Blythewood Online 691

Tag: Richland 2 School Board

  • Critics call for removal of R2 board members and super

    COLUMBIA – A cacophony of voices can be heard on the recording, the participants becoming more and more shrill as they compete for volume. Bystanders echo and boo.

    It sounds like it could be a hallway fight among a group of middle or high school students, but it isn’t. The participants are all grown adults – and they are members of the school board at Richland School District Two.

    The recording is from a closed-door board meeting. 

    The April 28 meeting was called to discuss safety and security in Richland Two schools – an issue that’s received attention after several gun incidents and assorted reports of students holding fights at school and circulating videos online.

    The audio recording of the school board members’ confrontation – a four-minute clip provided to media – begins with School Board Chair Teresa Holmes quietly laughing while board member Lashonda McFadden is speaking – part of a pattern of bullying that’s been observable for months during the board’s public meetings.

    McFadden is talking calmly about an unknown issue when the drama begins.

    “You can laugh if you want to,” McFadden says.

    “I am, but go ahead,” Holmes says, “Go ahead. Finish your statement. Don’t worry about me.”

    “I’m not worried about you,” McFadden says her voice beginning to shake.

    “Finish your statement, honey,” Holmes says, “Do what you gotta do.”

    “Shut the f*** up,” McFadden replies, becoming emotional.

    “Come on, that language is not necessary,” says Vice Chair James Manning, his voice clear and louder than others, as if it might be closer to the recording device, as others express their disapproval.

    “Little girl, little girl, little girl,” Holmes repeatedly taunts McFadden.

    “I’m fed up with you,” McFadden says. “You want to call me a little girl? I found out what ‘little girl’ means. I found out what it means.”

    “It’s ok. It’s ok. Are you upset?” Holmes continues. “Are you upset, Lashonda?”

    “No, I’m not upset. I’m just letting you know right now that I will f*** you up….”

    The other board members erupt in a chorus of disapproval, and from that point on, it’s hard to hear much of what is said.

    “You have threatened me!” Holmes exclaims multiple times.

    “That’s jail!” school board member Cheryl Caution-Parker says excitedly.

    “I’m tired of this bull***it,” McFadden says.

    “You threatened me!” Holmes shouts.

    “Go file a complaint like you normally do,” McFadden says amidst the chaos of voices.

    “And what you gonna do, boo?” Holmes continues. “So, what you gonna do? Do it! Do it!”

    Then McFadden says, “I want to let you know that if you think you’re going to continue to disrespect me, then I will catch your mother-f****** ass outside.”

    Holmes says, “Now that’s the second threat. Thank you for saying that in front of everybody. Thank you.”

    “It’s a matter of record now,” Caution-Parker says.

    “What I saw was your lack of professionalism, madam chair,” says board member Lindsay Agostini. “Laughing at one of your board members starting to speak. That’s what instigated this.”

    “You don’t know what I was laughing at,” Holmes says, “Are you in my head ma’am? I might’ve been thinking of something else.”

    Holmes continues to taunt and laugh at McFadden, And then the recording ends.

    This four minutes of audio has elicited a firestorm of commentary, online and among students and families across the school district.

    Asked about the exchange, multiple school board members have said that this level of conflict is not unusual in their closed-door meetings. The tension and hostility among board members has, with increasing frequency, occurred public meetings as well.

    The board is generally split on issues with Holmes, Caution-Parker, Manning and Amelia McKie on one side and Agostini, McFadden and Monica Scott on the other.

    Holmes, the board chair, declined to comment on the incident.

    She did, however, address it in an e-mail to Agostini, who requested to view the video referenced in Holmes’ police report about the incident.

    “It’s important for the entire board to have access to the video and to know who breached the confidence of the Executive Session,” Agostini wrote in an e-mail to Holmes.

    “This is now a legal matter,” Holmes wrote in her reply, declaring the video off-limits, comparing herself to a rape victim, calling Agostini names and trying to place blame on Agostini.

    “It is quite clear… you are negative,[sic] and determined to remain in high conflict despite truth or morality. In full disclosure, I find your deceitful and continuing hostility toward me sad,” Holmes wrote.

    “Your goal of intentionally working against certain members of the board, the administration and continuous [sic] conspiring with outside sources to attempt to create an atmosphere of confusion in order to, [sic] sway the election in November is appalling.”

    Also in the email, Holmes vowed to expose malicious intent and hypocritical behavior “no matter the cost” – and to “no longer be silent about exposing antics.”

    McFadden, for her part, issued a written apology Monday for her role in the ruckus, asking for forgiveness as she apologized to Holmes, district parents and students, her family and church family, and fellow Christians.

    “As an elected leader over your children, it is my deepest regret that I allowed my emotions to alter my character and behavior to use such horrific and vulgar language,” said McFadden, who is also a parent.

