Should Holmes be cited for violating the County's facemask ordinace?

And should Holmes be sanctioned for violating the school district's face mask (shield) policy?

Have you noticed the amount of time that Holmes holds her faceshield in her hand, rather than putting it back on her face after speaking?

In fact, why does she even remove it to speak? There is no doubt that her voice will carry through or around the faceshield. 

It seems that the rules apply to everyone - board members, staff, audience, security officers, RCSD deputies - except Teresa Holmes. 

The superintendent is sitting right there. Why doesn't he say something to her? 

Vice-Chair Manning is sitting right there. Why doesn't he say something to her?

Her buddy, Amelia McKie, is sitting right there. Why doesn't she say something to Holmes?

Is it a case of "Rules for thee, but not for me"?

Should Judicial Watch sue Richland 2?

I received an email this week from Judicial Watch, reporting its "win" against the City of Asheville, N.C. in a Federal lawsuit. What was the lawsuit?

Judicial Watch had sued the City of Asheville, N.C. over its racially-discriminatory scholarship program.

Would Judicial Watch file a lawsuit against Richland 2 for its 100 Premier Men of Color Program?

Should a lawsuit even be necessary? When district residents complain about a discriminatory activity by the School District, shouldn't that be enough for the School Board to rein in the superintendent and end a discriminatory program?

This Program has appaerntly never been approved by the Richland 2 School Board. The superintendent reminded the board last year that he is not evaluated on it in his annual performance review. Yet he seems to devote considerable time to it. Recently, Service Solutions (the district's contracted janitorial company) began donating $15,000/year to the district with "strings attached". 

The City of Asheville caved pretty quickly. Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit in October 2021, and it was over on January 11, 2022, when the Asheville City Council approved a settlement.

The January 15, 2022 email from Judicial Watch read:

"The City of Asheville, North Carolina, settled our federal civil rights lawsuit after agreeing to remove all racially discriminatory provisions in a city-funded scholarship program. The city also agreed to remove racially discriminatory eligibility provisions in a related program that provides grants to educators. The City Council approved the settlement on January 11.

"In October 2021, we filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on behalf of a North Carolina citizens group, WNC Citizens for Equality, Inc., whose members include high school students who were ineligible for a scholarship program only because they are not Black (WNC Citizens for Equality, Inc., v. City of Asheville et al. (No. 1:21-cv-00310)). (The Legal Insurrection Foundation partnered with us in the lawsuit.)

"Here’s the background. On May 5, 2021, the City of Asheville entered into an agreement with the Asheville City Schools Foundation to establish and administer the City of Asheville Scholarship Fund. According to the agreement, the City of Asheville Scholarship is “awarded in perpetuity to Black high school students within Asheville City Schools, with special consideration given for Black students pursuing a career in education.” (In July 2020, Ashville’s City Council unanimously approved what is called a “reparations initiative,” that provided “funding to programs geared toward increasing homeownership and business and career opportunities for Black residents.”)

"To settle our civil rights lawsuit, on January 11, 2022, Asheville’s City Council approved a resolution that removes the racial criteria for the scholarship:

[T]he scholarship will give preference to applicants whose household members, including parents and/or guardians have a high school education or less, these applicants representing “first generation” college students.
 

"The City Council also removed racially discriminatory language for a scholarship program for educators and staff of Asheville City Schools.

"The scholarship agreements were also amended to prohibit discrimination based on race and other categories.

"Our clients, a group of Asheville residents, including high school students, courageously challenged this blatantly discriminatory and illegal scholarship program in federal court.

"Thankfully, the City of Asheville did the right thing in quickly ending these indefensible race-based scholarship programs.

"This federal lawsuit and the resulting remarkable settlement should serve as a wake-up call to those activists and allied politicians pushing the extremist leftist agenda to segregate and discriminate based on race."

Who was hired?

Last Fall the District advertised for an executive assistant for the board chair. As I recall, the pay was $40,-45,000/year. The list of duties was a mile long, as is typical when HR writes up a job description.

Was anyone ever hired?

My big question at the time was why would the District spend $45,000/year for a secretary to the board chair, whose pay is $12,000 for the part-time position.

