McKie and the S.C. Ethics Commission

There was a hearing scheduled for last Thursday, June 16, for Amelia McKie at the office of the South Carolina Ethics Commission. The Commission charged her with failing to report her 2020 Richland 2 income on her 2021 Statement of Economic Interests Report (SEI). She was to appear on Thursday at 9:30AM.

On Wednesday afternoon McKie notified the Ethics Commission that she would not appear because she had COVID-like symptoms. 

What the Commission should have done is told her to log into their livestream service and appear virtually. What they did was grant a one-time continuance. Her hearing has been re-scheduled to October  20, 2022 at 9:30AM. OCTOBER 20. Four months from now. (And 2½ weeks before Election Day.)

So, how sick was she? Did she notify everyone who was at the Committee of the Whole meeting and the Board Meeting on June 14 that she might have COVID? Did she notify everyone who attended Mia McLeod's not-victory celebration on June 14? Did she quarantine and skip all the Juneteeth celebrations over the week-end?

Or did her "symptoms" miraculously disappear and turn out just to be a common cold or nothing at all?

McKie owes $57,100 to the Ethics Commission.

If the legislature does its duty and passes a pending bill that will prevent McKie from filing for re-election, McKie won't be able to run for re-election. If I were to guess at the chances for that bill to pass, I'd say "About 0.00001%." Why? Because it would keep S.C. Representatives and S.C. Senators from running for re-election, if they owe money to their respective Ethics Commissions.

The S.C. Ethics Commission does not report ethics fines/debts of S.C. Representatives and S.C. Senators. How likely is it that they will vote against their own interests?

Holmes lights a fire under son, friends

Richland 2 Board Chair Teresa Holmes lit a fire under her son and friends by taking one of my Facebook posts out of context and posting it on her private DrTeresa Holmes Facebook page., 

The post from my personal FB page read, "I've been wanting an AK-47 for some time now. Maybe I should brush up my Russian and buy a ticket to Ukraine. I wonder how much Richland 2 would chip in, if I promised not to come back."

The context was the war in Ukraine. I was a Russian major in college and am a former deputy sheriff, a veteran, and a person who gets involved. I was investigating how to get to Ukraine to help drive out the Russians. 

By taking my post out of context and putting it on her page, she riled up a bunch of her followers.

Chris Leevy Johnson thought I ought to be reported to Sheriff Lott. (Remember Chris' FB comment after James Shadd became Board Chair? Chris called Lindsay Agostini a "Karen" for not voting for Shadd.)

Teresa's son, Jai Austin, posted this rant on Facebook:

"Attention Columbia SC

I have stood silent long enough watching all this shit and I don’t even live there anymore..

1. When will these racist in Columbia realize you don’t run us..

2. When will racist in Columbia stop making up blatant lies and stories just to downgraded the fact the African Americans run the community and are on top of their game making sure that these kids have a healthy, happy, productive education.

3. To the dumb bitch who took a photo of what was supposed to be my moms cars but wasn’t..baby you’re just dumb .

4. To Gus Philpot the White supremicist version of Mr. Rogers, you can take your ass to Alaska with Sarah Palen and them and enjoy all your guns. But to say something like that when you show true hate towards the black community is disgusting.

5. To a nameless nobody who likes to threaten my mother In meetings and continuously have a agenda for my mother…All I will say to that is, was the first orange suit not enough baby?

I kept my mouth shut cause I’m not the one, call these racist out and put them on blast. Call out these these crazy ass people who pretend to care about your kids education but don’t and put them on BLAST.. Thats all I have to say "

Do you suppose Teresa is proud of her son's literary prowess? His command of the English language? His ability to express himself clearly?

Where'd he go to high school? A Richland 2 high school? Is he, like his mother, a "product" of the Richland 2 School District?

Time's Almost Up, Teresa

The 2021-2022 School Year ends on June 30, which means new officers of the board for the next school year. In fact, board-officers terms for this year run out on Tuesday, June 28, when next year's officers are elected.

