Cancel Meal Plan Debt?

Just when I thought stupidity had hit its limit in Congress, now comes Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) with a plan to knock out all school meal plan debt.

You know you can trust a guy who wears shorts and a hoodie to the U.S. Senate; right?

About as much as you can trust a guy who pulls a Fire Alarm and says he thought it would open a locked door.

Here's the Philpott Plan to abolish school meal plan debt in Richland 2. It's simple.

Tell the debtors that they have 30 days to pay the debt or the District will send their bill to collection.

That reminds me. What did Richland 2 do about the $500,000 in meal plan debt? That sure fell off the radar. The District should have taken it out of Davis' settlement, since he was the one who let it grow.

Maybe somebody will post the answer below in a comment. Or file a FOIA request.

Richland 2 pays out $285,000 to settle

Yesterday's The State newspaper reports that Richland 2 School District has agreed to pay out $285,000 to settle a sexual assault lawsuit from a January 2020 locker-room assault.

The current article does not name the victim or the punks who assaulted him. Four were arrested by RCSD. An earlier article reported that the four boys were 14- and 15-years-old.

Since they were juvies, their names were withheld, and we'll never know if they skated on the charges. 

The actions of those punks sort of makes you want to vomit, don't they? 

Was there really a "history of hazing and violent abuse" in the RVHS boys' athletic programs, as the lawsuit claimed?

Was it cheaper for Richland 2 to settle than risk a court decision? Shouldn't the four kids be the ones to pay and not the taxpayers?

Lawsuits typically allege everything except rust in the kitchen sink, hoping that some of the allegations might stick. 

Source: https://www.thestate.com/news/local/education/article279825004.html

Point-of-Order

Board members,

When a point-of-order is called, all - ALL - conversation stops. 

It need be said only in a normal voice. All the other board members should hear it, recognize it, and honor it.

Business stops.

If the Chair doesn't hear it, repeat it. If necessary, repeat it more loudly.

If that doesn't work, stand up and say loudly, "Mr. Chair. POINT-OF-ORDER!!!"

The Chair should know what to do next.

If the Chair doesn't, then any board member should hold up a copy of Robert's Rules of Order and offer it to the Chair.

The board needs a Parliamentarian. In more ways than one. The District does not have one or anyone familiar enough with Robert's Rules to serve as one.

How do you adjourn a meeting?

As last Tuesday's school board meeting was winding up, one trustee was packing up and preparing to head out the door.

Chairman Joe Trapp called for a Motion to Adjourn. It was made (Washington) and seconded (Scott). When the vote was called for, here's what happened during the hand vote.

Six trustees voted Yes.

Chairman Trapp noticed that Trustee Washington hadn't voted. She was busy packing up and getting ready to leave. When he inquired, she raised her left hand.

Here is another way it could have gone.

Chair: "We'll take a hand vote. All in favor, raise your right hands." (6)

"All opposed?"  (none)

"Have all voted who wish to vote?" (no response)

"The vote is 6 Yes, 0 No, 1 Not Voting. The meeting is adjourned."

Release Time item removed from Agenda

Last Tuesday's school board meeting (September 12, 2023) has resulted in many people coming unglued over the Release Time for Religious Instruction (RTRI) proposal.

Trustee Angela Nash has taken to Facebook to "explain" what happened.

For simplicity, here is what happened. The Board voted to remove Item 8.1 RTRI from that night's agenda. The vote was 4-3. 

That's all that happened, but people are blowing it up all out of proportion.

Read the following from Facebook:

Jeffrey Zell

The fact of the matter, regardless of the process or technicalities of the processes (and yes, the process does matter), is that four individuals on your board killed the elective opportunity for parents to exercise their God-given, constitutionally protected, and lawfully structured freedom of religion.

That was the outcome, and no amount of technical dithering, convolution of process, and nuance will change that fact.

If those four actually believe in the Constitution and their oaths of office, one of those four will make a motion to bring this back on the agenda in the very near future for a full vote.

I have a feeling that’s not going to happen.

