Service Solutions donates $25,000, but ...

At the March 8, 2022 board meeting everyone got all excited about a $25,000 donation from Service Solutions. Service Solutions has been contracting with Richland 2 for 28 or 29 years; no one was sure which.

Now the reason this may not be such a big deal, or worthy of a photo opp with the trustees and the superintendent, is that the $25,000 was not an unrestricted gift. The staffer called it "a BIG check", and Holmes referred to it as "a big deal".

Yes, $25,000 is a big deal - maybe. But it losts its luster for me, when it was explained that $20,000 of that amount is for ten $2,000 scholarships and $5,000 to the R2 Ready-to-Read program. Will Anderson clarified that the scholarships go to students of employees of the custodial staff (Service Solutions' employees). Will said they are given priority.

Thanks to Will Anderson for injecting truth and transparency into the presentation!

So, in other words, Service Solutions, rather than awarding the scholarships directly to employees' dependents, funnels $20,000 through Richland Two on the condition that it go back to children of its employees.

Is that a "donation"? Really?

Manning attacks Agostini

At the March 8, 2022 board meeting there was a COVID-19 Update. Following that update, Trustee Agostini thanked the staff. She also expressed disappointment that the majority of the board had not supported Trustee McFadden's request on February 8th for the update.

Then Trustee Manning just had to have his say. He commented on a logic class he had taken in college, where he learned the term "poisoning the well". He explained what that meant. Listen to this.

Tap this link to play that segment of the 3/8/2022 meeting: https://www.vibby.com/v/m1e6uRt3s2

Keep in mind that this board just spent hours in TWO workshops titled "Executive Coaching and Parliamentary Procedure". Those workshops were supposed to begin the healing of the chaos, discourtesy and disrespect on the board. Manning's body was there.  Both workshops. You can see it in the videos. But ...

So what did Manning do? He attacked Trustee Agostini for "poisoning the well".

Maybe, instead of logic, Manning's time in college would have been better spent in a class in Professional Courtesy.

Plus, his comment was a violation of Board Policy. He was disrespectful toward another trustee.

His comment about "poisoning the well" had absolutely nothing to do with the presentation! His comment should have been only about the presentation and not about a comment made by another member of the board.

Perhaps he feels safe from board discipline because he is part of The Core Four. If a complaint were filed against Manning, the board would hear it. Then the board would vote. The result of that vote would continue to secure Manning's seat, because it would be

Motion to censure Manning

Yes: Agostini, Scott, McFadden (3)

No: Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker, Manning (4)

Motion would fail.

But November 8th draws closer every day.

Equality or Equity - Employee Bonus

The school board apparently did not understand that the motion on which they voted on February 22 was NOT the same as the written request made by Administration, which was shown on the projection screen.

When the superintendent explained the request for $6.45 Million for full-time and part-time employee bonuses, he explained it from his favored position of equity, not equality.

The written request was from a position of Equality. All full-time employees would get a one-time bonus of $1,580, and all part-time employees would get a bonus of $789. Everyone in each group gets the same. That's what was sent out to the trustees in the board packet. That's really easy to program and pay. 

But the superintendent said all full-time employees would get a one-time bonus of $1,000 net after taxes, and all part-time employees would get a bonus of $500 net after taxes.

That is different. That's equity at work, just as the superintendent and many on his staff prefer. The same outcome, regardless of cost.

The trustee-elect McKie made a motion that followed the superintendent's error right down the rabbit hole. And that's what the trustees approved.

I wondered if Dr. Harry Miley, the Chief Financial Officer, was having palpitations as he listened to the superintendent and trustee-elect McKie. Why didn't he interrupt and correct the error, before the trustees voted?

My answer to that question is that he probably knows he'd better not interrupt or correct the superintendent in public. Maybe not even in private. Miley is a good guy. I'm sure he likes his job. 

So what if hours and hours of staff time will be required to program payroll computers to pay out exactly $1,000 net to full-time employees and exactly $500 net to part-time employees? After all, it's just taxpayer money. 

If an employee gets more or less than that exact amount, will he file a grievance? What will that cost? Maybe some employees will file a class-action suit against the district for more or less gross pay than the employee in the next cubicle.

Parents: Richland Two Restroom Policy?

Parents of Richland Two students, do you know what the restroom policy is at your child's school?

Aren't most restrooms designated for either boys or girls?

If your daughter is in the girls' restroom, does she want a boy walking in on her? Do you?

Looks like a boy, walks like a boy, talks like a boy? Is it a boy? Or is it a boy pretending to be a girl?

I am so glad that I do not have a child or a grandchild in public schools these days.

So, what's the deal? How is Richland Two handling the transgender issue? Can a boy decide he wants to be a girl and then just walk into a girls' restroom?

