Can/Should Richland 2 Bully a Citizen?

Richland 2 School District rivals the Federal Government with Board Policies and Administrative Rules.

If you have insomnia some night, go to www.Richland2.org   At the top right corner, click on EXPLORE. Then click on School Board. Then click on BOARD POLICIES. 

In the left column, you see Sections A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K, L and ADDITONAL INFORMATION OF INTEREST.

What you won't see is Section H.

You'd think the Board would follow its Policies; right? And you'd think that Administration would follow Administrative Rules; right?

What happens when the Administration abuses an Administrative Rule? NOTHING!

Consider AR KI-R. That's Administrative Rule KI-R, which is found in Section KI Visitors. In particular, look at the section for "No Trespass" Notices.

Read the wording carefully. It reads, in part, 

"... (Security staff) assigned to work at a school or event may issue a verbal or written "no trespass" notice for the school facility ..."

It states "for the school facility". That's singular. That's for one (1) facility. Is there any interpretation of "the facility" that could mean "more than one" or "all"?

Now how does the School District bully a parent or community member?

The Trespass Notice issued by and signed by the Director of Safety & Security bans the alleged offending party from "ALL [sic] Richland School District Two properties, facilities, campuses and buildings". This includes the Sandhills Library, which leases its space from Richland 2. 

Administrative staff refuse to discuss this abuse of AR KI-R with me. They refuse to explain why they believe they can ban me from ALL properties, not just R2i2.

I have filed a formal complaint with the Board Chair. She refuses to process it, as required in Board Policy KE. Recent emails go unanswered.

It appears my only recourse is to haul Richland 2 into court. 

The Trespass Notice expires on June 30, 2022 at 11:59PM. Should I spend money to fight Richland 2? On principle, I should. However, I would expect the District, in possession of millions of taxpayer dollars, to bury me in legal motions, in order to run up my legal expense which I, not they, pay. They would spend your money to defend a position that cannot be defended.

The Board Chair, the three other board members in the majority, the superintendent, and the director of safety & security blocked me from attending the February 22, 2022 board meeting, when my grievance was heard in executive session and voted on in open session. 

Should Richland 2 get away with bullying me and any other person to whom the Trespass Notice was improperly broadened to apply to ALL properties, not just "the" (one) building?

NoeGenesis Group, LLC - where is it?

On  December 5, 2013 Baron Davis incorporated The NoeGenesis Group, LLC in South Carolina. As late as last fall, there was an internet presence, and it appeared to be Davis' private consulting practice.

Today, Google doesn't find it.

There were variations in spelling even on its business website. So was it NoeGenesis or NeoGenesis?

Noegenesis Group is listed on Davis' 2022 Statement of Economic Interests as filed with the S.C. Ethics Commission for 2021.

It's still on record with the S.C. Secretary of State.

But it seems to be gone from the internet. If you can find it, please let me know the URL. Thanks.

Supt. Davis - Australia-Bound?

Last week I started hearing rumors that Supt. Davis and his wife might be headed for Australia on the District's funds.

At a time when the District is crying "Poor me" to the Richland County Council, is this the right time for him to head "down under"?

And is another employee from the District Office to go along on that trip? And that employee's spouse?

If Davis wants to make a trip on vacation time and at no expense to Richland 2, who cares? I certainly don't. And I don't know anyone who does. 

Is he going through his personal business, The Noe Genesis Group? 

Is some organization in Australia popping for his expenses?

Is this trip a vacation or a resume-builder? 

Maybe he'll buy a one-way ticket. For that, I'd say, "Richland 2, pay for it."

Who can find out about this trip?

Do Holmes, Manning, McKie and Caution-Parker know about it?

Do Agostini, Scott and McFadden know about it?

Baron, how about an explanation?

Did Manning step in it?

After months of in-fighting about who can speak "for" the board, The State newspaper printed this on June 2, 2022:

“As a school board, we would have preferred to not have had to do that,” said board vice chair James Manning of asking for the increase. But he said it’s to ensure the district has a balanced budget for next year.

Read more at: https://www.thestate.com/news/local/education/article262064807.html#storylink=cpy

The Board voted 4-3 on May 31, 2022 to sock it to taxpayers at a time when other taxing jurisdictions are holding the line.

Who voted FOR the tax increase? Holmes, McKie, Manning, Caution-Parker.

