Tap Dance from Richland 2 about 10/26/2021

Take a look at the new "safety procedures" for Tuesday's board meeting.

These were sent out to Media with the announcement of the October 26, 2021 board meeting. I almost didn't open the email, because it usually is just boilerplate.

I have already let the board, the superintendent and several staff members know my opinion of this.

I informed them that board members don't need protection from the public. It's the PUBLIC that needs protection from this board!!!

If you are also incensed, send your emails to the board and to every parent you know. 

Well, of course you can watch from home. Doesn't that seem like a great opportunity? The board will miss out on your groans and grimaces.

NO! What counts is showing up in person! Who is responsible for such a dumb decision as this? Since the board did not hold a special meeting and make any agreement about this change, I think it's safe to say that the superintendent is 100% responsible for this.

Maybe he is just trying to get fired. Then he can collect $366,000 in severance pay and start a new job on November 1. Think so?

This following is from the District's email. The highlights are mine.

"Members of the community may notice several new safety procedures at the meeting.

In order to allow for social distancing due to COVID-19, a safe distance between the public and the board, and to ensure adequate access for emergency personnel, capacity for the members of the public who wish to attend the meeting in-person is limited to 20. In case that capacity is reached and to provide members of the public the ability to watch the board meeting from the safety of their home, the meeting will also be streamed live at http://www.richland2.org/livestream.

Citizens coming to attend the meeting will be allowed in on a first come, first serve basis beginning at 5 p.m. and be seated in the boardroom. As the lobby closes to the public at 5 p.m., citizens attending the board meeting will not be allowed to linger in the lobby.

The public will not be allowed to protest or loiter in front of the main entrance. This is for safety reasons to allow emergency access into the building and for others who have other business to enter the building.

In an effort to effectively maintain a safe environment, any person attending the meeting who is out of order, loud, disruptive, making inappropriate comments, and/or a safety concern will be asked to be seated or leave by a security officer. If the person does not comply, a Richland County Sheriff Deputy will escort them off the property. 

No signage or other objects will be allowed into the facility that could either be a distraction or used as a weapon."

The State calls them "screaming matches"

Read this great article in today's The State newspaper about the "screaming matches" at the Richland 2 board meetings. This is one of the best articles about what's going on. 

www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article255009622.html#storylink=mainstage_card2

The reporter got quotes from several board members.

Daprile wrote: "The lack of civility is getting so bad it obstructs official business."

I do challenge Daprile's reference to the "group of three board members playing dirty to tip the scales in their favor." He is referring to the walk-out by Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden. They were not "playing dirty". Their walk-out was the only way open to stop "The Four" from over-powering them to a vote on the superintendent's contract that night.

As you may already know, Trustee Agostini made a secondary motion to the motion for approving the agenda for that night. Agostini's secondary motion was to move the agenda item related to the superintendent's contract to the next Regular Meeting. Holmes got lost and didn't understand that the secondary motion was exactly germane to the primary motion. Holmes ruled it wasn't, after getting poor advice from the District's employee General Counsel. 

Holmes' question to the employee attorney was whether the secondary motion was germane. The attorney's voice could not be heard, but then Holmes said, apparently repeating what she had heard, "So it could go either way?" A correct answer would have been that it was germane or it was not. After more discussion, Holmes decided it was going to go her way, and she ruled that Agostini's secondary motion was not germane.

Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden had not received full information about the superintendent's proposed revised contract (amendment), and they wanted adequate time to consider the proposed amendment. "The Four" wanted to approve it that night. Agostine, Scott and McFadden walked out. There was no longer a quorum, and business (but not the meeting) stopped.

Be sure to send a Thank You email to Lucas Daprile at ldaprile@thestate.com

Serious Errors, 10/12/2021 Minutes

Two serious errors occur in the October 12 Minutes that have been prepared for Board approval on October 26. These Minutes can be viewed in the Agenda on the District's website in the Agenda for the next meeting. These errors should be bought up on October 26 before the Oct. 12th Minutes are approved.

General Comment: The way the Minutes have been prepared for a long time is wrong. The recording secretary alters the agenda as the meeting progresses by inserting notes during the meeting. This does not constitute an adequate or complete record of the meeting.