What about locker rooms for students who participate in sports and who change into sports clothing or a uniform? Or don their swimsuits? Do girls have to allow boys in the changing room? 

So, parents, how do you feel about that? And how do your children feel about it?

Are your children being brainwashed and conditioned in their schools to go along with the woke leadership and policies that somebody else puts together? Did you get a chance to add your input? 

What if enough parents go against the flow and say, "No more"? Will they be able to say it loudly and publicly enough that their protests won't get buried in someone's closet?

Just how big is the transgender population in Richland Two schools? 1%? Less than 1%? Should 99% of the students have to put up with something that the 1% want?

What, exactly, are Richland Two's Policies, procedures and Administrative Rules on this topic?

Administrative Rules - don't step on that crack, Kiddo!

Recently I asked the District for its procedure for issuing Trespass Notices. 

Do you know there is a whole set of rules, regulations, guidelines, etc. that apply to almost anyone connected in any way with the school district? If you looked at the Board Policies and thought "Federal Government, move over", wait 'til you start reading the Administrative Rules, referred to as AR something-or-other.

When you have insomnia some night, you'll want to start learning them. Or maybe you won't. I'm not even sure where to find them on the District's website. Or IF you can find them there.

It's a little like driving into a small town where the 15MPH Speed Limit sign has been knocked down, and you get pulled over by Gomer Pyle and he tickets you for speeding. 

Here is the section that interested me:

“No Trespass” Notices 

District and school administrators, after school or after hours program managers, district security and safety staff, school resource officers or other on-duty, or extra-duty law enforcement officers assigned to work at a school or event may issue a verbal or written “no trespass” notice for the school facility, delay the entry of a person for cause, or ask for the removal any such individual as necessary. On-duty law enforcement officers patrolling a school campus after-hours may also issue a “no trespass” notice to individuals who are not in compliance with a school’s “no trespass” sign or rules, are causing a disturbance, or are not in compliance with a local law while on school property. 

I was immediately interested in the wording that allows a designated person to issue a notice "for the school facility..."

Clearly that means "the" facility where a violation (not necessarily a "crime") occurred. The AR does not say that the notice can be issued for all school "properties, facilities, campuses and buildings". It reads "property".That's singular.

So I have filed another Complaint against Marq Claxton for misapplying the AR and have requested that the Trespass Notice to me be rescinded and that all erroneous notices currently in effect be canceled.

Further, the AR does not guide the authorized person about the period of time for the Notice. Therefore, it is vague, indefinite, indeterminate, unclear and unenforceable, because all Notices seem to be issued for the remainder of the School Year.

Who will be first to get $6.4 Million?

(Click to enlarge wording)

At last night's (3/8/2022) school board meeting the Trustees approved the Minutes of the February 22nd meeting. Those Minutes included Item 9.1 Budget Surplus and the allocation of $6.45 million for a "one-time bonus of $1,000 net after taxes to all full-time, permanent employees and a one-time bonus of $500 net after taxes to all part-time employees."

Even though the verbal explanation of the bonus by the superintendent did not agree with the written document and even though the Motion was wrong, the trustees passed the verbal motion. 

So it looks like the employees will get their one-time bonuses before I can get my hands on that money.

But I didn't want "that" money, anyway. 

When the District has to compensate me for what the Media Relations Dept published about me and what the Chair and Vice-Chair said about me, that is the money I'll get. And get it, I shall.

Holmes & Her Cell Phone

What was the delay last night following the Pledge of Allegiance?

Did anyone else notice it?

As the trustees sat down, the camera shifted to Teresa Holmes. (1:22:29)  Teresa sat down and immediately picked up her cell phone from her desk. Holding it in her lap, she apparently read some message on it. Then she looked briefly at the screen on her tablet and back down at her phone, which she was holding in her lap below the top of the desk.

She continued to read it, ignoring the rest of the board and the public, as they awaited her calling the next item on the agenda. She fumbled trying to drop it in her purse and was further distracted. 

Why didn't the Vice Chair say, "Madam Chair, we are waiting for you"?

Finally, she hit the button on her microphone and the meeting continued.

Board Policy BEDL Board Members and Electronic Communications

"Board members will not communicate electronically during meetings with members of the public, other board members, or school district staff regarding official school board business, agenda items, or other board matters that are properly discussed publicly during board meetings, as such communications are subject to public disclosure under the state open meeting laws. Board members will refrain from such electronic communications during board meetings on both personal and district owned devices. Electronic communication means, but is not limited to, email, tweets, texts, phone calls, web posts, and other similar electronic communication."

What was the nature of her electronic communication that interrupted her attention to board business?

Will she say, "Oh, that was personal and not subject to BEDL"?

Can we believe her?

Should I submit a FOIA Request for her phone usage at that point of the meeting? Why was her phone even out on her desk, after the meeting started?