Richland 2 Lies to the Public

Click on www.Richland2.org and read the bald-faced lie about Friday's filing in the South Carolina Supreme Court.

A screen-print of the beginning of the article on the homepage of the District's website is below. I suspect they will quickly change it, when they realize the public isn't buying it.

The lies start with the very first sentence of Teresa Holmes' attempt to sell the filing of the case in the S.C. Supreme Court to the public.

- No "great sense of urgency" was ever expressed at the August 16th Special-Called Board Meeting.

- The Board did not authorize anything to be "put into action".

- No "desire" of Richland 2 to seek legal relief was discussed or approved by the Board in public.

- "truly nothing more important" may be her opinion (only)

- Holmes is not even a legitimate leader in the District. While she was elected on November 6, 2018, she has never taken the oath of office legally. She should not be sitting on the board, and she should not be board chair.

- Holmes violated Board Policy BBAA Board Member Authority and Responsibilities. ¶2 "Board members acting as individuals have no authority over personnel or school affairs except when such authority is specifically delegated to a member by the board."

- Did the Board ever specify the Solomon Law Group or Williams and Williams for legal work?

- What kind of deal was made that they would provide services pro bono?

At the Regular Board Meeting on August 24, the Board should vote to withdraw the case from the S.C. Supreme Court, and the Board should censure Holmes and the superintendent.

Next School Board Election - Nov. 2022

The next Richland 2 school board election will be November 1, 2022. NOW is the time to start thinking about candidates.

Whose terms are up? Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker, Manning.

Whose terms run to November 2024? Agostini, Scott (Elkins), McFadden.

Imagine a school board without Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker and Manning. Imagine a school board of leaders. Leaders, LEADERS. With intellect. With wisdom. With business experience. With integrity.

Manning had done a pretty good job until recently. Now he seems to be rolling right along with The Squad.

Holmes and McKie aren't even legitimate members of the school board. They were elected on November 6, 2018 and became eligible to take the oath of office on December 4, 2018. They have never taken the oath after becoming eligible to take it. The S.C. Supreme Court should kick them out as usurpers and forbid their holding public office in the future.

McKie shouldn't hold office until she pays off her $57,000 debt to the S.C. Ethics Commission.

Today we are seeing the "Holmes' Rules of Order" for running the school board. Or perhaps Rules of Disorder. Last Monday night's (August 16, 2021) crass shutdown by Holmes of Agostini's legitimate question about informing the public about a legal opinion to be sought was a clear example of "Holmes' Rules".

Mrs. Agostini is strong. She can take the disrespect that Holmes' dishes out. And she is professional enough not to argue, although in many cases she should. No one else will stand up to Holmes when she is wrong. And Holmes is often wrong. That's Wrong, with a capital W.

With the current make-up of the board, Agostini will lose the argument every time. She knows that Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker and Manning will vote against her. Sometimes, Scott and McFadden will, too.

In November 2022 taxpayers should elect strong, independent-thinking, business-oriented, competent candidates to the next Board. Board members have a fiduciary responsibility, and the current majority on the board is acting too much like the Congress in Washington.

Fight in stands delays 1st game in new stadium

Last night's opening game in the new Ridge View High School football stadium was marred by up to three fights in the stands.

Richland 2 built a new multi-million dollar stadium and punks spoil it for all? What the heck?

Let's hope that Richland 2 is completely transparent about who was involved and who was responsible for the fights. Were they Ridge View students or Westwood? Prosecution should be demanded, and instigators and aggessors should be kicked out of school, if they are Richland 2 students. 

Let's have some clear pictures of the punks. How did those security camera work out? Did they capture everything and everybody?

If it happens again, the stadium should be closed and sit empty for a year.

The Trustees and the Administration need to put their feet down hard and say, "No more!!!"

And what's up with everybody running away? Why didn't those around swarm the miscreants and pound them to the ground and hold them for the deputies?

Who Will Challenge Supreme Court filing?

Who will challenge the case about Proviso 1.108 that has been filed in the S.C. Supreme Court on behalf of Richland 2?

The Board did not authorize that legal action. Who grabbed the ball and ran? Who will admit to the Board at the Regular Meeting on August 24 that he authorized the filing without Board approval?

Who searched diligently and found the law firms of Solomon Law Group and Williams and Williams? Did the attorney for the school board say, "Here are two personal-injury law firms who will do it for free?" 

Why would you give that type of legal work to law firms whose websites reflect no experience in school board matters? (There is a precedent for that.)

Which board members will be outraged on Tuesday night? 

Will Manning? Scott? McFadden? Agostini? Holmes? McKie? Caution-Parker?

I guess I ought to leave Holmes and McKie out of that question, since they are not legitimate board members.

Naming Suggestion for new football stadium

What should the new football stadium at Ridge View High School be called?

I almost hate to make a suggestion, because it is certain that the board will not accept it. But I'll make it, anyway. How about

                                RIDGE VIEW HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL STADIUM

Can I get four votes from the board for that?

No need to devote staff time to developing an amendment to Board Policy FF.

No committee needed to choose one name to present to the board for an up-or-down vote.

No need for lobbying of board members.

No need to argument about which person to name the stadium after.

The request by Trustee Scott to amend Board Policy FF shouldn't be a secret. It wasn't discussed in executive session.

Why didn't any board member ask questions, before tasking the staff with coming up with an amendment? Since when does staff not need direction from the board to do something? Staff needs direction from the board (the majority of the board), not one board member.

Holmes is trying to act as board chair. Why didn't she ask for information before a vote was taken to add that item to the draft agenda for August 24th Regular Meeting? 

