Open Letter to Reporter at The State

The following email is being sent to reporter Lucas Daprile at The State newspaper today:

I was interested in your yesterday's (9/17/21) article (headline: Voting discrepancy surfaces...) and your statement that "Concern about the August vote did not surface until after this week's meeting, more than three weeks after the suit was filed on Aug. 20."

On August 20th, when the lawsuit was filed, I first wrote about the discrepancy on my blog at www.Richland2.info  

See https://richland2sd.blogspot.com/2021/08/update-to-sc-supreme-court-filing.html

And I've written about it many times since.

Maybe I should join the S.C. Press Assn. so I could solicit and publish Jay Bender's opinions. 

The R2 superintendent had to get a green light in the executive session on August 16. I never believed that he would proceed without knowing the majority of the board was behind him. 

Manning's public motion was misleading to the minority of the board and the public. It was subterfuge and deception. When Holmes made her press statement on August 20, I realized something was up. As you revealed in your story, the District acknowledges that the board got legal advice during the executive session; so they didn’t need to “get” it after Manning’s motion.

With Manning's admission on Sept. 14 to many phone calls to board members about the proposed revised contract of the superintendent, I wonder how many phone calls there were between the majority component of the board (Holmes, Manning, Caution-Parker, McKie) to "agree to agree" in the executive session about what Manning's motion during the Regular Meeting on Aug. 16 would really mean. 

State law is clear about executive sessions. No decisions are to be made. No votes are to be taken. And they can't "agree to agree". That's a prohibited decision.

Because the lawsuit was never legally authorized by the board in public session, it should have been withdrawn. In fact, I telephoned the Defendants to suggest that they motion for dismissal on that point.

"The four", as Trustee McFadden correctly called them, should be greatly concerned about being named in a lawsuit for violating the S.C. Freedom of Information Act. The three trustees forming the minority (Agostini, Scott, McFadden) could do that. And they ought to, since two of them voted for Manning's Motion.

Had Holmes allowed the discussion on Aug. 16 that Trustee Agostini wanted, that behind-the-scenes decision would have been revealed. Agostini was traveling and had not phoned into the executive session. Holmes reconvened the public meeting and "forgot" that Agostini had said she wanted to rejoin the meeting by phone. Trustee McFadden reminded Holmes. By prohibiting Agostini's requested discussion, Holmes kept the secret decision out of public view - for the time-being.

R2 Supt's 2019 raise was 12.3%

On the agenda for Wednesday (Sept. 22) afternoon's Special-Called Board Meeting at 5:00PM is a raise for Supt. Davis. 

Why? 

And why on Wednesday, instead of at the next Regular Meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 28? 

And why at 5:00PM, when many parents are just leaving work? 

And why at a Special-Called Meeting where, traditionally, public participation is not scheduled (or allowed)?

In March the superintendent disclosed his earnings on the required public Statement of Economic Interests Report due at the South Carolina Ethics Commission. What's on it?

Personal Income:

Salary $223,882.97

Automobile Allowance $18,000

Insurance Policy Benefit $760.00 (A)

Salary, Neo Genesis Group (amount not disclosed)

Salary, University of the Cumberlands (amount not disclosed)

Salary, University of South Carolina $14,000

Speaking Engagement, ERDI (B) 9/14/2020 $500

Speaking Engagement, Francis Marion University 6/24/2020 $850

Family Income:

Richland Two, Salary $78,113

(A) The specifics are not reported. Commonly, when an employee reports taxable income in that category, it represents the economic benefit to the employee of premiums paid by the employer for a life insurance policy insuring that employee and payable to a beneficiary named by the insured employee. In other words, a perk of personal life insurance in a significant amount. It's not necessary that premium amount, but rather the "economic benefit" of the premiums paid.

(B) ERDI is the Education Research & Development Institute. From www.erdius.org "ERDI is the premier provider of unique research and development opportunities for companies who are designing products and services to support PK-12." 

Does Richland 2 buy any of those products and services?

So, Davis' yearly Richland 2 income is $241,882.97 plus his salaries from U of S.C., the U of the Cumberlands, and the Neo Genesis Group, plus his speaking fees, (Total $257,992.97+) plus the Family Income from Richland 2 of $78,113. Total family income of $336,105.97+.

I'm sure we can all sympathize with the financial struggles in the Davis family to get along during a pandemic year on that piddling amount.

Is this why "the four" are in such a rush to give him a raise?

How much of his Richland 2 time, if any, is carved out for his employment with the Neo Genesis Group, the University of the Cumberlands, the University of South Carolina, and speaking engagements?

Maybe the revised Contract should read, "Employee is to commit his working time solely to Richland School District Two and will not participate in outside ventures or receive earned income from other sources."

Must-read Article in TheState.com

Reporter Lucas Daprile dug deeply into the Richland 2 school board's meeting where Trustee Manning moved to get legal advice on Proviso 1.108. Read the article here.

Only it turns out that the board GOT the legal information during that executive session.

The purpose of the Motion by Manning was to give the superintendent the green light to file the lawsuit.

Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden got snookered. Read the article.

Libby Roof provided a statement (the article doesn't say to whom). The article states, "This vote by the board was taken following an executive session during which the board received legal advice regarding the best option and legal strategy to address (the one-year mask law). The discussion included a clear description of what actions would be taken by district administrators if the board voted to give district administrators the authority to engage legal counsel.”

However, the following statement by Mrs. Roof does not look truthful to me.

“'The approved motion provided the authority for district leaders to...seek legal relief from (the one-year mask law) in order to protect our students and employees,' Roof said."

Manning's Motion did not say that. 

I highlighted the word "received" for a reason. That's to call your attention to the revelation that the board actually got the information during the executive session, which Manning later made a Motion to obtain.