    “For those who have called, texted, dropped by, sent well wishes, and prayer to me during this most trying time… THANK YOU! I have felt the encouragement pulling me through the depths of guilt and shame.”

    Agostini said she believes both participants in the exchange and the person who made the recording – a violation of board policy – should all be removed from the board as consequences for their actions.

    Board member Monica Scott said that because of the breach of trust caused by the recording of executive session meeting, she will no longer be attending those meetings.

    Manning, who insisted to The Voice that there is no video, only a recording, refused to comment on whether or not he had made the recording, called for McFadden’s resignation.

    “We have students who get expelled for threatening,” Manning said. “I don’t know how she can continue to properly serve when she’s making decisions over students who have exhibited similar behavior.”

    Manning was among those who defended Superintendent Baron Davis and his wife, Pamela (a high school teacher), when, several weeks ago, they reportedly became unruly toward members of the public at the start of a school board meeting and law enforcement became involved. Pamela Davis reportedly used vulgur language toward a student in the audience during the incident.

    I never would’ve thought that we would be in this type of position in Richland Two. We have always been seen as a leader in education in the state, and to see where we are now is unfortunate.

    – Stephen Gilchrist, Member of the Richland Two Black Parents’ Association

    Also, in that incident, two people attending the meeting – both of whom some witnesses say were not unruly – were banned from school district property.

    Both of those who were banned say they intend to sue – one (Gary Ginn) for violation of his constitutional rights under the first and fourteenth amendments, and the other (Gus Philpott) for issues such as “defamation, libel and due process.”

    Ginn, a parent, described the window the recording gives the public into how the board operates.

    “I think that we should just remove the whole school board,” Ginn says. “I think the governor should just wipe the slate clean and remove the whole school board and basically release Dr. Davis and Pamela Davis from their positions at the school district, and that would solve all the problems. Then we as parents wouldn’t have to deal with it anymore.”

    Stephen Gilchrist, a founding member of the Richland Two Black Parents’ Association and member of the Richland County Planning Commission, said he applauds the recent approval of a state law that added school board members to the list of public officials that can be removed by the governor for misconduct.

    “Obviously in Richland School District Two there’s been a lot of public displaying of a lot of issues that the law has been designed to address,” Gilchrist says. “So, unfortunately, we have become the poster child for Senate Bill 203, and we will just see what happens as folks begin to revisit some of the issues that this board has been having over the last several months and years.”

    He says parents and others have begun calling the governor’s office asking for help, but that’s not enough. Gilchrist says local leaders – from the Richland County Council, which holds purse strings for the school system, to local business and community leaders – should oppose the school board’s continued dysfunction.

    “I never would’ve ever thought that we would be in this type of a position in Richland School District Two,” he says. “We have always been seen as a leader in education in the state, and to see where we are now is unfortunate.”

    The board routinely expels or otherwise disciplines students for behavior, he says – but in many ways the board members conduct themselves even worse than the kids. He says suspension and removal should be options for them, too.

    “I don’t think that we can continue to fund dysfunction at the level that we’ve been doing that and raising taxes on people to fund dysfunction,” he says.

    “It’s my hope that with so much concern about what’s happening at our school district, we will come together as a community to try and bring either some new faces to the leadership of the school district or have the state really weigh in on what’s been going on here.”

  • R2 board votes 4-3 to not be required to hear grievances

    Gilchrist: The Board’s Vote Could Deny Due Process

    COLUMBIA – Discussion of a complaint policy took center stage at Tuesday’s meeting of the Richland Two School District Board of Trustees.

    The two opposing factions on the board appeared to talk past each other about the intent of a change in wording to a rule known as “Policy KE,” which governs complaints made to the school district. It became the center of discussion during the meeting.

    Those in favor of the new language argued that it would better direct complaints through the proper channels before they reach the board, while those in favor of the old language argued that it better protected the rights of parents and members of the community.

    The board never discussed the content of the policy’s few paragraphs or sought compromise wording; instead, the revision passed with the characteristic 4-3 vote that often occurs when the board considers controversial issues.

    The old wording, most recently adopted in 2019, briefly described a process of referring complaints to administration for resolution, making it clear that the complaining person, if not satisfied by the outcome, has a right to appeal the issue to the school board.

    The new wording, based on a model policy of the South Carolina School Boards Association, is more verbose and details the order of authorities to contact by those seeking resolution of complaints.

    But it then goes on to add the two additional items with which the speakers and board members – and others in the community – took issue:

    The first: “Anyone who defames a district staff member and damages a person’s professional reputation, whether before students or any third party, may be subject to legal action brought by the staff member.”

    The second: “The board is not obligated to address a complaint. If the board decides to hear the issue, the board’s decision is final. Otherwise, the superintendent’s decision on the issue is final.”