Who voted AGANST the tax increase? Agostini, Scott, McFadden.

If The State is correct, Manning said, “As a school board, we would have preferred to not have had to do that.”fo

So why did they do it? 

What do you do, when you don't have enough income for all the things you want to do in the next 12 months?

Do you go to your employer and tell him that he must give you a raise?

Or do you cut back on your spending wishes and make them fit the budget you have?

The terms of office as board membes of Holmes, McKie, Manning and Caution-Parker all expire this November. Some (all?) will run for re-election. 

Show them how you feel about a tax increase. Show them the door marked EXIT.

Which is correct? 18.4 or 18.5

After the school board meeting on May 31, WLTX reported that Richland 2 had approved a millage rate of 18.5.

That's not correct. The Board voted to ask Richland County for 18.4.

The Voice newspaper reported 18.5 after checking with Libby Roof and one trustee. They apparently said that Manning "misspoke" when he made the motion for 18.4. No, he didn't misspeak. He asked for 18.4. It's clear as day.

[Edited 6/6/2022] Libby Roof did not tell The Voice that Trustee Manning misspoke.]

And the Minutes for the board meeting support that. Here's how the Minutes read:

I move that we approve an 18.4 mill increase for 22-23 school year budget.

Motion by James Manning, second by Amelia McKie.

Final Resolution: Motion Carries

Yes: Cheryl Caution-Parker, James Manning, Amelia McKie, Teresa Holmes

No: Lindsay Agostini, Monica E Scott, Lashonda McFadden

Click on the link and hear what Manning said. Go to livestream.com/richland2, select the May 31, 2022 meeting and fast-forward to 1:54:40.

If the District sent a request for 18.5 to County Council, the Council should dump it in the round file and consider that Richland 2 submitted no valid request. Richland 2 was already late. Did it err?

[Edited 6/6/2022] Richland 2 requested an 18.4 millage increase to the millage cap.]

People around Richland County know how I operate. Words count. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

The School Board approved 18.4. If the District asked for more, then it doesn't get anything.

What's the truth here?

Next safety Committee Meeting

The next meeting of the Committee of the Whole on Safety & Security will be Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 3:30PM. It will be held at R2i2, before the Board meets. A request has been made to livestream the meeting.

Does the Committee just meet, talk and go away? Or are assignments made for Committee members to actually do something before the next meeting?

Since you have to be there to know what is happening, who really knows? There seem to be no Minutes of the Committee meetings, and there apparently is no dedicated webpage on the District's website.

Having a meeting from 3:30-5:00PM likely means few parents, community members or business people will attend.

I won't be at that meeting, because Director of Safety & Security Marq Claxton denies my requests for permission to attend. 

The Trespass Notices that are issued by the District are a joke. 

The Notice reads, in part, "... access to any Richland School District Two property must be requested at least 24 hours in advance AND you MUST receive access authorization from the Director of Safety & Security or the Director's designee."

What the Notice fails to inform the recipient is that the Director will not authorize access in most cases.

Richland 2 bites taxpayers - Cat Fight!!!

Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z

If you can stomach it, watch some of last night's dog-and-pony show, called a Special-Called Board Meeting, on the proposed budget and millage increase (that's TAX INCREASE). 

After the staff was up-to-bat, the board began discussion at 1:35:40 on livestream.com/richland2 (for the May 31, 2022 meeting).

Trustee McFadden had clearly studied the audit and pointed out that in "every single department" of the Administration, there were funds left over. In other words, every department spent less than was budgeted.

Watch Amelia McKie pontificate as if she knows about budgeting. Maybe if she'd sit up straight and not prop herself on her elbow, she'd be able to speak briefly and on topic, without need to fill air-time with extra verbiage. This is the woman who owes $57,000 to the Ethics Commission (failing to file required reports on time) and who has a Hearing set for June 16 about why she failed to report her 2020 School Board income on her 2021 Statement of Economic Interests Report. What did she even say with her rambling comments???

Trustee Manning explained that "they" could give money back to the taxpayers, if the legislature came through with lots of money. Yeah, right! Remember when the board decided to give out bonuses (instead of refunding surplus to taxpayers)? 

I was treasurer of a small Denver networking group (unincorporated), and we created a surplus beyond our needs for the weekly meetings of 125-150 attendees. We charged $5 and made money on that. Some on the steering committee wanted to donate the extra money to a "win/win" small business. I objected and said we should give it back to those who showed up, and every once in a while I'd declare a Free Day, and we worked down the surplus that way. 

