. They must all be connected on social media or speed-dial so that, when one finds a new crusade, they can all hop on.

Look at this idiotic statement from this article in The State: 

“Handcuffing children is never OK,” One Common Cause CEO Jerome Bowers said in the release. “Using the police to discipline students especially children with special needs is inappropriate and unacceptable.”

This rivals the "Hands Up. Don't shoot" nonsense that started in 2014.

How can Bowers say it's "never" okay? The police weren't used to "discipline" the kid; they were needed to control the kid, who supposedly was having a "temper tantrum".

What would Bowers have the school do? Just turn the kid loose on students and staff until she exhausts herself? Put her in the gym and lock the doors until she can't run and scream anymore? Send in a K-9 unit? Tase her? 

I've got it. The next time a black child is running loose like that kid was, just call Jerome Bowers. I'm sure he'll get things calmed down immediately.

Why Doesn't McKie Pay Her Ethics Fines???

                                                               Courtesy - TheNerve.org

I was reminded again of Amelia McKie's outstanding ethics fines this week, when I read the article on TheNerve.org about ethics fines of two S.C. State Representatives. You can read that article here.

In 2018 the South Carolina Ethics Commission fined McKie. The total owed, when she did not make a payment by 12/31/2018, was increased. Substantially. 

On July 10, 2019 the S.C. Ethics Commission filed a judgment for $51,750 against her in the Richland County Common Pleas Court. Look up Case No. 2019CP4003809 here. When you look at the public court record, you quickly see that there has been ABOLUTELY NO COURT ACTION in almost two years.

Is there any explanation at all why the Ethics Commission isn't pushing for collection? Or why Common Pleas Court Judge is allowing this case to languish on the docket without action? Why doesn't the judge summon the Director of the DOR and demand an answer?

McKie continues to be allowed to sit illegitimately on the Richland 2 School Board. She has never legally taken the oath of office. (Neither has Teresa Holmes.)

Gov. Henry McMaster should start chopping off heads at the S.C. Department of Revenue, which is the State's agent for collecting money owed to the State.

The S.C. Ethics Commission Debtors' List carries almost $3,000,000 in debts. Some of it is really high and really old. 

Why not collect it? If debtors have to face garnishment of wages, forfeiture of banking accounts and sale of assets (home, cars, boats, motor homes, vacation homes, etc.), why not? Get busy and collect from these deadbeats.

Start seeing guns

Expect to start seeing more guns after August 16, 2021. That is the effective date for the new South Carolina law that permits holders of a S.C. Concealed Carry Permits (CWP) to carry handguns openly.

My guess is that most CWP holders will not carry their guns in the open; i.e., visible and not covered by a jacket, shirt or sweater. 

But some will, and no nefarious reason should be assigned to their doing so. The law allows it.

Some people will worry. "OMG, he has a gun!" 

Now is a good time to understand the new law and to begin explaining to your kids what the law is and why they need not be concerned, if they see a man (or a woman) carrying a gun. The bill that became law is H.3094. 

Some armed citizens will merely be removing their jackets to enter a hot car, or leaving a car and then donning a jacket or other garment to cover their guns. You may see their guns. Others will be shopping or out for a walk or buying gas. Just ignore the gun.

Or say Hello to the person. Thank him or her for being armed. You are safer because of that person.

Should the sight of a gun concern you to the point that you feel the need to call the sheriff's department, report exactly what you see. Do not exaggerate, or every cop in the county will show up.

On September 18, 2010 five armed men went to lunch at Culver's in Madison, Wisconsin. Upon seeing these men enjoying their burgers, but armed, a woman called the Madison P.D. The dispatcher, knowing that open-carry was allowed in Wisconsin, asked if the men were causing trouble. The woman told the dispatcher that they were not, but she was "worried". 

Eight cops showed up, hassled the men who were legally carrying and arrested two for obstructing justice and all five for disorderly conduct. That was in spite of an Opinion Letter by the Wisconsin Attorney General that the sight of a gun should not be considered disorderly conduct, absent any other problems.

Charges were eventually dropped and the Madison PD settled for $10,000.

One cop could have shown up, observed the guys having lunch, introduced himself, indicated why he responded, confirmed no crime was being committed or was about to be committed, and departed. Instead, the cops flexed their muscles. And were wrong.

Maybe this is why SLED wanted a 90-day delay for educating South Carolina cops. Still, it could be handled in one roll call. No need to wait 90 days. But laws are the result of compromises; so it's 90 days.