    During the meeting’s public comment period, two men spoke against the new wording, requesting that any changes to the policy be rewritten with clearer, more precise wording and eliminate parts that stifle the voice of the public.

    “It seems to me what we are doing here is like they are changing the rules of the game. When you change the rules of the game, you stifle collaboration and trust, hence the problem never gets resolved,” said Larry Smalls, a parent who spoke at the meeting.

    “This is not a popularity contest sitting in these [school board] seats; you’re dealing with the public. You’re dealing with taxpayers, people’s livelihoods, their kids, and I’d hope you would take it seriously and not just change the rules so you can get commendation from the people you select coming up here.”

    Stephen Gilchrist, who is a founding member of the Richland Two Black Parents’ Association and past chairman and current member of the Richland County Planning Commission, as well as chairman of the South Carolina African American Chamber of Commerce and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, e-mailed concerns about the policy to the board members before the meeting, noting the risks of vague terminology, lack of accountability, and a potential chilling effect on free speech.

    “We have a history that has not been too far in our past that prevented folk from being able to have a voice in the political process and the public policy arena, so my hope is that… a district that classifies itself as premier does not in some ways revert back to those days of old,” Gilchirst says.

    “I don’t see this any different than the times where black people were asked to count how many jellybeans were in a jar to vote.”

    After the vote, he expressed disappointment in approval of a policy that he says will deprive parents and students with grievances of due process.

    He says it would be better – and possible – for school board policy to strike a balance that both protects educators from wrongful accusations and protects the right for people to weigh in on issues impacting schools and education in the district.

    The policy change was considered in the context of two incidents that occurred at recent school board meetings.

    In one case, a parent publicly accused a school administrator of sexually abusing a child, an allegation that the parent later apologized for and declared to be false.

    In another case, two men who sometimes express criticism of board actions and policies and board behavior were removed from a school board meeting on Jan. 25 after witnesses say the two men and others were aggressively confronted by Superintendent Baron Davis and his wife, schoolteacher Pamela Davis – an incident that has resulted in multiple complaints against the district.

    One of the men, local blogger Gus Philpott, says it was a lengthy struggle to get the details of his ban from district property in writing – and maintains that he did no wrong and violated no policy on the evening in question, a claim that’s backed up by eyewitness accounts.

    The other individual who was banned, parent Gary Ginn, has a similar story. Eyewitnesses say he spoke up when a 14-year-old student was verbally attacked by Mrs. Davis. Ginn has expressed criticism of board policies in recent months, but was orderly in expressing that criticism.

    Philpott, 83, contends that the real reason for his ban is to silence his online journalism and protect corrupt officials from the public’s right to information about the actions of elected leaders. His blog, which frequently draws attention to school board issues, is often critical of current school system leadership.

    Philpott has sought to appeal the decision to the school board under the old wording of the complaint policy, he says – a right that he believes prompted the new wording and a right that was taken away by the new wording approved Tuesday night.

    Board Chair Theresa Holmes provided a copy of the document stating that administrative authorities and the school board had decided to uphold Philpott’s ban from school property for the remainder of the school year.

    “After reviewing and considering the record in this matter, which included statements from you regarding the January 25 incident, the Board voted to uphold the administration’s decision in this matter, which means that your trespass notice will continue through the end of the 2021-2022 school year,” according to the letter, which is signed by Holmes.

    Holmes, who supported the policy change, during the meeting accused board and community members of insincere grandstanding on the issue.

    “There [were] two weeks to make changes to this, and the day before there’s all this, because people want to come to a public meeting and make all these statements and these lectures and all that because it’s in public,” Holmes said. “Let’s not play the game up in here tonight because that’s what we’re doing.”

    Davis, the superintendent, said the new policy on public complaints is similar to that governing personnel matters. He said that, hypothetically, under the old policy, the board could get stuck spending large amounts of time hearing complaints that have not gone through the proper channels.

    “The policy has nothing to do with public participation. There’s a different and separate public participation policy,” Davis said in the meeting.

    Board member Lashonda McFadden said the new policy can prevent complaints that do go through proper channels from being appealed to the board and tie up time-sensitive issues in months of bureaucracy, to the detriment of students and parents who need help.

    Board member Monica Scott implied that the policy change was a form of hypocrisy.

    “We are elected officials. The public and the parents are actually the reason why we are sitting here, and… when many of us were campaigning, we were campaigning because we want to be a voice for the community, we want to be a voice for parents, we want to be a voice for equity. We want to be a voice for integrity… but once we get here, we’re not who we say we want to be,” Scott said.

    “I’m going to respond to every e-mail that comes to me, whether it’s a complaint, whether it’s a compliment, whether it’s something that they’re not happy with – it doesn’t matter to me because we’re here because of the public, and I just think that when we’re trying to take away the right of the people who have placed us here, I have an issue with that.”