Which past meeting was it, when she stated her desire to become board chair? Since there was no question that "The Squad" would elect her, it's too bad she didn't think more about taking the oath of office legally and becoming a legitimate board member, so that she could be a legitimate board chair. It's also too bad that she didn't spend time learning how to conduct the officer position of board chair.

Update to S.C. Supreme Court filing

The Richland 2 School District updated this morning's announcement about trotting off to the State Supreme Court.

2 P.M. UPDATE TO RICHLAND TWO STATEMENT:

Following the announcement this morning regarding the legal action taken on behalf of Richland School District Two, Dr. Teresa Holmes, chair of the Richland Two Board of Trustees issued the following statement:

 

“With a great sense of urgency Richland Two put into action the desire of the Richland Two Board of Trustees to seek legal relief from Appropriations Budget Proviso 1.108 in order to protect our students and employees. There is truly nothing more important to the Board than the safety and welfare of those whom we are entrusted to serve as the elected leaders of our Premier school district. We are hopeful that the S.C. Supreme Court will provide us with the ability to fulfill our highest priority to our community.  Our district is extremely appreciative of the pro-bono services provided by The Solomon Law Group and Williams and Williams.” 

Teresa Holmes has no authority to issue such a statement, unless the board has approved it. Did they board hold another Special Meeting this week to authorize that statement. (Hint: the answer is No.) 

Holmes is one of seven members of the board. Being the (illegitimate) board chair does not make her Queen. She obviously did not write that statement. The statement would have been crafted and approved by the legal beagles for the District. A lot of heads were quite likely involved in getting each word just right.

How do I know this? I watched the executives and Legal Department of a Fortune 50 corporation try to get things right before publishing a statement. Many drafts went back and forth, before the CEO ever opened his mouth.

Last Monday evening there was no "great sense of urgency". The Board was just asleep at the switch; at least, during the public part of the meeting. What did they do in secret?

Did Holmes just violate the confidentiality of the Executive Session held on August 16, 2021? Remember when Trustee Agostini tried to find out more about the motion that Manning had made? Remember when Holmes said that they couldn't talk about what was discussed in executive session. And here she is - talking about it!!!

Out of what corner did The Solomon Law Group and Williams and Williams crawl? Have they ever done any work for Richland 2? 

When did the board authorize that legal work? (It didn't.) The Board authorized the District (i.e., the supt.) to gather information and to confer with the Richland County Council. How amazing that all that got done in three days.

Did the Board (or certain members thereof) violate Board Policy DBG Board/ Attorney/Legal Services? Hiring or retaining an attorney is a board decision, by majority vote.

Why did the District pick personal-injury lawyers for this work? Look at the websites:

Solomon Law Group: https://solomonlawsc.com/

Williams and Williams: https://williamsattys.com/

Usually, it's a good idea to go for expertise. Do they have it? The board is supposed to pick the lawyers, not the superintendent or the chair or even the attorney that handles most of the District's legal work. 

Can someone stop Teresa Holmes?

After the District issued a press release this morning that two law firms will represent it in filing a legal action with the S.C. Supreme Court, I reviewed the end of the August 16, 2021 Special-Called Board Meeting.

You will find it at www.livestream.com/richland2   Click on it, then choose the video in the right panel that indicates a length of 53:56. Then fast-forward past the blank (silent) portion to hear the confrontation between Lindsay Agostini and Teresa Holmes. 

The public portion of the meeting resumes at 48:08 and Trustee Manning made a motion, saying; "I make a motion that the board authorizes the District to engage legal counsel to provide best option and legal strategy to address appropriations Budget Proviso 1.108, including consulting with Richland County Council with regards [sic] to protecting the health, safety and well-being of our students and employees." McKie seconded the motion.

Holmes "forgot" that Agostini wanted to rejoin the public portion of the meeting. I think she was having a Biden Moment. 

Keep in mind that Holmes is not a legitimate board member and is not the legitimate chair. Holmes has NEVER taken the oath of office legally! She is usurping public office, and no one is doing anything about it.

When the board was ready to discuss the Motion, Trustee McFadden brought up that Agostini had not yet rejoined the meeting. THANK YOU, LASHONDA!!! (Of course, long-time board members Caution-Parker, Manning, Scott or McKie could have been awake enough to alert Holmes; even Supt. Davis should have been on top of that - he is there to keep her chair on the rails.)

Agostini rejoined the meetng and asked what the legal advice was that the board was seeking from the attorney for the district. That attorney is Kathryn Mahoney.

In a tone designed to shut down discussion (listen at 51:00), Holmes repeatedly said that "that" was discussed in executive session and she could not tell the public. Listen for yourself to the tone of voice used byHolmes toward Agostini.

Holmes was flat-out wrong. Certainly, the scope of legal advice being sought, and even the expense (number of hours of legal time authorized), could have been discussed. That's what Agostini was asking to be disclosed to the public.

Agostini is THE ONLY board member sticking up for the public. Why didn't any of the others support her?

And then Holmes says, "Do we need to re-vote?" They hadn't voted! Where is her brain? How is it that Holmes cannot even keep track of the simple process of Motion, Second, Discuss, Vote?

The vote was 6-0 on the motion.

Two unknown law firm are named in the press release. Who picked the law firms of Solomon Law Group and Williams and Williams? How did they come out of the woodwork for Richland 2 business? Did Attorney Mahoney recommend them? How did they get to work so quickly and file today in the S.C.Supreme Court. And who consulted with the Richland County Council?

The board is supposed to choose where legal work goes. The board is supposed to authorize legal action.

And you've gotta love the last line in the press release: "The Solomon Law Group and Williams and Williams are assisting Richland Two with this life-saving legal action pro-bono." [emphasis added]

Of course, the two law firms are NOT "assisting" Richland Two. They are "representing" Richland Two. Why would they do that pro bono?