Be sure to read the updated article in today's edition of The State newspaper about the blow-up at the April 28, 2022 Special-Called Board Meeting.
Did you see the press release put out by the Media Relations Dept. of Richland Two after the negative newspaper article was published?
I didn't, either.
The Richland 2 school board should appoint a Special Counsel to investigate the controversial events that took place at the closed session of the board during the Special-Called Board Meeting on April 28, 2022.
Word had started to leak out about the incident, and on May 5, 2002 The State newspaper published this article, updated today (May 6), which described Teresa Holmes' as having filed a report with the Richland County Sheriff's Department (RCSD) about threats made during what the District has called an executive session. Was it a "report" or was it a "complaint"?
The original article said Teresa reported that another board member got into it with a colleague on the board. That's three people involved; Teresa (reporting), one board member, and another board member (colleague).
Today's revised article, second paragraph, reads, "Chairwoman Teresa Holmes filed the report with the Richland County Sheriff’s Department after a special called meeting April 28, during which another board member reportedly cursed another member and threatened to 'beat her Mo....Fu.....A..,' according to the report."
Is that still three people involved, or is Teresa the "victim" at whom the alleged threats were hurled?
If the reporter got most of his information yesterday from the RCSD report, how accurate was the report? I have filed a FOIA Request for the report, so that I can read it myself.
The updated article includes comments from some board members. It does not state at whom any threats were directed. What's the secret?
Where is the statement from Richland 2 Media Relations? They were so quick to publish a statement defending the superintendent after the January 25th incident.
The District cannot be trusted to investigate itself. Certainly, employees of the District are not going to investigate board members. Since all board members were at that meeting, they cannot investigate themselves. The superintendent, who is employed by the board, is not going to investigate them.
The public should demand an independent outside investigation, regardless of any action taken by RCSD.
A Special Counsel should have been appointed at the end of January to investigate everything that took place on January 25, just before the board convened its regular meeting. Teresa Holmes refused to investigate what happened, passing the buck off to RCSD which, in only one day, decided that no crime had been committed.
Let's review the crimes that were committed on January 25. Disruption of schools? Disorderly conduct? Assault? A woman becomes disruptive in the meeting room, shouting loudly after a man (I) attempted to introduce himself. According to a 14-year-old student in the room, that same woman used profane language toward him twice. The superintendent, who is the husband of that woman, is alleged to have charged at a man who intervened as the woman was swearing at the student and was allegedly restrained by school district security officers and one or more board members.
Had an honest board of trustees carefully examined all the FACTS of that incident, they would have been forced to discipline the woman (a teacher in Richland 2) and the superintendent. And they would have ruled that the Trespass Notices delivered to Gary Ginn and me were unwarranted.
The public should show up at every board meeting and demand a public investigation of what occurred on April 28. The next board meeting is Tuesday, May 10, 2022.
Maybe, if it is "good". And if it's not?
Back in March 2019, shortly after I began addressing the school board about two illegitimate board members (Holmes and McKie), I sent an email to the entire board on a Wednesday, stating that if I was not informed by Friday that the two women would be legally sworn in before the following Tuesday's board meeting, then on that Friday I would file charges against them. That email was sent about 10:30AM.
By 1:00PM Teresa Holmes was at the sheriff's department to file a report that I was harassing her.
Why would she leave work in Blythewood and hot-foot it to 5623 Two Notch Road in Columbia?
The next day a RCSD sergeant called me from the Criminal Investigations Division. I answered my cell phone while I was in the backyard, cleaning up dog poop. As soon as he told me why he was calling, I knew I was not going to "give" him anything. I was fully aware of "You have the right to remain silent" and "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law".
I was polite and listened to him, and then I thanked him for calling, telling him I was busy at home. When he said he wanted to get my side of the story, I said, "I'm sure you would."
I told him I wanted to read Teresa's report. I drove to RCSD. He met me at the front door and guided me up to the office of the Deputy Chief of Criminal Investigations. That might worry a lot of people. Me? No problem. I walked in and introduced myself.
I read the deputy's report. Then I told them they didn't have anything. Pointing to the first part, I said that was a lie. And the second. And the third, etc. Everything that the deputy had written was false. Where had he gotten his information? From Teresa Holmes. And the deputy had failed to get a written statement from Teresa.