    The new policy passed with the support of Holmes, James Manning, Amelia McKie, and Cheryl Caution-Parker. McFadden, Scott, and Lindsay Agostini voted against it.

    Philpott, meanwhile, says he’s looking for a lawyer to help him take his complaint against the district to the next level: the courts.

    “My complaint was that I myself was not guilty of their charge and that I did not get a chance to defend myself,” he says, contending that school board policy was applied improperly in his case – and that rules barring speakers from mentioning individuals or job titles are also improper.

    “The board says there’s no appeal. No, no, no. There’s always an appeal,” says Philpott, who promises to resume attending school board meetings in July, as soon as his ban expires. “A person can always go to court.”

    Gilchrist, meanwhile, says he and the Black Parents’ Association are looking forward to this year’s school board election. He says there are a lot of potential candidates preparing for the start of campaign season – and November’s election promises to be an interesting one.

    “I guess that the biggest concern for me is protecting the rights of the citizens of the community who have children in the district, who are taxpayers in the district, and who sometimes do offer constructive criticism,” he says, calling the Jan. 25 incident “unfortunate” and the actions of current leadership “exhausting.”

    “I am presently encouraged that… we’re seeing a large segment of our community – black and white, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican – who say enough of this, and that’s encouraging,” he says. “It’s time to get to get some adults in the room who will run the school district on behalf of the children.”

    Board members up for re-election are Holmes, McKie, Caution-Parker and Manning.

    Looking forward, he says, he’s hopeful that the upcoming elections will result in more civility in school district leadership at Richland Two.

    “It’s my hope that as we move toward these elections in November, that parents are paying attention, parents are beginning to get more engaged, and they see this for whatever it is,” Gilchrist said.

    “We look to bring on some energy on the school board that cares about governing, that cares about parents, that cares about learning, that cares about the things the parents care about, and not about using taxpayer money, using the district apparatus, and using the power of governing to silence the community.”

  • R2 board: Shadd out, Elkins, Agostini, McFadden in

    • Elkins
    • Agostini
    • McFadden

    COLUMBIA – Richland Two School Board Chairman James Shadd, lost not only his board chairmanship Tuesday night, but his seat on the board as well. Newcomer Lashonda McFadden bested Shadd with 2,831 votes to his 2,404.

    The two other incumbents, Monica Elkins with 3,454 votes and Lindsay Agostini with 3,148 votes retained their seats. Shadd finished fourth in the race for the three open seats.

    A strong supporter of Richland 2 Superintendent Baron Davis, Shadd was admonished publicly last week and given an NI (Needs Improvement) score by the Black Parents’ Association (BPA) in their annual Richland School District Two Report Card review of the three school board incumbents running for office.

    The BPA give Agostini high praise and an A+ for her service to the district, Elkins a B+ and asked what Shadd stood for.

    “Mr. Shadd seems to exalt himself as a community leader and he’s actively involved in many community activities which led us to question if he was actually going to seek office again. Mr. Shadd’s ‘mission’ work seems to be more important to him than guiding and really leading a premier school district like Richland Two,” the BPA wrote. “It’s our opinion that Mr. Shadd should exert more of a voice that challenges the district rather than rubber stamp all its actions.”

    The Association left it to the voters to decide if they felt Shadd deserved to be re-elected to the board.

    In contrast, the BPA lauded Lindsay Agostini for, “boldly and rightfully questioning the policies of the administration,” saying that, “she undoubtedly deserves four more years” on the board.

    Dee Williams received the fifth highest number of votes (1,889) followed by Maryann Wright (1,820) and James Mobley (1,716).

    Rhonda Meisner of Blythewood, a frequent critic of the school’s administration and a first-time candidate received 1,300 votes; Deon Jacobs received 987 and Lawrence Terry, 640.

    Monica Elkins                    3,454  (17%)

    Lindsay Agostini               3,148  (16%)

    Lashonda McFadden      2,831  (14%)

    James Shadd                      2,404  (12%)

    Dee Bell-Williams             1,889   (9%)

    Maryann Wright               1,820   (9%)

    James Mobley                  1,715   (8%)

    Rhonda Meisner              1,300   (6%)

    Deon Jacobs                         987   (5%)

    Lawrence Terry                   640   (3%)

  • R2 board suspends public comment

    SCSBA Recommends Districts Not Accept FOIA Requests During Pandemic

    COLUMBIA – In an effort to curtail the spread of COVID-19, the Richland Two school district has followed the lead of other government agencies by streaming meetings electronically.

    No member of the public may attend meetings in person nor participate in public comments. They can listen to audio on the district’s website.

    By a 6-1 vote, the Richland Two board voted Tuesday night to suspend policy BEDH, which spells out the district’s public participation policy. Board trustee Lindsay Agostini opposed the measure.

