Why I write this blog

See this symbol at the bottom of each article?

This means you can email the article to someone you'd like to know about it. Please click on it often and forward article. Invite your friends, family, neighbors, and work colleagues to follow this blog. It is my hope that they will be able to make better decisions at the polls on November 9th.

If you owned the $1,000,000,000 that Richland 2 is, would you keep the four who constitute the majority of the board around much longer? Would you tell them to stop bickering and start working together?

I don't see any record of who forwards articles. No email addresses (yours or that of the person to whom you forward an article) are mined or used for anything. I don't care who forwards articles, and I appreciate you if you do.

What I do see is the counter on this blog. Today it is at 46,760. These are pageviews, not unique visitors. That's up substantially from a few months ago. 

Why have I continued to write this blog?

1. McKie has not paid down her $57,100 fine to the S.C. Ethics Commission!

2. Holmes and McKie have never taken the oath-of-office legally. They are not legitimate members of the school board.

3. The school board is in chaos. In all my years in business I have never seen anything like it. The disrespect shown by the majority to the minority (three) members on the board is inexcusable.

4. In spite of two workshops that were to heal the chaos, the chaos and disorder on March 22 were as bad as they have ever been.

You may have noticed that this blog is not monetized. It's free. Please spread the word.

Lies & Omissions on March 22

What were some of the lies and omissions at the March 22 Richland 2 school board meeting?

The discussion of Board Policy KE - Public Concerns and Complaints was, to say the least, contentious.

The biggest deception came from Supt. Davis' explanation of the existing Policy. Davis will never be accused of being at a loss for words. Or of being a Man of Few Words. If something can be said in ten words, you can count on him to use 100 or more.

Davis said repeatedly that the Board could be swamped with complaints from the public. He even read the Policy out loud. Yet no one said, "You have told us about the policy, and what you just read is not what you said." Why not?

Certainly the Core Four (Holmes, McKie, Manning, Caution-Parker) would never say that. And Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden are too polite to say that. But it needed to be said.

The old Police KE did not say the public could go straight to the Board. It said a person with a complaint could file the complaint with a board member. That board member then was required to forward the complaint to the superintendent. And the superintendent would be expected to investigate it.

What Supt. Davis never said was that people with complaints probably had already started with the "chain-of-command", as he preferred to call the pecking order. A parent probably started with the teacher and maybe went up to the Assistant Principal and even the Principal, before feeling blown off and then going to a board member for help.

What Supt. Davis did not say is that he would have reached down for all the information before making a decision. At least, he should have. What he did say is that he shouldn't have to make a decision without all the information. And he was correct.

But he would NOT have made a decision without "all the information". Nothing prevented him from getting information from staff or teachers.

Under the old Policy KE, the person who was then dissatisfied with the superintendent's decision had the right to appeal to the Board. And the Board had to hear the complaint. 

When the Board voted 4-3 on Tuesday night, it stripped that required hearing of an appeal from the revised Policy. It stripped the public's RIGHT from the policy.

Why would Holmes, McKie, Manning and Caution-Parker want to strip that right from a parent (or even from a community member)?

Ask them. And let us know what they say.

COVID "guidance" - unbiased?

Parents ought to be interested in this FoxNews article about COVID-19, the CDC, and school re-opening data.

The FoxNews headline is: "Biden admin operated with missing data as CDC iisued pandemic guidance, emails show". Check it out right here.

How involved in writing school re-opening guidance were teachers' unions?

What about learning loss?

You know that famous phrase, don't you? "I'm from the Government. You can trust me."

The next Richland 2 school board meeting will be Thursday, April 7. Following that, board meetings return to Tuesdays, April 26, and May 10. Put these meetings in your schedule and show up in-person. Watching online is not good enough. Let the board meetings see your faces.

Are you sick and tired of the chaos and the lies? The March 22 meeting had both. Don't settle for it. Pay attention. 

And post comments here and write Letters to the Editor of The State, the Post and Courier, and The Voice of Blythewood. Get your letters out where people will see and read them. Post comments on Facebook and NextDoor.

It is imperative that you understand the lies that were told on March 22. Ask the Core Four (Holmes, McKie, Manning and Caution-Parker) why they tolerated the lies! Demand answers.

Demand Corrections.

4 Hrs. 26 Min. - 3/22/22 - Whew!

NOTE: This post was written on Wed., March 23, and held, as I intended to insert links to the comments made by two speakers. The District appears to have eliminated the option of selecting specific portions of the recording. The links now are to the livestream.com/richland2 recording and it will be necessary to move the timer bar to the time shown. (3/24/2022)

Last night's school board meeting ran, from start to finish, for FOUR (4) hours 26 minutes. What in the world is wrong with the Board leadership (or lack thereof)?

I stuck it out through Item 8.3 (revision to Board Policy KE) and then bailed out, only to return later during the board and superintendent comments.

