S.C. Supreme Court nixes Richland 2 case

Be sure to read Richland Two's extensive statement following the decision by the S.C. Supreme Court that has been anxiously awaited. It's on the Richland Two website.

Now read it a second time. Now a third time.

Did you read that the S.C. Supreme Court ruled AGAINST Richland 2? I didn't, either.

Don't miss the statement by Teresa Holmes in the press release. Somebody should ask, "Who wrote that for her?"

If I put that statement alongside ANY of the emails she has sent me, any young reader would ask, "Who really wrote that statement?"

My guess? The lawyer(s), Libby Roof and the superintendent wrote it and just put Holmes' name on it.

Holmes missed Tuesday night's board meeting, because she had to babysit. Did she make a miraculous recovery from whatever illness her grandchild brought into the house? 

Why didn't she attend the board meeting telephonically? Does she get paid her stipend, even if she doesn't attend a board meeting?

You Tell Me - Legal or Illegal?

Since March 2019 I have been after the school board to recognize that there are two women on the board illegitimately. 

What do you think?

Teresa Holmes was elected to the board on November 6, 2018. Amelia McKie was re-elected to the board on November 6, 2018. 

They took the oath of office on November 13, 2018 and began serving on the board that same night.

Here is the problem. There's s sticky little item called the State law on when you can take the oath.

ARTICLE 11

Disclosure of Economic Interests

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.

I've highlighted certain words for your attention and easy reading. You can easily see the order of doing things.

1. File your Statement of Economic Interests (SEI) with the S.C. Ethics Commission.

2. Take the oath of office

3. Enter upon official responsibilitis.

Both Holmes and McKie filed their SEIs on December 4, 2018, after The Voice (newspaper) blew the whistle on them.

See the problem?

They chose this order: 2-3-1, not the correct legal order, 1-2-3.

Holmes insists she is qualified. Yes, indeed she is qualified - for the office. She was elected.

But neither Holmes nor McKie was eligible to take the oath of office on November 13, 2018. Both became eligible to take the oath of office on December 4, 2018, upon filing their SEIs.

Neither has taken the oath of office ince November 13, 2018.

Since they have never taken the oath of office legally, they are not legitimate board members. Since they are not board members, neither can be an officer of the board. Why did Manning Nominate Holmes on June 29, 2020, even after being asked to nominate only legitimate board members.

Why do the five legal membes of the board tolerate Holmes' and McKie's usurping public office?

Why do Holmes and McKie refuse to take the oath of office legally?

What should be done to correct this legal problem?

McKie : "be in line with law"

Wow! Can I believe my ears?

Amelia McKie said the board should be in line with law. Seriously? All the laws, I guess, except only taking the oath of office after filing the Statement of Economic Interests. No, no. Don't be in line with that law. 

If you'd like to hear one of the dumbest discussions the Richland 2 school board has ever had, listen to their discussion of Board Policy BEDC Quorum. It starts at 2:59:28 in the recording of the September 28, 2021 board meeting.

A number of board members don't even understand the difference between Quorum and Majority (for voting).

Without a Parliamentarian the discussion bounced back and forth and included extraneous comments that were not germane to Quorum.

Listen to McKie say that she doesn't want the board to be in a situation where it can be voluntarily held "hostage". That ought to have brought the wrath of the chair (well, vice-chair, or acting chair) down on her. How can she get away with insulting and defaming The Three like that??? McKie is apparently still bent out of shape that Agostini, Scott and McFadden walked out of a meeting earlier this month, as well they should have.

What's the difference between Quorum and Majority?

A Quorum is the number needed to do any business; that is, to hold a meeting. It has nothing to do with voting.

A Majority is the number of votes that determine a favorable decision on a motion. Majority rules in most voting situations. Sometimes a super-majority is needed; sometimes, it's a 2/3 majority (2/3 x 7 = 5). That "5" just happens to be the same number as needed for a Quorum. 

Richland 2 loses in S.C. Supreme Court

It's no surprise to me that the S.C. Supreme Court ruled against Richland 2 in the Proviso 1.108 case.

The school district could have saved time, money and embarrassment and just asked me. I would have told them.  heh-heh.

There was no reason for the S.C. Supreme Court to comment on the use of other funds to pester the kids and staff with a mask mandate. The case was only about Proviso 1.108.

If you read Proviso 1.108 for yourself, you'll see that it does NOT forbid masks or prohibit any government body, including school district, from mandating masks. What it does do is prohibit the use of State funds under the current Appropriations Act from being used to announce or enforce a mask mandate.

So just dip into a different pocket for the change.

You'd think that all the smart people around, with their law degrees and Ph.D's, would be able to figure that out.

It's too bad that Richland 2 didn't get good legal advice, on which it could have relied in a decision NOT to file the lawsuit. WHO did advise the Richland 2 board in that executive session, after which the board voted in public to GET legal advice? How convenient it was for the board not to admit that they had just gotten legal advice in that executive session.

So Proviso 1.108 stands. If Richland 2 used this year's State funds to announce or enforce its mask mandate, it'll be in big trouble and the Toothless Lion will attack and gum the District to death. You know how much that will hurt.

Public Participation - 9/28/2021

Three speakers addressed the board last night. You can hear them right here. Go to livestream.com/richland2 Select the Sept. 28, 2021 meeting and fast-forward to 1:23:58 to hear the first speaker, Larry Small.