How that for deceit?

Up until reading that statement today, it had appeared to me (and, I think, to others) that Manning's motion, as approved 6-1, directed the superintendent to get information. But now it turns out that the board already had the information.

This is the right time for Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker and Manning to resign from the board.

Is an Earpiece in use?

Look again at the video-recording of the September  14, 2021 Regular Board Meeting of the Richland 2 School Board. Go to www.livestream.com/richland2

Fast-forward to 1:16:50 where, after the Pledge of Allegiance, the board chair asked for a motion to approve the agenda for that night's meeting.

McKie makes the motion; Manning seconds. The chair calls for discussion.

Mrs. Agostini is recognized. After a brief audio interruption the end of her motion can be heard, and that was to postpone the agenda item about superintendent's contract. A woman's voice can be heard seconding the motion.

You can hear Mrs. Agostini stating that a main motion can be amended, while the camera is on Holmes, who isn't saying anything. Watch Holmes closely. She says, "OK. ... OK   ... OK" and states, "It does have to be germane to the motion."

Mrs. Agostini thinks that Holmes is speaking to her, but is she? Is Holmes really agreeing to something being said to her and then repeating what was said?

Is there a possibility that Holmes is wearing an earpiece and is listening to someone giving her information and guidance?

If Holmes were put under oath and asked about an earpiece, how would she answer - under penalty of perjury?

For Holmes to say, as if she had thought of it herself, "It has to be germane", would be very unusual. Holmes does not have a good grasp on parliamentary procedures.

Just as board members are not to use cell phones, texts, emails, etc. between themselves or to or from the outside, a board member can't have someone whispering in her ear.

Everybody - all the board members and the public - is entitled to hear every word said during a public meeting. This is why I have complained about side-conversations among board members and/or with the superintendent. When one is speaking and two others are having a side conversation, we can't hear that conversation.

Watch the video. What do YOU think?

Sue Richland 2 Board over the lawsuit?

Should the Richland 2 School Board be sued over the lawsuit filed in the S.C. Supreme Court?

The Board never authoirzed the lawsuit in open session by a board vote - in public.

At the August 16^th Special-Called Board meeting, Trustee Manning made this motion: “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." 

Read that carefully. Nowhere does it authorize "the District" (meaning, the superintendent") to commence legal action. It authorizes the superintendent to learn the "best option and legal strategy" which, of course, might be not to do anything.

Did the Board, in Executive Session on August 16th, actually give the superintendent the green light to go ahead?

That is, did the Board make a decision to allow the superintendent to proceed? State law does not permit decisions in executive session. Decisions can only be made in public, by vote.

If not (and they should not have done so), did the superintendent act on his own?

If he did, that ought to have a bearing on his evaluation and his revised contract.

So, sue the Board or not?

The State's editorial board is wrong! No "shenanigans"

 At 8:58AM today (9/17/21) The State's editorial board published a follow-up article and used the word "shenanigans" in the headline of its online paper. The State's board is wrong. 

There were NO shenanigans, contrary to the board chair's use of talso he word. Or, if there were, they were pulled by the board's chair and vice-chair. 

Manning supposedly explained "The board’s designee, the superintendent and their respective legal counsel have input and come up with a contract that is then taken to the board." 

What he should have said is "proposed revised contract".

The FACT is that the board never designated a board member to represent the board in negotiations. Did anyone ever hear the board vote on that in public? I didn't. So, an unauthorized representative of the board met with the supt. and counsels of each and played "Let's Make a Deal". Those are the "shenanigans".

Since the chair can call a Special Meeting and the superintendent and the board chair set the agenda for the Special-Calling Board Meeting on September 22, the superintendent is trying to get his way with the end-run at last week's abortion of a meeting. He forgets that he works at Richland 2. He doesn't run Richland 2. He follows directives.

Yet you'd think that he owns Richland 2. And maybe he does, since "the four" (a/k/a (to me) "The Squad" (and that does include McKie, although she'd like to deny it)) fall all over themselves to give him anything he wants. Now he wants more money. 

And exactly why should he get it? Oh, you say, he might leave and go somewhere else. Well, fine; let him. Richland 2 should not be held hostage!

As of 9:48AM today the District has not updated its website to disclose the Special-Called Meeting on September 22. Yesterday that meeting was posted on ww.livestream.com/richland 2, where video space is reserved. No agenda has yet been published. But, if you remember from Tuesday night, the superintendent asked for a Special-Called Meeting with the only item as his contract. 

Some gall, eh? He didn't even wait for one of his worshippers to suggest it.

There is no need for a Special-Called Meeting on September 22. Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden should stay away.

The superintendent's desire for more money (and perks?) can wait until the next Regular Meeting on September 28. Approval is guaranteed, if there is a quorum. There is no doubt whatsoever that Holmes, Manning, McKie and Caution-Parker will just sign a blank check. No need to even discuss the revised contract.

Special-Called Board Meeting 9/22/21 - (No) surprise

Remember that song, "Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets?" It's from the 1958 movie, Damn Yankees.

Well, Whatever Baron wants, Baron gets. Or does he?

Richland 2 has called a Special Meeting for September 22, 2021 at 5:00PM. It's not on the District's website yet, but it is scheduled on www.livestream.com/richland2

Who calls Special Meetings? The chair (that's with a small -c-). Who plans the agenda? That would be the chair and the superintendent.

Now just exactly what is the rush for the superintendent to dip further into the Richland 2 money pot?

I wonder whether Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden might just happen to have other commitments for that afternoon.

This is an absurd disregard for the time commitment of trustees. Why should they interrupt their lives for something that could just as easily be handled on September 28?

If the superintendent had any respect for the seven board members, he would just ask them to put it on the agenda for September 28.