May 11th Board Meeting - Holmes Embarrasses Herself

When will the board wise up and ditch their masks during board meetings? They are social-distanced and further protected by the plastic side shields. When they mumble through their masks, they are often hard to understand.

The May 11th Board meeting got off to a slow start with another long-winded introduction of the inspirational speaker and then a very long Inspiration Moment. McKie must be hitting all the Toastmasters' meetings to practice her introductions, which need to be much shorter. Who cares if the speaker's daughter is a "track star extraordinaire"? The speaker (assistant principal at Ridge View HS) should have been told that he had two-three minutes for an inspiration message. And McKie should be told that she has 30 seconds for the introduction!

Once the business of the board began, it was time for the Board to approve the Consent Agenda. Trustee Agostini requested that Item 7.4 be removed from the Consent Agenda and made the appropriate Motion. Trustee Scott seconded. 

During the vote, trustee-elect Holmes said she was going to abstain, because she "really didn't understand the Motion."

How could Holmes sit on the Board for 2½ years and fail to learn enough about parliamentary procedure not to understand what pulling an item from the Consent Agenda means?

It's simple. The item is removed from the combined vote on the items in the Consent Agenda. The item removed is then discussed separately and voted on. Further, no explanation is needed to abstain from voting. You just don't vote. Period.

When the remainder of the Consent Agenda was voted on, it passed 5-0-2. That's five in favor; none against; two abstaining.

Then Item 7.4 was addressed. Trustee Agostini moved to postpone Item 7.4 to the May 25th board meeting. Trustee Scott seconded.

Discussion was opened, and trustee-elect McKie asked why. Mrs. Agostini explained that the proposal in Item 7.4 had just been delivered to the board yesterday (Monday) morning and she hadn't had time to evaluate it. She wanted the vote postponed to the May 25th meeting. No other questions arose, the Chair Manning called for the vote.

Holmes, attending by phone, voted No. 

Agostini, Caution-Parker and McFadden voted Yes; i.e., to move the item to May 25.

McKie, Holmes, Manning and Scott voted No. In other words, jump now. Don't wait. Which of them really read and understood the proposal in Item 7.4, which never reached public view?

When the vote was tallied, it was 3-4; the motion to postpone Item 7.4 to May 25th failed. 

What was the rush? Why didn't trustees get adequate time to evaluate Item 7.4? One has to wonder why that vote was buried in the Consent Agenda, instead of coming up as New Business.

Then McKie moved to approve Item 7.4, and Caution-Parker seconded. When discussion opened, Trustee Scott led off with her questions. That's plural. Ten (10) of them!

Listen to Trustee Scott's questions and the staff answers (starting at 33:38 in the recording) about a purchase of a forklift and a Volvo (XC-40?) electric car  for the Innovative Course. State funds are going to be sucked up for some (most?) of the costs.

The staffer referred often to Special Ed students. It was a big smoke-and-mirrors act.

Hear about candy production and sales to staff and, later, outside the building. There must be a culinary arts program.

I checked out at 41 minutes into the 2 hr. 13 min. meeting. I didn't stick around for the vote. 

JUUL class-action lawsuit - Round 2

Tomorrow night the Richland 2 School Board will vote whether to join in on a class-action lawsuit regarding the JUUL product.

Remember when this first came up. It died a proper death at a school board vote. As I recall, only six board members were present, and the vote was 3-3. The Chair had to be reminded that a tie-vote meant that the Motion failed.

This item never should have gotten up to bat again. But the Chair and the Supt. put their heads together and put in on the agenda. 

Unfortunately, this is a rotten example of school board tactics. When something failed to get approval, that was supposed to be the end of it.

And it is, unless the superintendent wants it. Board member McFadden switched horses. Previously, she had sided with the two board members who also voted No. 

Did The Squad work on her, as this JUUL issue came around a second time? 

Who gets rich in a class-action lawsuit? The lawyers. Not the plaintiffs. 

Is this just a resume-enhancing step, to jump on the JUUL train? Whether or not there is ever an economic benefit to Richland 2? 

Will someone be able to say, "Well, I was there, when we sued them." 

Richland 2 has virtually no adverse exposure. Out of 28,000 students, they have been almost no cases of discipline for JUUL or cigarettes.

And, even if there have been a few disciplinary cases, it's a minor infraction. And it's a personal issue.

I'd say there are much bigger issues to give time to.

Call the members of the school board and tell them to vote NO.