The chaos, disruption and rancor are not recorded. You'd think it never happened, if you only read the Minutes. The violation of Robert's Rules of Order is not recorded. If you look at the official record, it is sanitized. It's the "vanilla" version.

Example: 

Action: 9.1 Approval: Bond Refunding Resolution

To approve the bond refunding resolution.

 

Motion by Lashonda McFadden, second by Amelia McKie.

Final Resolution: Motion Carries

Yes: Cheryl Caution-Parker, Monica E Scott, James Manning, Amelia McKie, Teresa Holmes, Lashonda McFadden

Abstain: Lindsay Agostini

During the agenda item of the Bond Refunding Resolution, no mention is made of Dr. Harry Miley's remarks. No mention is made of Trustee Agostini's reservation about the signature of the Board Secretary, who continues to have significant outstanding ethics fines. No mention is made of the ongoing question about the legitimacy of Amelia McKie's position as Board Secretary (she is not a legitimate board member, cannot serve as Board Secretary, and cannot sign Bond documents. Nor can Teresa Holmes, who also is not a legitimate member of the board.)

Example: 

12. Approval of Agenda Items for Next Meeting

Action: 12.1 Approval: Draft Agenda Items for October 26, 2021

To approve the draft agenda for October 26, 2021.

 

Motion by Amelia McKie, second by Cheryl Caution-Parker.

 

To add Policy BD Organization of the Board to the October 26, 2021 Agenda.

Amended motion by Lindsay Agostini, second by Monica E. Scott

Final Resolution: Motion Fails

Yes: Lindsay Agostini, Monica E Scott, Lashonda McFadden

No: Cheryl Caution-Parker, James Manning, Amelia McKie, Teresa Holmes

 

Restated motion - To approve the draft agenda for October 26, 2021 Agenda.

Motion by Amelia McKie, second by Cheryl Caution-Parker.

Final Resolution: Motion Carries

Yes: Cheryl Caution-Parker, Monica E Scott, James Manning, Amelia McKie, Teresa Holmes

No: Lindsay Agostini, Lashonda McFadden

No mention is made of the original vote on the motion to add discussion of Board Policy BD, which PASSED. The vote was 4-3. The votes were tallied and posted on the projection screen, which constitutes the "announcement" of the result.

Then Holmes realized that she had made a mistake. She had voted FOR the motion. And then she asked the recording secretary (not the Board Secretary) to change her vote. Holmes was completely wrong to do so. Once the vote is announced, which it was, that IS the vote. If a voter wants her vote changed, it requires the unanimous vote of the board. Robert's Rules of Order §4:42. 

A discussion of Policy BD should be on the agenda for October 26. It is not. 

Integrity of the position of Board Chair would have resulted in inclusion of Policy BD for discussion on this agenda. Even though it was officially (improperly) voted down on October 12, the board chair and superintendent could have added it. They didn't.

Holmes grad school corrected

Previously I wrote that Teresa Holmes' board chair bio on the District's website described her Ed.S and Ed.D. degrees as being from North Central University.

North Central University is an accredited bricks-and-mortar institution in Minneapolis, Minnesota, founded in 1930. It is a private Christian university that is associated with the Assemblies of God. It grants degrees in religious majors. It does not award degrees of Ed.S. and Ed.D.

My request resulted in a change, but not correction, of Holmes' degrees to being from NorthCentral University. So I wrote back. Close, but still not correct.

The District's website has now been corrected to show her degrees as being from Northcentral University. It is a private online school in San Diego, Calif. Its programs are offered online only.  

Wkipedia reports on Northcentral University with:

"In 2011 the US Department of Education determined Northcentral was one of 75 US institutions failing its 2009-2010 financial responsibility test (a measure of the institution's financial solvency), and would be required to post a letter of credit in order for students to receive federal financial aid.^[11] Northcentral also failed its 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 financial responsibility tests, scoring zero for 2010-2011 on a scale of -1 to 3, lower than the 0.2 it earned the prior term; 0.2 for 2011-2012; and 0.2 again for 2012-2013.^[12] In 2015 the US Department of Education placed Northcentral on "HCM-Cash Monitoring 1" status because of its financial issues.^[13]

"In 2019, the National University System (California) acquired Northcentral University, in effect, converting Northcentral University into a non-profit institution. ^[6] " [Footnotes in the original; not copied here]

Academics and financial condition would not be necessarily related.