He told the board, with great passion, that HE is responsible for his children, not the superintendent or the board. HE is. Take a moment now and listen to his remarks.

At 1:27:44 the second speaker was Gary Ginn. He informed the board that the health of his children is the responsibility of his wife and him. 

The third speaker was Gus Philpott. (You recognize that name; right?) My three minutes started at 1:30:37.

I read to the board an email that I received from Teresa Holmes. She emailed it to me at 10:57PM on 9/15/21, about five hours after I had emailed the public relations department at Richland 2 to ask that they update her online bio. A reporter at The State newspaper had relied on online information about her job title and didn't know that she had quit early in August.

You might be interested in what Holmes had to say to me that night. There is a reason that I read it to the board and for the Richland 2 public to hear. Here it is, exactly as I received it:

"Gus, I have often tolerated you hateful remarks and email. However, this time you have gone too far.  I lost my husband Rev. Dr. Jacob A. Holmes Jr. 4 years ago which, I know you are fully aware of.  I will no longer tolerate nor concern myself with your continuous diatribe of falsehoods and insults.  After this message you are officially blocked from any further contact   with me.  Go spout your hate on those who care  about you and what your deceitful lying  mouth has to say.....Do not contact  me again or include me in your racist, hateful. lying  remarks or emails.  It is sad that someone of your advanced age is not concerned about your mortality and relationship with God.  I will pray that God will forgive your outright evilness and have mercy for your pitiful soul.  It has to be hard working on being so evil.  

       

Widower,

Dr. Teresa Holmes 

#Officallydonewithyourfoolishness"

The fourth speaker was Renee Lucida. Her remarks begin at 1:34:15. She referred to the last two board meetings as "dysfunctional". She mentioned an email she had sent to the board chair, and she received no answers to her questions. She described the reply that she did receive from the board chair as a "perceived veiled attack on my character."

Take a few minutes and watch this week's school board meeting Public Participation.

Is Gus Philpott intimidating?

When I arrived at R2i2 yesterday about 5:20PM and while I was chatting with another member of the public, a security officer and a deputy, the superintendent approached. 

He told the other man and me that one of the female trustees had reported that she felt intimidated by us. I had noticed last week that one trustee had requested a deputy to escort her to her car in the parking lot, and I recall saying to someone that I wondered whether she had received threats.

I was pretty sure the other man had not acted in an intimidating manner toward that trustee, and I KNEW that I had not. 

The question for me now is how to resolve it with that trustee. I find myself reluctant to approach her to discuss what caused her to feel intimidated and whether, in fact, she had even told the superintendent that she was intimidated by me. I certainly would not open the discussion without a female trustee as a witness.

As many know, I have complained for 2½ years that Holmes and McKie are not legitimate board members and now cannot serve as board officers. I told the board in March 2019 that the issue was not going away. When will the issue go away? When they take the oath of office legally and become legal members of the board!

I know the laws, and I know that I have avoided any words or actions that could be considered criminal. That didn't keep Holmes from filing a harassment claim against me with the Richland County Sheriff's Department in March 2019. I met with an Investigator Sergeant and the Deputy Chief of Criminal Investigations. The Chief quickly determined that no crime had occurred.

I have a copy of the deputy's report of Holmes' complaint. It is 100% lies. I pointed that out while I was at RCSD. 

It is my intention to see that Holmes and McKie are removed from the board. In fact, they aren't even legally ON the board, so it's not a question of "removing" them. All Holmes and McKie have to do to become legal board members is take the oath of office - legally. Both became eligible to take it on December 4, 2018. 

I have no idea why the rest of the board, the school district's attorney and the superintendent don't persuade Holmes and McKie to do so. It has been suggested to me that one reason is that the District will have to review every vote by the board, starting with the November 13, 2018, and take out the votes of Holmes and McKie. Many decisions will change. 

Votes that were 4-3 (with Holmes and McKie counted in the four) will become 3-2, meaning the votes failed, not passed. The longer the District waits to correct this, the farther they will have to go back. 

There are board meetings since November 13, 2018 that won't have quorums, once Holmes' and McKie's names are removed from those attending. Any one of the five legal trustees who missed a meeting in 2½ years will cause a meeting to miss the quorum requirement.

Perhaps I'm intimidating because I can count. That could be it.

Were you inspired last night?

It appears the Inspiration Moment of board meetings has dissolved into a reading lesson by trustee-elect Amelia McKie.

Are you inspired?

Some time back the District arranged speakers who actually provided inspiration. What happened to inviting community members in for a brief Inspirational Moment?

Are you inspired by a board member who drones on and on, or sometimes reads like she is auditioning for Toastmasters? 

Let's hear some success stories from others. 

An "Inspirational Moment" should be a moment, defined in Merriam-Webster dictionary as "a minute portion ... of time". In another reference, as "an indefinitely short period of time" (Dictionary.com). In other words, short. 

And inspirational!

And the introduction of the speaker for the Insprration Moment should be very brief; say, 30 seconds or less. An example of a good introduction is, "Tonight's speaker for the inspirational moment will be _______." It's not necessary to deliver a pedigree that is longer than the inspiration moment ought to be.