Why won't Holmes tell McKie to just introduce the Inspirational Moment? A good introduction would be about 30 seconds. Is McKie practicing her Toastmasters' skills and preparing to host the next Academy Awards? Sheesh! Just introduce the speaker! A good introduction would have been, "Tonight's inspirational moment will be presented by Jaiden Bostic, a 5th Grade student at Round Top Elementary." To hear McKie tell it, Jaiden is an "award-winning actor". Seriously? "Published author". Seriously? And calling a 10-year-old "sir"? What nonsense!

And who set up Jaiden? He is an accomplished student, but did he write his entire act? Two-three minutes of inspiration would have been sufficient, rather than the commercials for his website, book and book-signing. livestream.com/richland2 (1:07.19)

Holmes had already thanked Jaiden, in her overly-gushing manner, and then McKie delayed the Pledge of Allegiance with her own unnecessary comments. And referring to him as "Mr. Bostic"? Dumb. Absolutely dumb! I'll tell you - November won't come soon enough for Richland 2!!! 

Question for Holmes? After a Motion is seconded, she calls for discussion. When there is none, she says, "Seeing none ..." and calls for the vote. How does one see discussion? How about "hearing none...", Teresa?

There were only three speakers last night. Holmes couldn't even read the first speaker's name correctly. Manuel Cabrera. She read his first name as Marvin. If she needs glasses, Teresa should get over her vanity and wear them! Is it carelessness? uncaring? or just plain disrespect on her part? 

And isn't Larry's last name "Smalls"? Not Small. Again, carelessness on Teresa's part?

Perhaps I should start referring to "Theresa Homes". Would she even notice?

Somebody should explain to Mr. Cabrera that it is not the District's responsibility to provide a safe walking route through his neighborhood. Buses? Yes, maybe. Sidewalks or path through the woods? No.

Joe Trapp and Larry Smalls spoke on the topic on the agenda item, Board Police KE. Listen to them here:

Joe Trapp: livestream.com/richland2 (1:27:00)

Larry Smalls: livestream.com/richland2  (1:30:00)

The Core Four had their minds made up on KE, but thanks to Joe and Larry for speaking up and trying to remind the The Core Four that the Public is still present and accounted for.

Richland 2 - playing a new game?

Something has changed in the past two weeks! Through the date of the previous board meeting, it was possible to watch the YouTube version of the meeting video and snag out a segment, using a webtool called Vibby. This allowed copying a portion of the meeting, such as the remarks of a speaker during Public Participation, and placing a link in a webpost or blog.

This allowed me (and others) to write: "Look at this" and all the reader would have to do is click on the link. The link would take the viewer directly to that portion of the meeting video.

And now? Look what shows up when the District's video link is pasted into the Vibby webtool.

An email will be on the way this afternoon to Richland 2 to ask if they placed that restriction and, if so, why?

Agostini & Scott wanted more time on Policy KE

As the discussion to revise Board Policy KE continued at the March 22, 2022 board meeting, Trustee Scott said she would like the board to have more time to discuss and revise Policy KE.

Pick up her statement on livestream.com/richland2 at (2:04:00). 

What she should have done is make a motion. Saying "What I would like ..." doesn't make anything happen. Most probably, she would have been outvoted by Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker and Manning. But the only way to make something happen is to make a motion.

After Trustee Scott finished speaking, the superintendent butted in without asking to be recognized. (2:05:20) He re-stated that a community member or parent still has the right to complain to a board member. And the board member must refer the complaint "to the Office of the Superintendent".

Ahh, there's the third-person reference. Why doesn't he just say "to me" or "to my office"?

He said, "... the current policy allows the person to skip the chain-of-command and bring the grievance directly to the board."      WRONG!

He erred in his explanation of how a complaint to the board is handled by him. He inferred that he must make a decision based only on the information forwarded to him by a board member. That is just plain stupid. Of course, he would investigate it before making a decision. Who is he kidding? But no one challenged him!!!!

Here is where it got personal, although Baron didn't mention me by name.

(2:09:00) He said, in his experience, this Policy was brought up only one time. "And it was when we brought it to the attention of one constituent, who is now attempting to use it multiple times to inundate the work.. " 

And then he subjugates the District to the SCSBA...

Here's the deal ...  When the District mailed me the Trespass Notice, it contained NO appeal process. I inquired and was told there was NO appeal process. At that time I was NOT informed of Policy KE. But I did not let a little thing like no-appeal-process stop me. I filed an appeal, anyway!

I started up the food chain. Will Anderson, COO is Marq Claxton's immediate superior. Above him was Harry Miley, CFO. Then Marshalynn Franklin, Deputy Superintendent. Then Baron Davis, Superintendent. NOTE: I followed the chain-of-command. Exactly!!!

When Will Anderson received my appeal of the Trespass Notice and handled it, he denied my appeal and did so as the Designee of the Superintendent. So there was no need to climb the chain-of-command. I had the Superintendent's decision, and it was unsatisfactory. So then I filed my complaint with the board.