For the past year two women have been on the board who are NOT legitimate board members and were not eligible to serve as officers. Each was elected in 2021 to serve as an Officer of the Board. Teresa Holmes was elected Board Chair, and Amelia McKie (recordholder of highest-ever Ethics fines of a Richland 2 school board member) was elected Board Secretary. They should not have been nominated (thanks, James Manning and Dr. Cheryl. Caution. Parker., respectively). They were elected by The Core Four - no surprise there.

What's important?

I have been addressing their illegitimacy since February 2019, when I first spoke to the School Board on that issue.

Both violated S.C. Code of Laws Section 8-13-1110(A).

ARTICLE 11

Disclosure of Economic Interests

SECTION 8-13-1110. Persons required to file statement of economic interests.

(A) No public official, regardless of compensation, and no public member or public employee as designated in subsection (B) may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities unless he has filed a statement of economic interests in accordance with the provisions of this chapter with the appropriate supervisory office.

The School District and the Board have never explained to the public or to me why they are not violating this law.

Both have been usupring public office since November 13, 2018.

Neither should be elected as a board officer on June 28, 2022. 

Show up at the June 28, 2022 and speak at Public Participation. Request the board to honor the law and to nominate and elect only fully-qualified board members as officers. That will eliminate Holmes and McKie from consideration. An additional reason not to nominate McKie is her $57,100 debt to the South Carolina Ethics Commission.and the judgment against her in Richland County Common Pleas Court for that debt.

"DrTeresa Holmes" rants on Facebook

This week you will not want to miss the rants by "DrTeresa Holmes" on Facebook. She refers to herself as "YOUR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER ON THE MOVE". To find her, be sure to omit the space between Dr and Teresa.

If you don't find that page, you're blocked. I will address that in the near future.

Her crosshairs swept past me, but I accept her for who she is. Teresa displays her "real" self at many school board meetings, when she taunts, teases, disrespects, interrupts, cuts off, over-rides other board members and speaks (knowingly in her own mind) as if she is queen of the roost, when in fact, it is obvious that she knows not of which she speaks.

Look for her post, "IMPORTANT POST: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH". See her examples of "HATE /LIES /THREATS"

Keep in mind that is the woman who left work one day in early 2019, after reading an email I sent to the entire board, and ran straight to the sheriff's department to file a report that I was harassing her. When I read the report, I pointed out to the officer and the deputy in the Criminal Investigations Division that her report to the deputy was full of false statements. .She should have been charged with filing a false police report.

So there is a very good example of HATE /LIES /THREATS against me. Interesting that she did not mention that in her rant.

Teresa refers to her "dignified silence". When has she ever been dignified or silent? Does anyone have an example? I can think of one - silent, but not dignified. That was when she, as Board Chair, allowed Craig Khanwell/Conwell a full three minutes to threaten white people and me at the February 8, 2022 school board meeting. Later I saw a "friendly" photo of Teresa and Craig. Why would she allow a Louis Farrakhan follower to threaten white people, or anyone, at a school board meeting? And then she thanked him for speaking.

Is that Teresa's style of dignity?

Teresa claims to have been threatened. Is that why a deputy was posted along the wall at the June 14, 2022 school board meeting? Me? I don't believe she has been threatened.

But I know I was threatened on February 8, 2022, and she did nothing to stop Conwell (that's his name in the Richland County Fifth Judicial District Public Index). And so were white people in the school board audience that night. If Teresa wants to talk about racism anytime, let's do it. In public. At a school board meeting. Recorded.

Pitiful. Be glad her term as Board Chair is over on June 28, 2022. 

Why has she never even taken the oath-of-office legally and become a legitimate member of the school board? Look what she turned a simple oversight into. Four years of chaos. She may have been ignorant of the law in November 2018, when she failed to file her Statement of Economic Interests with the S.C.Ethics Commission and when an oath-of-office was improperly administered to her on November 18, 2018. 

She could have been honorable, admitted her mistake (instead of blaming it on "Nobody told me"), and taken the oath then. But she wasn't and she didn't. 