    In a related vote, the board also voted to cancel the April 7 meeting, citing a lack of business to address. That vote passed unanimously.

    Agostini said she voted against suspending policy BEDH, fearing it would prevent parents with students facing expulsion hearings from addressing the board.

    “While not frequent, on more than one occasion we’ve had parents come and address the board in public participation,” she said. “As long as we’re having a board meeting and talking about appeals, I can’t support this.”

    Trustee Amelia McKie said suspending the policy doesn’t prevent parents or the community from communicating concerns to the board. She said it’s imperative to make meetings “more skeletal” to protect district staff, students and the public from COVID-19, also known as the novel coronavirus.

    Initially, the board agenda only stated that the board planned to vote to take action on policy BEDH, without any explanation. Board agendas typically include supporting documentation further explaining the measure being voted on.

    After The Voice brought this to Richland Two’s attention, the district amended the agenda to state that the board planned to suspend policy BEDH.

    The decision to suspend public participation came at the recommendation of the SCSBA, according to the revised agenda. On its website, the SCSBA recommends “temporarily eliminating public comment” periods as a way to curtail COVID-19.

    “If your board policy allows for public comment, the board should make a motion and approve temporary suspension of the associated policy… until the COVID-19 threat has ended,” the SCSBA site states.

    Jay Bender, a media law attorney with the S.C. Press Association, of which The Voice is a member, said there’s no law requiring local governments to provide a public comment period. Public bodies are only required to allow the public to speak at meetings where there’s a public hearing, such as during budget passage.

    The S.C. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) also allows public bodies to conduct business electronically. Streaming can be by video or audio; the law only states such meetings be broadcast electronically.

    “It would be better if they could stream it,” Bender said.

    Richland Two’s audio streaming encountered some hiccups Tuesday evening.

    “The school board association has never thought anything should be public. They are run by superintendents whose goal is to keep all unfavorable news about schools out of the press.”

    Jay Bender, Media Attorney

    The Voice attended the meeting remotely and experienced occasional interruptions in audio. Sometimes audio volume fluctuated and other times, audio cut out altogether.

    During a discussion of cancelling the April 7 board meeting, Agostini reported that she couldn’t hear Superintendent Dr. Baron Davis’ explanation of the measure.

    “That was a very bad echo. I didn’t hear a word that was said,” she said.

    Other board members reported not being able to hear portions of the meeting.

    Richland County resident Gus Philpott, a frequent critic of the board, vehemently objects to suspending public input. He also takes exception with virtual meetings as well as board members participating remotely versus in person.

    “There is no need to suspend BEDH. If the Board is successful at prohibiting the public from attending the meeting, there won’t be anyone to speak, will there?” Philpott wrote in an email to board members.

    “Please consider how very serious it is to attempt to silence the public,” Philpott continued. “You might benefit by re-reading the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which refers to abridging the freedom of speech.”

    The South Carolina School Board Association (SCSBA) also recommend that school districts not accept any FOIA requests submitted during the coronavirus crisis and de-prioritize requests filed prior to Gov. Henry McMaster’s state of emergency declaration.

    Bender disputed the legality of those suggestions.

     “The law establishes deadlines and I don’t think the governor or anybody else can suspend the law,” Bender said. “The school board association has never thought anything should be public. They are run by superintendents whose goal is to keep all unfavorable news about schools out of the press.”

  • R2 gives super generally high marks

    COLUMBIA – Superintendent Dr. Baron Davis received generally favorable scores on his annual evaluation, though one Richland Two board member marked Davis down in a few key categories. Two others were critical of the board majority’s decision to not allow board members to discuss a requirement that only a supermajority (5-2) of the board could dismiss Davis.

    Board trustee Lindsay Agostini gave Davis 2s and 3s on a 1-5 scale in categories assessing communication and employee retention, according to documents obtained by The Voice. 

    Agostini was the only board trustee submitting an individual evaluation. The other six board members evaluated Davis collectively. 

    On the joint evaluation, Davis received 4s and 5s in virtually every category, resulting in a total score of 139 points out of a possible 150. Davis received an overall “distinguished” rating.

    In a letter summarizing Davis’ performance, board chair James Manning lauded Davis for his professionalism and communication skills.

    “We appreciate your responsiveness to the board and the relationship you have developed with each board member,” the letter states. “You respond to our communications in a timely manner, and you take care of issues that are brought to your attention.”

    Agostini felt differently. 

    She rated Davis “2” out of “5” on a performance standard that says “the Superintendent works with the school board to develop and implement policies that define organizational expectations.” In the comments section, Agostini noted the presence of typos and grammatical errors.

    Agostini also gave Davis a “2” on “identifies, analyzes and resolves problems using effective problem-solving techniques.” She wrote “defensive” and “knee jerk reaction to support staff.”