They chose to hear it in private and refused to allow me to attend. How's THAT for Due Process, Doctor. Cheryl. Caution. Parker??? And then they voted in public, also without allowing me to attend and speak. Was that fair to me, Doctor. Cheryl. Caution. Parker? 

(2:09:25) Then Baron said, "We presented this Policy to the Board two weeks ago. There was no input from the community regarding this policy until today. We received two emails today (!) before this board meeting about this policy. But for two weeks after presenting first reading there was no comment from members of the board, nor were there comments from members of the public about concerns this policy at that time."

So my question to Supt. Davis is, WHAT HAPPENED TO MY EMAIL ON FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 2022 AT 9:56AM? Did not any member of the board forward that email to you? Didn't the Chair forward her copy to you? Didn't the Vice-Chair forward his copy to you? Didn't the Secretary forward her copy to you? Didn't Cheryl (Due Process, former Deputy Supt.) Caution-Parker forward her copy to you?

Here is what I wrote to the Board on March 18, 2022 about proposed revisions to Board Policy KE.

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

At the March 22, 2022 board meeting Administration brings to you a revision to Board Policy KE Public Concerns and Complaints.

I urge you to reject the revisions to Board Policy KE. The existing Policy KE is sufficient to give the "Public" a right that is proper.

This revision would likely not even be on the Agenda but for the disruption that occurred on January 25th and the fact that Gary Ginn and I are not quietly sulking in a corner. You know who caused that disruption. That is the elephant in the room.

The revision, following the Model South Carolina School Boards Association (SCSBA) policy serves the administration, not the public. Beginning in the first sentence the word "patron" shows up. Who is that in the school district? That reflects bureaucratic design and influence and it disrespects and diminishes the "Public".

Why should Public Concerns and Complaints be resolved in "as informal a manner as possible"? Complaints should be properly accepted, registered and resolved by a formal policy. A Complaint is just that, and it should be taken seriously.

How can the Human Resources Director be tasked under Board Policy AC with resolving Public Concerns and Complaints which, by definition, are not personnel issues.

The SCSBA represents the bureaucratic arm of school boards (the board and the Administration), not the Public.

Board Policy KE should represent the Public.

The paragraph addressing defamation of a staff member is completely unnecessary. That employee is adequately protected under common law. That paragraph is just a bullying technique or hammer to warn off the public. There again is the influence of the SCSBA. The SCSBA does not run the Richland 2 school board. You do.

The superintendent is accountable to the school board. Removing the board's obligation to ultimately resolve a complaint is unfair to the public. If you approve the revision to Policy KE, you abdicate your responsibility as elected officials. 

When Item 8.3 comes up on Tuesday, please vote NO.

Gus Philpott

How (old) Policy KE worked

Continued from livesteam.com/richland2 for March 22, 2022 at (1:56:35 )

Contrary to the explanation of the superintendent, here's how old Policy KE worked. A member of the public could complain to any board member, and that board member had to forward the complaint to the superintendent. 

A complaint to a board member is not a complaint to the board.

Upon receipt of the complaint, the superintendent should investigate it and respond to the board member. If the member of the public was not satisfied with the superintendent's decision, then he could register a complaint with the Board, and the Board was required to hear the grievance at the next Board meeting or a special-called board meeting.

This forced the superintendent to be accountable to the board. As he should be!!!

The chain-of-command was not violated, because the superintendent could always reach down for information. Presumably, the person complaining had already started up the food chain.

At 1:57:00 the superintendent unnecessarily referred to a past meeting when a person spoke at a board meeting and made some very harmful statements about an employee. What he failed to say was that the person had contacted the school over the prior week-end and, by the time of the following Tuesday night's board meeting, no one from the school or the district had contacted him. That's two business days!

The revised policy would not have helped at all, because the parent HAD contacted the school!!!

At 1:59:20 the superintendent again said that the (now-old) Policy KE lets a complaint go straight to the board. This is where I would have pulled a "Joe Wilson" and shouted "LIAR". That is simply untrue. More than "simply" untrue. It is a lie. 

Re-stated - the old KE allowed a person to complain to a board member. The board member had to forward it to the superintendent. If the superintendent's decision was unsatisfactory, the person then could file a complaint with the Board, and the Board was required to hear it. Under the new KE, now the board has the option to hear it or not.

Then Trustee McFadden asked how long the entire appeal process might take. The answer? Up to ten days at each step. Then the superintendent said it's not an unreasonable period of time because, in my words, people are busy.

Then Trustee Scott stated that Richland 2 runs Richland 2, and it doesn't have to accept the model policies from the SCSBA. She stated the proposed revisions were not in the best interests of the community, teachers, school board members. And she is concerned that the board is NOT obligated to address the complaint. RIGHT!!! 

What Trustee Scott should have done is make two motions. One: removed the defamation clause; Two: remove the option for the board not to address the complaint.