Whether it’s fear, hostility towards Christianity or religion in general, simple partisan politics, or personal vendettas, those four board members said collectively; ‘R2 parents, we do not value your first amendment rights, or established state law, or your right to choose.’

They can reconcile this, but if they don’t, those four “Trustees,” as far as I’m concerned, are no longer to be trusted with their word or their adherence to our founding principles. 

This is what the "Cancel Culture" does. It shames others. It does not respect "process". It reachs out far beyond reasonable lengths to blame, shame, disrespect, accuse, and irrationally question, when it disagrees with a decision.

The fact is that removing the Item 8.1 from the agenda did not kill it. It only removed it from that night's agenda. Had the Board "tabled" it, that might have killed it (for a while).

My own opinion is that RTRI is a terrible idea. I support religious instruction, if you want it for your child. There are many hours available - before school, after school, evenings, nights, and week-ends. 

Nationally, according to the proposing group's own numbers, 0.7% (350,000/4,500,000) of K-12 students in the United States take advantage of RTRI. 0.7% is less than 1 in 100. If that percentage holds true for Richland 2, then out of 28,000 students, 196 students may enroll in RTRI.

How much more time will be devoted to the desires of 196 students?

Armed guards - every school

Texas recently passed a state law that mandates armed security in every school in the state.

That requirement can be fulfilled by a cop or even  "a school district employee who has completed school safety training and carries a handgun on their [sic] person on school premises."

The estimated cost there is $80,000/year per school. The state provides $15,000/year; the District pays the rest.

What does a Richland County Sheriff's Department SRO cost Richland 2? During one staff presentation to a past board, I recall the price tag of $150,000/year. Was that correct then? Is it correct now? Forty SROs would cost $6,000,000. That's per year.

Richland 2 used to have two employees who carried guns while working. At a school board meeting that contained an item to give the then-superintendent the authority over approvals to carry, the liberal majority on the school board decided to ban the guns from school property. Both employees were former police officers working in the District's security department. Neither works for the District now.

Richland 2 Board Meeting - the Fangs Came Out

Trustee Monica Scott

Tonight's meeting was one not to be missed! Thank goodness for Livestream.

I had registered to speak; then yesterday I canceled my registration because the Release Time for Religious Instruction item was a No Action Requested item on the agenda.

I watched from home. The first, usually brief, public session before going into Executive Session was not brief. Be sure to watch it.

The first item was to approve the agenda. Trustee Agostini made a comment and then made a Motion to remove Item 8.1 from the Agenda.

The fangs came out. Be sure to watch it. Discussion was lively and, at times, accusatory and unfriendly. Trustee Scott was dressed to the nines; not sure whether she had just come from a cocktail party or was headed to one after the meeting. 

Chair Trapp stated that a motion to remove the Item was actually a decision to kill the Release Time program. I disagree. The Motion was merely to remove it from tonight's agenda. Where did he get the idea that removing it was killing it? "Tabling" might be the equivalent of killing it, but merely removing it was not.

Item 8.1 was a No Action Required item on the Agenda. The trustees did not kill it. They voted 4-3 to remove it from the agenda. That's all they did.

Chair Trapp did a good job at riding herd on the mob tonight. He displayed his strongest stance as Chair since November. 

When he was challenged over having been one of three trustees to request the Release Time item to be on the agenda, he explained the Policy. My opinion is that, just because, as Chair, he and the superintendent create the agenda for the next meeting, why shouldn't he be able to be one of the three needed to request an item to be on the agenda? He is a trustee equal to the other six. 

Then came the absolutely best Public Participation segment I have witnessed in five years! Speakers were pro and con and because 21 speakers had signed up, each was limited to two minutes (not the usual three), by the decision of the Chair and the Superintendent. Several students spoke - and spoke very well!!! Rabbi Jonathan Case spoke again tonight and made complete sense.

The tide has changed. Whereas on previous nights, most speakers were in favor of Release Time, that was not the case tonight. Be sure to watch the Public Participation portion of the meeting. That portion starts at 1:29:13 on   https://livestream.com/richland2/events/10954556/videos/237555050