Call three trustees by 3:00PM (9/22/21)

The superintendent of Richland 2, if he had any humility, would request the board chair (who is not even legitimately the board chair) to cancel tonight's special-called board meeting. 

He should put the students and the District first and ask the board consider his compensation at a Regular Meeting (Sept. 28) where Public Participation is scheduled.

He won't; so call Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden today BEFORE 3:00PM today (Sept. 22) and ask them not to attend the meeting tonight. If none of the three attends, there will not be a quorum, and there won't be a meeting.

Trustee Lashonda McFadden: 803.351.7409

Trusteee Monica Scott: 803.200.2121

Trustee Lindsay Agostini: 803.530.5571

What if only four show on Sept. 22?

What will happen if only "The Four" show up at the September 22nd Special-Called Board Meeting? "The Four" are Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker and Manning.

There won't be a meeting, because there won't be a quorum.

Even if Lashonda McFadden shows up, making five there, there will NOT be a legal quorum. There will be only three legal members of the board.

Even if Monica Elkins shows up, there won't be a legal quorum. There will be only four legal members of the board.

That's because Holmes and McKie are not legitimate members of the board. Neither has EVER taken the oath of office legally.

For there to be a legal quorum, Caution-Parker, Manning, McFadden, Elkins AND Agostini will have to show up.

But look how the balance shifts with that legal quorum.

After the superintendent's proposed revised contract is discussed in executive (secret) session, the board will reconvene in public session.

Caution-Parker or Manning will move to approve it; the other will second it. There will be more discussion.

Perhaps the objectionable terms of the proposed contract will be discussed in public.

Then there will be a vote.

One possible result of a vote by the five legal, legitimate members of the board would be 2-3, resulting in a failure to approve.

Caution-Parker and Manning will vote to approve.

Agostini, Elkins and McFadden could vote against approving. Maybe they don't like the perks. Maybe they think they raise is too large. Maybe they think teachers, aides, lunchroom workers, bus drivers, secretaries ought to get a raise before the superintendent does.

Result? 2-3 and Fail.

Or Holmes and McKie could vote, and then the outcome will be 4-3 or 5-2 or 6-1.

The best outcome tomorrow will be if Agostini, Elkins and McFadden just don't show up.

Then Holmes can show her true colors. How would she handle such a rebuke? Would she just announce that, because there is not a quorum, there is no meeting. And say nothing else?

O.K. Standing by to take your bets now.

Chair should cancel 9/22 Special Meeting

THE responsible decision for the board chair would be to cancel the September 22 Special-Called Meeting.

Of course, it never should have been called in the first place. But you did hear the superintendent's request; right?

Supt. Davis said on September 14, ""It would be the recommendation of the superintendent for the board chair to consider a special-called board meeting with only the superintendent's contract on that board meeting..." 

Is that not pretentious? Self-serving? Ego-driven?

Why would he say "... the recommendation of the superintendent..."? He IS the superintendent. He's sitting right there. He is the one speaking. He's not talking about someone behind the curtain. He is talking about himself.

Why didn't he say, "I would appreciate your considering my proposed revised contract at your earliest convenience, perhaps at a special meeting next week"?

Of course, Teresa Holmes is going to do whatever he asks. You'd think she works for him and not the other way around.

Where's McKie on all this? Why isn't she demanding that her laundry list of student-centered items get on a special-called meeting agenda ahead of the superintendent's contract?

And same with Caution-Parker and Manning?

Who's first? The students or the superintendent? The answer is clear from the agenda for tomorrow night's meeting.

Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden can at least control the superintendent's not being more important than the students by just not showing up tomorrow night. ALL THREE need not to show up. If one of them shows, there will be a quorum, and the superintendent will get his raise and the other perks he wants.

$20 Technology Fee? A profit center?

(Click to enlarge)

This Notice was posted for website visitors at Rice Creek Elementary to see first-thing.

In case you can't read the fine print, the mandatory $20 annual fee pays for the first repair for accidental damage and for replacement, if the device is stolen and reported to law enforcement. It does not replace a lost device.

How many computers or similar devices does Richland 2 hand out? 28,000?

At $20/year each, that's $560,000.

Is this fund self-insured? If not, it ought to be, because it could probably provide a $400,000 profit to Richland 2. 

Can parents see a report on the Richland 2 website about fees vs. expenses? Could the fund still be profitable at $10/year? or less?

How big of a profit-center is the $20 annual Technology Fee?

Who defamed whom?

Does Teresa Holmes have any idea what defamation is? 

Start listening when Trustee McFadden begins her explanation for not wanting to vote on the superintendent’s proposed revised contract at the Sept. 14^th meeting. That’s at 1:29:40

Listen especially to the argument at 1:32:20 on the recording, when Holmes accused McFadden of defaming board members. McFadden was explaining about how late she received the proposed revised contract for the superintendent, and she said, “We already know they got four that are going to vote for it.”

