Richand 2: Investigate "DrTeresa Holmes" on FB

Someone mentioned to me the Facebook page of Teresa Holmes, and so I took a look at it today.

The first thing I wondered about was the proud and erroneous line under Intro, in which Holmes identifies herself as a "School Board Commissioner" at Richland School District Two.

She is not a "School Board Commissioner". Richland 2 does not have any school board commissioners. 

It does have school board trustees, but she isn't even one of them - legitimately, that is. She will be, if she ever takes the oath-of-office, legally, before November 11, 2022.

Why would she ever label herself as "Commissioner"? Is that label more impressive than Trustee? Richland One has Commissioners; Richland Two does not.

What is "Assistant Administrator/Guidance/Adjunct Professor at Guidanc [sic] Counselor/Adjunct Professor"? Is that what a Spring Valley High School education gets you? Or a Ed.D from North Central University?

The school board should appoint an independent investigative committee to examine carefully Holmes' Facebook page and determine to what extent, if any, she is violating Board Policy by expounding on school board or school district matters. 

No single trustee can speak for the Board or the District. It is the Board (as a whole) that speaks for the Board and the District. Even as (acting) Chair, Holmes' cannot just expound on district matters without prior discussion and approval by the board. 

Of course, she won't ever have any trouble getting Team Holmes to vote for anything she wants. She will certainly vote for herself, although she should abstain from any vote about her. She can count on McKie and Caution-Parker to side with her, and probably Manning, McFadden and Scott (f/k/a Elkins). Holmes has been publicly disrespectful toward Agostini so many times that she can safely count on not getting her vote.

                           Click to enlarge, so that you can see "School Board Commissioner"

Ain't it the truth?

Many thanks for one of the followers of this blog, who sent this to me this morning. Need I say more?

ICYMI: Combine R2 and R1???

In Case You Missed It (ICYMI): 

On August 25th The State newspaper carried an article by reporter Chris Trainor, in which he reported (well down in the article) that Columbia City Council candidate Joe Taylor has suggested that Richland 2 and Richland 1 school districts be combined.

I can guess how well this will go over with Richland 2 parents and taxpayers, not to mention with school officials, staff and teachers! 

Who would ever be excited about dumbing down Richland 2 by diluting it with Richland 1? Taylor supposedly thinks that money could be saved and services could be streamlined. What could possibly be a duplication of services? 

The next dumb thing that will come down the pike will be to expand the city limits of Columbia to include all of Richland County.

NO, THANK YOU!!!

Why THREE Deputies AND R2 Security?

At the August 24, 2021 school board meeting why were there THREE Richland County deputies AND a number of Richland 2 security officers?

What is the board worried about? What is the cost to taxpayers? Is it a show of intimidation?

The board obviously (well, maybe not) is paying attention to what is happening around the country with regard to masks and Critical Race Theory. Some school boards are finding hundreds of parents attending - actually paying attention to what the board is doing and demanding that the boards do otherwise.

At Richland Two? Were there even a dozen parents or community members at the August 24th board meeting?

At some past board meetings, two-three deputies have been stationed IN the meeting room. I think that started after three community members accosted a school board member in the lobby after a meeting and provoked her to respond angrily. I watched the video. One man jammed a cell phone (screen lighted, perhaps indicating it was recording) right in her face. Did he get charged with assaulting a public official? He should have been. But he wasn't. 

What does it cost Richland Two to have one deputy there for the meeting? $50/hour? $80/hour? For the evening - $400? And for three deputies? $1,200? More?

Out of an annual budget of $330,000,000, that's not a lot. But why?

The board has never discussed security of the board (or the public) during a public meeting. So the superintendent is the one who has ordered the deputies and authorized the expense. Did he ever discuss it with a board member? The board should address this in public and make a decision - in public. 

If Richland Two security officers can keep the peace long enough to dial 9-1-1 and request reinforcements from the sheriff's department, why are there any deputies there at all?

If a community member or parent has something to say to the board, she or he can say it. I don't ever remember a meeting where a speaker was out-of-control or abusive or profane. 

Of course, there was that one night when I tried to mention two topics during my three minutes. Amelia McKie was Chair then. That would have been after the November 6, 2018 general election. She was an illegitimate board member then and also illegitimate chair. When I began to mention my second topic about 30 seconds into my three minutes, she cut me off. 

When I objected, she insisted my time was up. Later I was told it was probably a good thing that I had stepped away from the microphone when I did, because a deputy was coming up behind me to remove me. When was that arranged? 