Superintendent's Contract - no date

Carelessness occurred with the superintendent's contract amendment, when it was signed recently. Holmes signed for the Board, and McKie witnessed the document. What was the carelessness?

All three forgot to insert the day in September 2021 when it was signed. It reads, "IN WITNESS WHEREOF, on September ___, 2021 the Board caused this Fifth Amendment to be approved on its behalf by its duly authorized Chair, and the Superintendent has approved this amendment."

Does that mean it is not in effect?

The other "minor" problem is that the signers for the District are not legitimate board members. Holmes is not the legitimate Board Chair, because she is not a legitimate member of the board. McKie is not the legitimate Board Secretary, because she is not a legitimate member of the board. Neither Holmes nor McKie has ever taken the oath of office legally.

One of these days Holmes and McKie will be removed from the board, and all the days between November 13, 2018 and the date of removal will be considered a period when they were not board members. Every vote, action and document will have to be reviewed. All the votes of Holmes and McKie will have to be removed. Board decisions will change. 

Bond documents with their signatures will have to be re-done.

The superintendent's contract and emendments will have to be re-done. The superintendent is a smart guy about his own contract and money. He ought to be insisting on signatures of legitimate board officers, for his own protection and that of his estate, should he die before the expiry of the contract. He has $367,329 ($244,886 x 1.5) at risk. Would he want his family to have to fight for it?

Teresa's signature is interesting. She signed the contract with a nearly-illegible signature, "Dr. Teresa Holmes". Hmmm, does her birth certificate say "Dr." on it? 

The document reads that it is signed by the "duly authorized" chair. Did anyone hear a motion by the board that authorized Holmes to sign the amendment to the contract?

Why Teachers Hunker Down

Remember when so many teachers showed up at school board meetings when Red4Ed was clamoring for (what was it?)? Oh, yes; money. And when most of the board supported the walk-out planned for May 1 that year and even said they'd be at the demonstration? And all Richland 2 schools were forced to close on one-day notice?

The trustees forgot that they are Management, not Labor!

Read this article about Louisian Spanish teacher Jonathan Koeppel. He was fired for refusing to wear a mask, even though he had a medical exemption. What he was really fired for, according to him, was his conservative views. He opposes Critical Race Theory and Gender Dysphoria. He spoke out at school board meetings.

Danger, danger, danger. And he uses bad words, too; like, "indoctrinating kids".

He is suing in Federal District Cover to get his job back or compensation for its loss.

Thi article appears in The Daily Signal, a publication of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.

Where are the Richland 2 teachers and administrators at school board meetings? Are they choosing job security and a paycheck over their First Amendment rights to speak out? That's not a choice they should have to make!

Heritage Foundation sounds off on NSBA

I'd never heard of the National Schools Boards Association (NSBA) before about February 2019. That was soon after Teresa Holmes took office in November, and she was treated to an all-expense trip to Washington, DC for an annual meeting of the NSBA (thank you very much, Richland 2) . From her photos on Facebook, it sure looked like she was enjoying herself. Of course, that was before she blocked me on Facebook.

For several years I've been a member of The Heritage Foundation, which is a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C..

Read this Heritage Foundation article about the NSBA. What is the NSBA, and Why Is It Trying To Shut Down Parents?

Watch the video embedded in the article titled The Truth about Critical Race Theory.

The article says that the NSBA has "a liberal political agenda nearly indistinguishable from teachers unions."

Local school boards and local school board members are not members of the NSBA. They are members of the state school boards associations; e.g., the South Carolina School Boards Association (SCSBA). The SCSBA gets money from Richland 2. And SCSBA tells Richland 2 how to do certain things.

Apparently, it approved (or at least condoned) the use of personal email addresses by board members a few years ago. I was told that the reason was to allow the smallest, poorest school boards in the state to have email communications, when they were too small or too broke to afford their own email server.

And two people on the board here think that the SCSBA says it's okay for them to use gmail accounts. Well, if Federal and State FOIA laws count for anything, it's not okay.

Richland 2 is big enough to be telling the SCSBA, not the other way around.