Now, she is playing the victim role. Sorry, Teresa. No pass.

McKie - COVID? Ethics hearing off

If you see Amelia McKie out and about today thru some days following, please take a photo and send it to me. Her hearing at the Ethics Commission was scheduled for today (June 16) at 9:30AM. Late yesterday she reported COVID-like symptoms and the Commission granted her a one-time continuance. She was perfectly fine on Tuesday at the Committee meeting, Board meeting, and Mia McLeod's watch party. Does she have COVID?

How many could have been exposed at the Committee and Board meetings? Has she informed any of the exposure?

Committee Meeting WAS recorded

 Surprise, surprise.

The livestream.com/richland2 homepage now shows a recorded meeting of the June 14, 2022 Committee of the Whole on Safety & Security. That meeting, which shows a recorded length of 1:52:44, was announced without a Livestream notice. See the June 14th "livestream" here. The audio seems to begin at 08:14, and the video camera was added at 08:27.

What's the real meaning of this? Viewers could not watch the meeting as it happened and then show up at the board meeting at 6:30PM and ask questions. Sneaky, eh? The Committee Chair, Trustee Monica Scott, had requested that the meeting be livestreamed. It was not. It was recorded, and it is the recording that now makes its way to the livestreeam platform.

Present: Scott, Agostini, Caution-Parker, Holmes, Davis, Manning (late)

Absent: Caution-Parker, McFadden

First up was the recent school survey. (11:22) The staffer said there were four questions. The first two were demographics (What school? What level (grade) was the student at?). The next two questions were, as the speaker said, the "meat of the survey". THEY DO A SURVEY AND ASK ONLY TWO SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS?

Q. 3 was to rate their level of support on a list of safety measures. There were four choices.

Q. 4 was a list of safety concerns. Notably absent from the list was "Student bringing a gun to school". The assumption by the District was that bringing a gun to school is a major safety concern. What if it is not?

Mrs. Agostini asked the staffer if the survey had asked about race or gender. Staffer: No. Well, they missed a HUGE factor!!! Who designed the survey? Did the Committee have input on the questions or form of the survey? The staffer kept referring to "our" list. To me, that meant the staff's list, not the committee's list.

The Committee seems to sit in their "regular" board seating arrangement, with the superintendent holding the corner position, which Robert's Rules of Order designates for the Chair of a committee or board. Move him to the outside or maybe not even at the head table!

At this point Holmes spoke up for the first time. It was not her place to thank the staff for the survey (that's the role of the Chair). As she continued, her phone rang. HOLMES' PHONE RANG? Inexcusable!  She continued to hold her phone and even scrolled and began typing! Then she trashed the survey.The rest of her comments were completely unnecessary. 

This is what happened up to the 27:00 marker for the meeting.

Chaos Again! RONR - out the window!!!

Did you hear that big, ol', black steam engine roar through the boardroom tonight?

There are new Rules of Order for the Richland 2 school board. They aren't available in print yet, but the title will be Holmes' Rules of Order. Basically, they will be, "I'm Holmes, and I rule this joint."

Business fell apart during the portion of meeting devoted to student appeals. 

When Student #5's fate was to be determined, Manning made a Motion to deny the in-person appeal. 

Listen to this portion of the meeting. Go to livestream.com/richland2 and fast-forward to 1:24:15 for the start of the discussion about Student #5.

Trustees Agostini and Scott spoke in favor of hearing from the student in person. While just about every sane person would agree that a person ought to have the right to confront his accusers, that isn't the way the (majority of the) Richland 2 school board works. Trustee Scott stated that the board is the "stewards of the people" and that everyone deserves the oppotunity to be heard.

[I'll bet that includes Gary Ginn and me. We both requested in-person hearings on our No-Trespass Orders and were denied them.]

McKie went on record that the board should not hear an appeal due to the severity of the case. (Was this one of the guns-at-school cases?)

The vote was called. 