I'm glad the deputy was there to protect me from McKie. 

Is this a motion?

When a school board member says, "I would like to make a motion that ...", is that a motion?

It is not. 

The board member is expressing her desire to make a motion. That doesn't not call for a Second. No action can be taken by the board on a member's expression of a desire for something. Are they going to vote on allowing the member to make a motion?

What should the Chair say? "Thank you. Will you make the motion?"

The board member should say: "I move that ...[announcing what he proposes in a wording intended to become the assembly's official statement of the action taken]." Robert's Rules of Order §4:4.

Far too much time is wasted by the Board when voting on student matters and district personnel matters. There are long lapses while the staffer types up the Motion. The Chair should tell the superintendent to place someone with high, accurate typing speed at the keyboard for typing motions.

This board desperately needs parliamentary training. And it needs an independent Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian must be independent and not an employee. Correcting the Chair and the superintendent often would not be good for employment security.

Board Chair Wrong to Deny Agostini Request

Remember at the Special-Called board meeting of August 16 when Trustee Agostini asked for more information about Manning's motion to get legal advice about Proviso 1.108?

If you don't remember or missed it, listen to the recording of the August 16, 2021 meeting. Re-read my article about the rude manner in which Teresa Holmes shut down Mrs. Agostini. Holmes said they (the board) couldn't talk about what had been discussed in executive meeting.

I understand that Holmes didn't want to allow discussion, but she was wrong when she claimed that the board "could not" discuss it.

Robert's Rules of Order addresses this at §9:26 Rules Relating to the Secrecy of an Executive Session. This Section reads, in part, "The general rule is that anything that occurs in executive session may not be divulged to nonmembers (except any entitled to attend). However, action taken, as distinct from that which was said in debate, may be divulged to the extend - and only to the extent - necessary to carry it out. ... If the assembly wishes to further lift the secrecy of action taken in an executive session, it may adopt a motion to do so, which is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted ..."

The superintendent must have been authorized in the Executive Session to file the lawsuit in the S.C. Supreme Court. There had to be discussion about moving ahead. I cannot imagine that the superintendent would have stuck his neck out so far and filed the lawsuit without the permission, approval and authorization of the board. And THAT is what should have been divulged when Mrs. Agostini asked for more information for the public.

Important News Article not on The State.com

Is it "convenient" that The State newspaper has not published its August 25th article about Richland Two's lawsuit on TheState.com and only (so far) in the print edition?

It's the article about opposition to Richland Two's lawsuit in the S.C. Supreme Court over masking. The article by John Monk was only considered important enough for Page 34 in Section 1. 

The article is about a response to the lawsuit by State Senator Harvey Peeler (R-Cherokee) and State Representative (and House Speaker) Jay Lucas (R-Darlington).

Did you know the lawsuit was filed by Richland Two and a parent? Funny how Richland Two's announcements have not mentioned the parent. 

Remember Richland Two's lawsuit next time you get stopped for speeding. Just tell the trooper that your tax dollars pay for the highways and that speed limits are unconstitutional, so he can't give you a ticket. Let us know how that works out for you.

I also learned something good from Monk's article. He wrote, "Ordinarily, it can take years for the (South Carolina)  Supreme Court to hear appeals and issue opinions. But in matters of high public opinion, especially involving the interpretation of a state law, the court can take up a case directly.

This is reflected in the State law about usurping of public office. Teresa Holmes and Amelia McKie might want to sit up and pay attention to this. The Justices of the S.C. Supreme Court might need to hear answers from them to only three questions to decide that they have been usurping public office since November 13, 2018.

SECTION 15-63-60. Action against usurpers, for forfeiture of office or against persons acting as corporation.

An action may be brought by the Attorney General in the name of the State upon his own information or upon the complaint of any private party or by a private party interested on leave granted by a circuit judge against the parties offending in the following cases:

(1) When any person shall usurp, intrude into, or unlawfully hold or exercise any public office, civil or military, or any franchise within this State or any office in a corporation, created by the authority of this State;

Regarding this State law 

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.

What are those questions?

Q 1. On what date did you take the oath of office? A. November 13, 2018

Q 2. On what date did you file your Statement of Economic Interests? A. December 4, 2018

Q 3. Had you filed your Statement of Economic Interests before you took the oath of office? A. No

Decision: You are guilty of usurping public office. You are hereby removed from office. You are fined $2,000. You shall pay back all monies received for school board member services and for expenses paid for your benefit.