There is no way that there can be that much work to do. 

But maybe a big part of the pay is for the assignment in a combat zone. Imagine trying to tell Holmes that "you can't do that." Would anyone dare? When you watch how Holmes treats her equals on the board (and they are her equals), what would it be like to be her subordinate?

Did the District find a taker for that job? Anyone know?

Daily Updates on Supt.?

Is the board chair providing daily updates to the trustees on Supt. Davis' health?

Do they know when he will return to work and whether he will return full-time?

Has the authority for running the District been turned over to the second-in-command, whoever that is?

Why do I ask? Richland School District Two is a business that is rolling along on a $300,000,000+ annual budget, delivering education to 28,000 students and employing 3,000+ men and women.

Seven Trustees are responsible for directing this business. What's in place are five legal trustees and two trustees-elect. So I guess the true situation is that five trustees and two usurpers are directing the show.

But are they? They should be, but are they?

Take a really close look at this board. If Richland 2 were a Fortune 500 business, would you want that board directing business? Seriously?

There is an election coming up on November 9, 2022. Four trustees (as it happens, it's the Core Four (or The Squad)) will watch their terms expire. They are Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker, and Manning. All four should not be re-elected. 

The District cannot afford a repeat performance of the opening of the first 15 minutes of the January 11, 2022 board meeting.

Which of the trustees would have qualified for this seat at the Jan. 11th meeting?

Who's on First?

Who is running Richland 2 School District?

I sent an email to the board this morning, with a copy to Supt. Davis, among others, and I received an auto-response (11:23AM) from the supt's office that read 

"Thank You for your message.  I am currently away from the office. If you need immediate assistance, please contact my executive assistant  Georgette Council at gcouncil@richland2.org or (803) 738-3236 for assistance. 

Is he taking some time off to recover from his health incident at the board meeting on Tuesday evening? If so, that's understandable.

Who is in charge in his absence?

Has the board been informed, if he is away from the office for health reasons?

Holmes violates facemask rule and Ordinance

Today the following email has been sent to the Richland Two school board:

Members of the board and trustees-elect Holmes and McKie,

Please watch the first 15 minutes of the reconvened 1/11/2022 meeting (YouTube) and be aware of the amount of time Teresa Holmes holds her face shield, instead of wearing it.

You, except Teresa, wore your masks. The staff, audience, security officers and deputy sheriffs were required to wear their masks.

Why is the facemask rule not imposed on Holmes? She could wear it and speak into her microphone; she should wear it all the time, just as everyone else is required to do. Should she be subject to arrest by deputies for violating the Richland County facemask ordinance?

I request a written response from the District that will assure me of my physical safety from COVID exposure at future meetings by requiring Holmes to wear her facemask/shield. 

This email was sent to Trustees Agostini, Scott, McFadden, Manning and Caution-Parker, to trustees-elect Holmes and McKie, with copies to Supt. Davis, Security Director Marq Claxton, Chief of Operatons, Will Anderson, Chief Financial Officer Harry Miley, Diversity Chief DEI Officer Helen Grant, and Chief Communications Officer Libby Roof.

The board has the authority to insist on compliance by Teresa Holmes. If they can't get it done, the supt. can direct Marq Claxton to sanction Holmes and issue her a Trespass Notice for refusing to wear the mask/face-shield on school property. 

Inaccurate ending of 1/11/2022 meeting.

There is poor editing at the end of 1/11/2022 recording which Richland 2 has published on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gWtpQ_SGQY

Toward the end of the amended recording, the superintendent spoke and then trustee-elect Holmes spoke about the presentation on a survey regarding face masks.

Then Holmes' voice can be heard, stating, "I am making an executive order, an executive decision that this meeting has been adjourned."

While she is speaking, this screen is displayed.

What was obviously cut out of the video was the view of Supt. Davis' health event. A period of time passed while he was assisted by some in the room and during which EMS arrived and removed him from the building. And then Holmes announced adjournment of the meeting.

The meeting was not adjourned at the time Holmes spoke. In the interest of accuracy, there is a better way that this ending of the meeting could have been conveyed. It's an editing issue by R2 staff, not of the board.