    Davis was also marked down in teacher recruitment and retention efforts. “Not finding out why people are leaving,” Agostini wrote. She also added the phrase “sorority/fraternity,” public records show.

    At the last board meeting, trustees voted 5-2 to extend Davis’ contract another two years and award a 12.3 percent pay raise, a substantially greater raise than the 4 percent increase most teachers received in the state budget.

    The board also voted to increase Davis’ annual annuity contribution by 2.5 percent every year for five years, beginning in September 2020. The perks are provided he receives at least a “satisfactory” rating on future annual evaluations.

    Davis’ base pay is now $221,973, fifth highest in the state, according to public records.

    Trustees also inserted a clause that says the superintendent can only be dismissed by a supermajority (5-2) vote of the board, stoking pushback from some board members. They thought any vote to dismiss should be 4-3.

    Agostini and Monica Elkins-Johnson voted against the contract revisions on those grounds. Trustee Teresa Holmes also voiced concerns about the supermajority provision, but ultimately voted for the contract.

    Elkins-Johnson voiced additional concerns that “we were not given an opportunity to discuss this matter,” referencing the supermajority clause. She said the board majority would not pull that part of the contract out for a separate discussion.

    “Because the board will not allow us to pull one item out, I’m going to have to decline the entire contract,” Elkins-Johnson said. “I want to publicly apologize to you Dr. Davis because I support 75 percent of your contract.

    “There is only one item that I have an issue with and that is the super majority,” Elkins-Johnson continued. “Because the board has refused to allow us to pull that out, my vote tonight will be a no.”

    Board member Teresa Holmes also opposed the supermajority and voiced concern that the board wouldn’t permit a separate discussion on the clause, but ultimately voted for the contract.

    “As Dr. Elkins said, we could not pull that particular part out,” she said. “I am not in agreement with the five-vote contract. We have a vote for four for everything that we do.”

    Manning said there was ample opportunity to discuss the contract. The letter summarizing Davis’ performance states the board evaluation was discussed in executive sessions held on July 23, Aug. 6 and Aug. 13.

    “We did have the opportunity to discuss this as a board in executive session before coming to a final decision,” Manning said.

    “We did not have an opportunity as a board to discuss salary or concerns,” Elkins-Johnson responded. “We had an opportunity as a board to discuss our concerns only to the chair.”

    In a telephone interview with The Voice, Manning said supermajority clauses are not unprecedented in Richland Two, noting one was included in a proposed policy revision that the board considered in January.

    A proposed revision to Policy BD would’ve allowed the board, by supermajority vote, to strip a board member of their officer position “for cause.”

    Manning, Elkins-Johnson and Agostini voted for the policy revision, according to board documents.

    The vote failed, but not because of the supermajority clause. Some board members objected to ambiguity over the phrase “for cause.”

    The policy was introduced at a time when two trustees facing legal and ethics issues could have been impacted by the policy changes.

    Former board chair Amelia McKie owes nearly $57,000 in ethics fines for failing to file several campaign reports. A judgment has since been filed in Richland County Circuit Court.

    In January, Elkins-Johnson, then vice-chair of the board, was charged after an altercation following a board meeting. The case is pending.

  • Judgement filed against R2’s McKie

    COLUMBIA – On July 10, 2019 the South Carolina Ethics Commission filed a $51,750 Judgment in Richland County Common Pleas Court against the immediately previous Richland Two School Board Chairwoman Amelia McKie.

    This Judgment is to collect the $51,750 in fines and fees that McKie owes the Ethics Commission under Decision & Order No. 2017-023, which was issued on July 3, 2019.

    That Decision was based on McKie’s failure to file numerous required documents between 2015 and 2018, including Campaign Disclosure Reports and Statements of Economic Interests Reports.

    A 2018 Decision & Order informed McKie that, if she didn’t make payments as scheduled on Dec. 31, 2018, and later on June 30, 2019, the Judgment would be entered.

    Another Deadline Passes

    In addition, another deadline has passed with McKie failing to publicly declare campaign contributions and expenditures, a procedure required by state law.

    McKie filed her quarterly campaign disclosure report on July 18, eight days after the July 10 deadline, the S.C. Ethics Commission said.

    As of 12:13 p.m. July 18, McKie had not filed the report. The Voice left a message for McKie and within an hour, the Ethics Commission website said the report had been filed on July 18.

    McKie said via email last week that she filed on time.

    “My campaign disclosures were prepared in advance of July 10 and were ‘saved’ until the July 10th date,” McKie wrote. “The saved disclosure has been ‘filed.’ If a screen shot of the same would be helpful, please let me know. The [ethics commission] can attest to the same.”

    Meghan Walker, executive director of the ethics commission, said McKie started the online application process on July 10, but didn’t complete it until Thursday [July 18].

    “Ms. McKie saved her report on July 10. It was saved and not filed,” she said.