Manning could have limited his remarks to two minutes and should have avoided restating what he had already said. (That even came out of their "executive-coaching" trainings.)

Dr. Scott was recognized. WOW. Watch the camera on Supt. Davis at 1:46:00!!! Now there is an attentive, interested, respectful posture while a board member is speaking!!! She asked more than once how much money was left for "security" improvements. Dr. Miley didn't answer her question. Will Anderson stepped in and said almost all the money allocated for security had been spent. Bond money cannot be used for salaries (or for contracted SROs). Will Anderson said $5,000,000 is going into cameras.

Watch the CAT FIGHT that starts here.

Be sure to watch at 1:50:55 when Trustee Scott responds to Manning and made a reference to the "photo opp" at Sheriff Lott's recent press conference (that Scott, Agostini and McFadden did not know about). Manning then popped up without being recognized to object to Scott's comment as "completely unnecessary." [It would have been better if Trustee Scott had not mentioned the text that she had received during the meeting. A Board Policy specifically addresses electronic communications during board meetngs.]

Another Board Policy violation immediately occurred when Manning referred to Scott and addressed her directly. Manning used the term "character assassination." Apparently, Dr. Scott is still feeling the after-effects of not having been informed of last week's press conference with Sheriff Lott.

This board acts like an after-school girls' club. If there were a Parliamentarian, these actions would be curtailed. At least, until they fired the Parliamentarian!

Then Holmes tried to call the meeting back to order (1:52:00), but she continued to pontificate about why SHE is there (for the children and the stakeholders). All she should have done is call the meeting back to order!!! It was not Holmes' place to chastise Trustee Scott. Holmes said, "This is about children."

NO, it is not! It is about money and budget and spending and Business. That's the part that Holmes does not understand. The School Board is running a business. Holmes told Trustee Scott three times to "Stop it!" How's that for respect!

 Holmes said they are there to respect each other, and then she continued to disrespect Trustee Scott. Holmes doesn't even understand or listen to her own words! You think that Holmes was in a kindergarten class. And, if she were, I'd be filing a complaint and seeking to have her credentials pulled.

And then she returned the floor to Manning, who would be followed by Dr. Davis (for comment). Manning, instead, made a motion (1:54:40) to approve an 18.4-Mill increase. McKie seconded. McFadden then explained why she would not support a millage increase.

At that point, Holmes claimed the floor. According to Robert's Rules of Order (RONR) the chair is the last to speak. But Holmes doesn't recognize that, because she has not bothered to study RONR. Why didn't someone call a Point of Order?

Holmes continues to use a new word in the English language. Well, not "new". Wouldn't you think someone would coach her not to say "aks" (instead of "ask")? Hey, I know; it's a cultural thing. Well, it's a wrong cultural thing! 

Holmes challenged McFadden's analysis, and that was wrong. She should just state her own position and not run down the position of a fellow trustee, who is her equal on the board. McFadden tried to be recognized but Holmes said, "Ms. McFadden, I'm talkin'." Holmes had talked long enough.

Holmes provided herself with several sound bites that are quite likely to show up in her campaign for re-election. Her comments went on FAR TOO LONG, when other board members were likely waiting to comment during discussion on Manning's Motion. Why did Holmes MONOPOLIZE the discussion?

Trustee Agositini made an excellent comment on how the millage-increase WILL affect many Richland 2 families who are renters. The millage increase won't affect primary residences, but landlords will pass on the millage-increase to their tenants!

Then the supt. launched into a long-winded remark that had little to do with the vote on the motion that was standing.

WARNING: Do not ever ask the supt. what time it is. Twenty minutes later, you'll know how a sundial was invented, but you still will not know what time it is!

Why did Christine (the board's secretary and recording secretary for the board meeting) ask for a hand vote on Manning's motion??? 

The Core Four (Holmes, Manning, McKie, Caution-Parker) voted by hand to approve.

Trustees Agostini, Scott and McFadden voted against.

Two hours could have been saved last night. When the budget item was called, Manning could have made his motion. McKie could have seconded it. Caution-Parker could have called for the vote. The vote would have been the same: 4-3, and everyone could have gone home at 7:00PM.