I expected the vote to be 4-3. HOWEVER, the vote was 3-4, with Holmes voting with Agostini, Scott and McFadden. Therefore, Motions Fails.. Imagine that! Holmes voted AGAINST her buddies, and against the Motion to deny the appeal. How did that happen?

Then Trustee Scott made a Motion to hear the case of the parent/student (#5), and Agostini seconded. Manning said there are certain cases that are so severe (that there was no point in granting a hearing). In other words, Guilty; no chance to prove innocence. (My words). Scott said everybody should have the chance to be heard. McFadden said the board should hear the "whole, entire story".

Holmes announced she was going to take a "point of privilege", which was unnecessary to state, because it was her turn to speak. She said there is a "legal law" (whatever that is) that has to happen. 

Holmes said, "I am open to hearing cases if we have leeway." RIGHT THERE IS A LIE. The board had leeway with Gary Ginn's grievance and with my grievance. Did we get hearings? NO.

So, Holmes' position seems to be, if a person is charged with Murder, he should be convicted. No need to have a trial.

At this point (1:30:48) Trustee Agostini asked Miss Lewis (Christine Lewis, the board's secretary and the recording secretary for the school board meeting) to read back the vote, saying that Holmes had voted AGAINST denying the in-person hearing; i.e., if not AGAINST it, then she was FOR it (the in-person hearing).

Holmes woke up and realized that she had voted the wrong way. Said she, "I must have hit the wrong button." Yes, indeed she had. And her vote was cast and announced by the recording secretary, by displaying it to the public. Holmes pointed her finger at Christine Lewis and said, "You cann change my vote."

No, the secretary CANNOT change Holmes' vote!!! Robert's Rules of Order is very clear about this at Section 4:42: "... a member has the right to change his vote up to the time the result is announced. After that, he can make the change only by unanimous permission of the assembly."

Well, you can't just do that. Holmes did that a few months ago. Unfortunately, the trustees are not highly educated about the finer points of Robert's Rules of Order, but at least this time they stopped her.

Manning bailed Holmes out with some "clarity" about fixing the problem without changing her vote.

Now what?

Teresa tried to excuse her mistake, but she said a second time that she pushed the wrong button. NO, SHE DID NOT PUSH THE WRONG BUTTON. She cast a "No" vote. CARELESSLY, because - well, you fill in the blank here.

The Motion was to hear the in-person hearing. (Whew! Some wording!!!) The vote was 3-4, as expected. The Core Four stuck together - again. 

Then Manning made a Motion to deny the in-person hearing for Student #5.

BUT WAIT. They have already voted on that. See above. The vote was 3-4 - Motion Fails. So they have already voted on this Motion.

I believe there is something in RONR that you can't vote a second time on the same motion.

Earlier Holmes had made a comment about certain trustees' "playing", and Agostini expressed that she was troubled by such a comment.

Holmes again mentioned "the law", and Trustee Scott explained the correct wording that applies here. 

What they are calling "the law" is Board Policy, and Trustee Scott said the superintendent or the Board can make a different decision and over-ride the wording in Policy. Board Policy is not "law".

Listen to Holmes' rudely cut off Trustee Scott and allow Caution-Parker to speak. 

Watch Caution-Parker. She began speaking and pointing her finger at Trustee Scott, but she had failed to turn on her microphone and her words cannot be heard. Caution-Parker must have asked Trustee Scott a question while her microphone was off. When Trustee Scott said she was not going to answer that question, listen to Caution-Parker's nasty, condescending remark to Trustee Scott, "Of course you are not going to answer, because you know you are wrong."

Caution-Parker deserved a time-out or to be removed from the board for violating rules of decorum and civility.

McKie said she wasn't sure "what four people" were being referred to. Of course, she is sure. "The Four" are Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker and Manning. She apparently has no clue as to how foolish she sounds, when she says "I'm not sure..."

Trustee McFadden was trying to be heard. Trustee Agostini called for the vote. At this point the person who made the Motion should have been asked to re-state it. The motion by Manning was to deny the in person hearing for student five. The vote was 4-3; Pass. Holmes found the right button (for her) this time.

That took unti 1:38:55.