    McKie also missed the April 10 quarterly deadline, not filing those documents until May 9, and not until after The Voice contacted her then.

    Walker said McKie has paid a $100 fine for that violation.

    Other Richland Two board members either filed their July 10 forms on time or have filed a final report, closing their accounts and negating the need to file, ethics records show.

    In a related development, fellow trustee Teresa Holmes was recently fined for failing to file Statements of Economic Interest forms before taking the oath of office, according to documents obtained by The Voice.

    Holmes paid a $100 fine to settle the matter, the June 21 order states.

    Richland County resident Gus Philpott, who has spoken out against Richland Two ethics violations in past board meetings, filed the complaint in April.

    Philpott also asked the commission to invalidate any votes Holmes took while in violation and to remove her from office. The agency declined to do so.

    “The Act contains no provisions which would allow the Commission to invalidate a public official’s votes or remove him from office,” the order states.

    In a 2008 opinion, the S.C. Attorney General’s Office opined that only school boards and boards of trustees can remove a member “for cause.”

    The opinion contains a lengthy definition of “for cause.” In part, it says “cause is a flexible concept that relates to an employee’s qualifications and implicates the public interest.

    “Neglect of duty, inefficiency, and the good faith abolition of a position for valid reasons are all legally sufficient causes for removal,” the order continues.

    Philpott said he didn’t want to discuss the Holmes case. Regarding McKie, he said the former board chair should be sanctioned for her latest missed filing.

    “The Ethics Commission should fine her,” Philpott said. “She’s not attending to her responsibilities.”

    This is the 15th time since July 2015 that McKie has failed to file campaign disclosure reports on time. She only met the deadline once, filing her January 2019 statement Jan. 9, 2018, one day early, according to online ethics filings.

    Ethics records also show that McKie went three years – from 2015 to 2018 – without filing Statements of Economic Interest forms. She did not file forms for those years until December 2018.

    SEI forms must be submitted by March 30 every year. They list a candidate’s income sources and other positions they hold that may pose a potential conflict.

    Section 8-13-1110 of state law says no public official “may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities” unless an SEI form is filed.

    Richland Two trustees were sworn in Nov. 13, 2018, according to a Richland Two news release. Neither McKie nor Holmes filed file SEI forms until Dec. 4, 2018, ethics filings show.

  • R2 board names new officers

    Manning

    COLUMBIA – Richland Two’s board of trustees has new leadership.

    James Manning is now chairman, taking over for Amelia McKie, who remains a voting member.

    Teresa Holmes was named vice chairman and Cheryl Caution-Parker became secretary, according to votes taken at the June 25 meeting.

    Manning and Caution-Parker were unanimously voted into their new positions. The board voted 4-1 to make Holmes vice chair, with McKie and Caution-Parker abstaining. James Shadd cast the lone dissenting vote.

    Holmes

    McKie had nominated Shadd for vice chair, but that vote failed 4-3, with McKie, Caution-Parker and Shadd voting in the minority. Shadd declined a separate nomination to serve as secretary.

    Manning said he’s appreciative of the support the board displayed in nominating him as chairman. His goals include successfully managing the school’s building program, improving school safety and boosting student achievement.

    “I want to continue to focus on those things, to make sure that we do the best we can,” he said.

    Caution-Parker

    One board issue that’s arisen lately is public participation at meetings. In recent months, some residents have complained that the former chair altered the order in which speakers registered to muffle public criticisms.

    Manning said he plans to follow board policy.

    “Public input, like everything else, is managed through our policies,” he said. “I do think that’s something we need to take a look at, but ultimately the board chair should not have any undue influence in that process.”

    The board officer turnover comes at a controversial time for the Richland Two board, with one member owing nearly $51,000 in ethics fines and another facing a criminal disorderly conduct charge.

    In July 2018, the S.C. Ethics Commission fined McKie $41,000 for various campaign violations.

    The most current ethics commission’s debtor list available online, which is dated Jan. 3, 2019, still lists McKie’s fine at $41,000.

    However, documents obtained by The Voice state that the fine increases to $50,750 if McKie misses certain deadlines.

    Documents state that McKie was supposed to pay the first $20,000 by Dec. 31 and the remaining balance by June 30.

    An Ethics Commission representative said via email Monday that there has been no change in McKie’s status.

    Richland County resident Gus Philpott, a frequent critic of the board, said he’s looking forward to seeing positive changes with new board leadership at the helm.

    However, it still doesn’t change his belief that McKie and Holmes should step down from the board.

    Philpott maintains that McKie and Holmes aren’t legally allowed to serve because neither filed Statements of Economic interest forms until after taking the oath of office. State law prohibits elected officials from taking the oath when SEI forms haven’t been filed.

    “They are, in my opinion, not legal board members,” Philpott said. “Teresa Holmes was nominated for the position of vice chair and was elected. My contention is since she is not a board member, she cannot serve as an officer.”