And that was the end of it.
Now, I had the advantage of eight years' experience as a reserve deputy sheriff in Colorado. I've never gone to law school, but I was accepted twice at the University of Denver School of Law. A State Trooper in Colorado told me I knew the traffic laws better than most of his officers. I've worked with lawyers. I can read and understand the law.
So, why did Teresa run down to RCSD to make a report after last Thursday's special-called board meeting? Did she go there, or did she make the report to a deputy at or near R2i2? Did she think she was culpable? Was yesterday's article in The State accurate? Was the RCSD deputy's report about the 4/28/22 confrontation accurate?
Were three people involved on April 28? Teresa Holmes, her colleague, and a "suspect"? Or only two? Did a board member comment on Teresa's ability to run a meeting? Is that what started it?
The State newspaper reports on the April 28, 2022 Special-Called Board Meeting. At 3:22PM today reporter Bristow Marchant published an article below this headline: "Police report says one Richland 2 school board member threatened to ‘beat’ another"
Read the article at: https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article261126992.html#storylink=cpy"
The article opens with "The chairwoman of the Richland 2 school board filed a police report on another board member who threatened during a heated exchange at the last board meeting to beat one of her colleagues".
My first question is, why would Teresa Holmes file a police report, if she is not involved? Was she the victim? That's not what the first sentence says. The first sentence intimates that two other board members were involved.
The reporter wrote that Holmes declined to comment to The State.
Executive Sessions are supposed to be confidential. So why did Holmes make the complaint? Seems to me that if a person was threatened, that person needs to make the complaint. Not Holmes.
Just a couple of days ago I was reminded of Holmes' "report" against me for harassing her in 2019. I'm still laughing over that one.
Holmes had a knee-jerk reaction to the emails I was sending to the board about McKie and her being illegitimate members of the board. After one of the emails, she hot-footed it down to RCSD in the middle of her workday in Blythewood and made a "report". The deputy's statement of what Holmes said was full of lies, and the "report" went nowhere. I should have had her charged with Filing a False Police Report. You can read one of the stories I wrote about that on March 21, 2019 right here: https://richland2sd.blogspot.com/2019/03/citizen-accused-by-r2-board-member.html
The article does not mention that any charges were filed, and there is no record of charges in the public record of the Fifth Judicial Circuit Public Index, as of right now.
The article mentioned that a board member recorded ("filmed") the exchange. Wouldn't that be an improper use of cell phone on school property, according to Board Policy?
The reporter's final sentence in today's article is erroneous. He wrote, "Two people were removed from the meeting by law enforcement and formally warned not to return to the property."
After the meltdown by Pamela Davis at the January 25th board meeting, I was not removed from the meeting by law enforcement.
Why was an illegal executive session held by the Richland Two school board on April 28, 2020?
This good explanation of the rule for entering executive session comes from an organization of public bodies, like school boards, in South Carolina.
"Before going into executive session, the council must vote, in open session, to enter executive session and state the specific purpose and open meeting exception for the closed door meeting. Councils must be as specific as possible without compromising the issue. The motion to enter executive session should be specific, such as 'to go into executive session to discuss applications for employment within [a specific department]' or 'to discuss negotiation of a contract and receipt of legal advice related to a building project.'" (Source: Municipal Association of South Carolina)
When trustee-elect Amelia McKie made her motion at the beginning of the Special-Called Board Meeting on April 28, 2020, she said it was for the purpose of a safety and security meeting. McKie gave no specifics.
In fact, many thought the meeting was for the purpose of organizing the work of the Committee of the Whole, which would not qualify for an executive session.
I recognized immediately that she had not stated a purpose. And she certainly did not cite the exception provided in South Carolina law.
Had there been a Parliamentarian present, that professional would have called attention to the wording of the Motion and urged the board to halt business right on the spot. Maybe this is one of the reasons that the Richland 2 school board does not utilize the services of a Parliamentarian.
Had one of the minority three on the board questioned the wording and the intention to enter into executive session, after a Second there would have been discussion. Then the board would have voted. Regardless of arguments presented, the board majority would have voted 4-3 to go into executive session.
Because the board was about to enter an illegal, non-public session, the three members of the minority should have left the meeting. The meeting would have stopped for lack of a quorum.