Holmes not only interrupted her, but Holmes argued and asserted that McFadden was defaming The Four (Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker, Manning) by saying that. McFadden was not!

You can also hear Holmes apparently talking to someone near her, although her words are not clearly audible on the recording. McFadden heard her, though.

Proper and courteous procedure is that you don’t interrupt the person who is speaking, even if you don't agree with them. One board member, not even the chair, is not to argue with another; yet that’s exactly what Holmes does. Holmes is supposed to maintain order; instead, she causes even more disruption.

Where in the world does Holmes get “defaming other board members”, when she hears McFadden say that she know four who are already planning to vote for the revised contract I wish McFadden had not apologized. No apology was needed. 

When McKie referred to McFadden’s comments as “pretty juvenile”, was that defamatory?

Holmes' "door" only swings one way.

Why "The Three" Should Boycott 9/22 Meeting

There are good reasons for "The Three" to boycott the Special-Called Meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 22.

1. There is no emergency. It's not like the superintendent will miss a few meals, if he doesn't get a raise.

2. The superintendent's proposed revised contract is the only item on the agenda.

3. The superintendent put himself before the important issues facing the School District, when he said on Sept. 14, "It would be the recommendation of the superintendent for the board chair to consider a special-called board meeting with only the superintendent's contract on that board meeting..." 

In other words, "Pick me. Pick me. Pick me."

Perhaps the most important reason for "The Three" to skip that meeting would be to begin re-training "The Four" and the superintendent to pay more attention to "The Three" and to furnish complete information on a timely basis to them before all board meetings.

Upon information and belief, Tuesday night was not the first time that the trustees (the minority group) have had trouble getting all the information on which to make a decision.

A board member should have to ask only once for information. Repeated requests should not be necessary. Nor should it be necessary to ask again and again for more details. Complete information should be provided to all at the same time. If there are updates, they should be given to all at the same time.

By skipping Wednesday night's meeting, the message to the board chair and the superintendent (and the vice chair) would be, "Don't mess around with us." 

So make the superintendent wait his turn. 

On the meeting video for Sept. 14 at 1:33:20, you can hear McKie try to position herself with her 26,000 fans (voters) by falsely saying she is not one of "they" (she surely is!) and trying to console the parents about their not getting reports that night on student appeals, student __(unintelligible)____ center, the Proviso 1.108, 6th grade advantage, Spanish language, update on COVID, draft agenda for the next meeting, that night's Public Participation speakers. McKie rattled those off so quickly it was hard to follow and type.

So, why did Holmes call a special meeting for the superintendent's contract, instead of one or more of those more important issues??? 

Every one of the issues on the Sept. 14 agenda is more important than revising his already-lucrative contract.

Just in case you are wondering ...

"The Three" are Agostini, Scott, McFadden

"The Four" are Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker, Manning

COVID Update by Supt.

If you haven't seen this yet, here is the superintendent's 9/17/2021 COVID update. www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFvuVGJq8ak

B-U-T I must add that I did NOT like his introduction!

He says that he/they have heard from some Richland 2 family members that they tuned into the September 14th board meeting to hear the COVID update. He continues,

"Some of (nearly unintelligible) the Richland Two board of trustees, along with myself, sincerely regret that we were unable to update you on Tuesday. So, we wanted to bring the information directly to you with this video. We want to take this time to thank you for taking time out of your schedule to watch it..." 

Sorry. Wrong words! His words cause the viewer to think that someone "else" was at fault - was responsible for the breakdown on Tuesday night. Someone else caused the meeting to stop and prevented the update. Regret is a "feelings" word. The board deals with information, facts and accuracy. Boards don't have "feelings".

Well, that isn't the way it was.

First, do (all?) "members of the board of trustees" regret that the meeting was cut short? No, four of them might. I had to listen to it 4-5 times to understand "Some of the Richland Two board of trustees..." So he isn't speaking for all; he's not speaking for the board, but only for some of the board.

Who authorized him to speak for the board and in that way? Hint: No one did. No one could. The meeting ended with no action being taken.

Place the fault where it belongs. The flow of information about the superintendent's negotiated proposed revised contract was distributed in a sporadic, ill-timed and uneven manner. Not everyone got the same information at the same time.

A flurry of phone calls on Monday and Tuesday meant that everyone did not get the same information at the same time. And maybe not even the same information (unless it was a recorded message).

From what McKie said on Sept. 14 she got the information and well ahead of the meeting. Well, she is part of the "they". And how would she know who got what and when? Manning seemed to manage the information distribution and flow. McKie had just heard, if she was listening, that Agostini, Scott and McFadden DID NOT get information early enough to digest it. Was she choosing not to believe what the three had just said?

What the superintendent should have said was, "Here is up-to-date information on COVID."  If he wasn't going to lay the blame squarely and honestly on those responsible for the distribution of information about what he wants in his revised contract, he should have left that out.

And why didn't he just say "Some members of the Board and I regret..." He's a guy who got $1,400 for two speeches in 2020. Is there an English teacher who can help him?