Another Ethics Bill - S.188 - The Amelia McKie Bill

There is another ethics bill in the South Carolina Senate. This one is S. 188 and is aimed directly at Amelia McKie. If the Senators get busy and pass this bill, McKie will not be able to file to run for re-election. Let's call this one The Amelia McKie Bill.

S. 188 will prohibit a person from filing to run for office, if the person owes outstanding fines to the S.C. Ethics Commission. 

At last report McKie owes $57,100 in fines and fees to the S.C. Ethics Commission. That's up from the $51,700 judgment filed on 7/10/2019 in the Richland County Common Pleas Court. 

Case No. 2019CP4003809

S.188 was filed in the Senate on December 9, 2020. On January 12, 2021 it was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And there it has sat, gathering dust. Why???

A good friend of McKie, S.C. Sen. Mia McLeod, is on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Wouldn't her sworn duty to the People of South Carolina require her to move her feet and kick S.188 to a discussion and vote. Or are her feet stuck in the swamp because of friendship?

I have written to Sen. McLeod several times (I'm a constituent in her District), asking her to address McKie's debt with her. I don't even get the courtesy of an acknowledgement (other than the formatted auto-reply) or a response.

Write to Sen. McLeod and ask her to move S.188 to a vote and ask her to vote in favor of it. And then check to see how she voted. And remember that the next time she is up for re-election.

On the State Legislative website, you can send an email to all members of the Judiciary Committee, as a whole, and to all Senators. Today I emailed the Judiciary Committee members and all Senators.

Go to www.scstatehouse.gov

Click on Senate

Click on Email (second line)

Click on All Senate Members

Write "Dear Judiciary Committee Members and all Senators"

Then tell them what you want them to do.

You can track S.188 by going from the Legislative homepage to S.188 by entering S 188 in the Quick Search box. Look down for S 188 and click on it.

Bye-bye, Amelia.

Was the Supt. at work on Friday, Jan. 14?

If you remember, it was on Tuesday, January 11th that the Regular Board Meeting was adjourned early, after the superintendent suffered a health event and was transported to an emergency room.

Many well-wishers prayed and sent Get Well messages to him, and he thanked all on Tuesday, Jan. 18 in a message to staff and parents. He wrote in his message that he was looking forward "to fully returning to my regular schedule..."

In other words, he hadn't yet (Jan. 18) returned to his regular, full-time schedule. Does anyone else read it that way?

How ill was he?"

Not so ill that he couldn't keep a speaking engagement in Charleston on Friday morning, January 14, when he was scheduled to deliver a talk titled "Reimagining Education" at the 2022 Winter Conference of SCABSE.

What is SCABSE? It's the South Carolina Alliance of Black School Educators.

Supt. Davis was scheduled to speak from 9:10-9:45AM. Who was in charge of Richland 2, when he was away from the District that day?

The Assistant Superintendent is Marshalynn Franklin. Was she at work that Friday, keeping the District running smoothly?

Franklin was at the SCABSE Conference and scheduled to conduct the Welcome on Saturday morning at 8:00-8:03AM

Did Franklin drive to Charleston Friday after work or really early on Saturday morning? Or was she at the conference on Friday, too? If she was, who was on duty at Richland Two, if both the superintendent and assistant superintendent were out of town?

The program for the Winter Conference identifies Supt. Davis as not only Superintendent of Richland Two, but also as "President, SCABSE @ SC Superintendents".

With all his extracurricular activities and side-gigs, how does Richland 2 get his full-time services for the annual salary of $244,000?

Next Board Meeting: Jan. 25

Be sure to attend the board meeting on Tuesday, January 25, 2022, at 6:30PM at R2i2. If you don't wish to attend in person, connect via livestream.com/richland2

If you want to speak at the meeting, you must sign up by 6:15PM. Sign-up begins at 5:30PM.

Speakers address the board usually in the order of signing up, but not always. I was #9 at a recent meeting but was the last (#15) to address the board, thanks to the chair's control of speaking order. 

There are two forms. You must sign on one form and fill out the second.

Now, there is no good reason for the second form. Why do they require it? Because they can. It's kind of like the Golden Rule. The one with the gold rules. It's called "control".

By the time of Public Participation in Tuesday's meeting, the chair should have a better understanding of when a member of the public can mention a board member's name without encountering the chair's objection. During the executive session (5:31-6:30PM) the board is scheduled to receive legal advice on Board Policy BEDH - Public Participation.

Policy BEDH reads that you can't "complain" about a board member (who is a person connected with the school system). If you don't complain about a board member, there should be no reason for the chair to shut down a speaker.

We'll see how this works out on Tuesday.

Open Letter to the R2 School Board

The following email has been sent to the Richland 2 School Board:

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

On the agenda for your 1/25/2022 Executive Session is Item 2.4 Receipt of Legal Advice, including Policy BEDH - Public Participation.

Will you please ask the attorney, specifically, why members of the public cannot mention a board member by name?

I believe Chair Holmes is applying the Policy incorrectly, when she admonishes members of the public not to mention a name of a board member.

Policy BEDH, under Open Forum, reads, in part, "The board will not permit in public session any expression of personal complaints [emphasis added] about individual school personnel or any other person connected with the school system."

It does not state that a board member's name cannot be mentioned. It does not prohibit a comment about a board member's position on an issue. It does not forbid a compliment about a board member. It does not prohibit a statement in defense of a board member.

Please clarify for the Chair that she cannot make up her own rules for Public Participation. She can only apply BEDH as it is written. If she is going to quote Board Policy, please ask her to quote it accurately and not "interpret" or expand it.

Thank you.

Gus Philpott

How is the Supt.?

Supt. Davis posted a message to parents and staff on Tuesday afternoon about his return to work.

No media release was issued, but his message can be viewed at www.smore.com/b3xys

Reading between the lines, my guess is that he worked part of the day on Friday, Jan. 14. And when he wrote on Tuesday that he is looking forward to "...fully returning to my regular schedule..", then I'd say he hadn't yet returned to full-time work.

Or is it just careless construction of the message?

And what's with "Superintendent Dr. Davis"?

Isn't "Supt. Davis" adequate?

I'm frequently reminded of his style to use many words, when a few would suffice.

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."