    Asked about Philpott’s comments, McKie provided the following response:

    “One of the most sacred aspects of our American democracy is that every citizen is entitled to his/her own opinion, regardless of the accuracy of the same. The day that ceases to be is the day we no longer embody a democracy.”

    Holmes said she doesn’t plan to step down, and disputes that she’s not legally qualified to serve on the board.

    “There is no reason that he should continue to say that,” Holmes said. “He knows that that’s not true.”

    Elkins-Johnson is also facing legal difficulties.

    In January, the Richland County Sheriff’s Office charged her with disorderly conduct following an altercation occurring after a board meeting.

    According to a police report, the suspect shouted obscenities and threatened relatives of a state senator and the board chair.

    The Richland County Public Index lists a tentative court date of July 22, though the case has been continued several times.

  • Agostini: Board chair plays favorites with speakers

    COLUMBIA – Amid budget discussions, policy revision votes and a slew of special recognitions, one board member’s critique of the Richland Two chairwoman’s job performance punctuated a more-than-four-hour meeting.

    The drama began at about the 38-minute mark of the May 14 meeting when board member Lindsay Agostini called attention to “inconsistent” enforcement of the board’s public participation policy.

    Agostini

    Agostini accused McKie of giving preferential treatment to some speakers while shutting down others.

    “At a Feb. 12 meeting, we denied a participant. The chair stated they had missed the signups. The chair stated we are going to strictly adhere to board policy going forward because we are going to be as ethical and policy abiding as we possibly can,” Agostini began.

    The speaker in question had, at a previous meeting, called for McKie to step down, saying that McKie was not legally seated due to having failed to file a statement of economic interest form which is required by law before an elected school board member can be sworn into office.

    “However, on March 26, a different community member came to speak who admittedly showed up too late to sign up on the list, and the forms had been pulled,” she continued. “When I expressed concern to our board chair in an email, she responded by saying she chose to allow latitude to allow the person to speak.”

    McKie said she had started cracking down on public participation after she felt some speakers failed to display proper decorum.

    “When our meetings became out of order, when they became a three-ring circus, and people used my graciousness and latitude for personal gain and for insult, I chose to abide by public policy,” McKie said. “I don’t make any apologies for that. I’m happy to abide by public policy.”

    McKie has come under fire in recent months, largely over a litany of violations of state ethics laws.

    The S.C. Ethics Commission recently fined her $51,750 for failing to file various ethics forms. There have also been calls for her to step down from the board.

    As public participation began last Tuesday night, the evening’s only speaker sided with Agostini and called for greater transparency from the board.

    Columbia resident James Mobley, who ran unsuccessfully for the board in the past, also called upon the board to extend public participation from three to five minutes.

    “You have hurt Ms. Agostini and I’m sad about that,” Mobley said. “I believe that she deserves an apology. Unity should be a driving factor on this board.”

    Later, during the board member comment period, Agostini again raised the issue of inconsistent adherence to district policies. Then she turned to McKie’s ethics issues.

    Agostini didn’t directly mention McKie by name, though she referenced a story in The Voice that stated McKie hadn’t filed her April 2019 quarterly campaign disclosure report as of May 7. It was due April 10.

    According to Ethics Commission filings, McKie filed the form May 8, the day after The Voice notified her about the tardy filing.

    Agostini stated the missed ethics deadline came on the heels of the board adopting a policy demanding punctuality from staff when submitting reports and assignments.

    “Once again we’ve heard from the media of another missed deadline for campaign disclosure reports after being assured in January that it wouldn’t happen again,” Agostini said. “When do we start walking the walk and hold ourselves to the same standards we put in place for others?”

    McKie was visibly frustrated with what she called “accusations” and “personal attacks,” though she never addressed anyone by name.

    “I have a bevy of comments to share but in the respect of your time I won’t do so,” McKie said. “I won’t dignify certain accusations tonight that haven’t been asked of others.

    “You can’t pick and choose who’s acceptable to hurt and who’s not,” McKie continued. “At a board meeting or any facility, nobody should be hurt. Nobody should be injured; nobody should be castigated.”

    Other board members, most of whom have also missed ethics filings, and some of whom have paid fines, avoided addressing Agostini’s comments. Most declined to say anything at all.

    Board member Cheryl Caution-Parker was the only other trustee to speak. She didn’t directly address any issues from the meeting.

    “I do have something to say, but I’m not going to say it, but it’s on the tip of my tongue,” Caution-Parker said. “I’m sure a lot of you out there know what I want to say.”

  • Altered bond doc slips past R2 board

    COLUMBIA – When the Richland Two school board trustees’ former secretary declined to sign documents asserting that Board Chairwoman Amelia McKie is legally allowed to serve on the board, two trustees say the board was not notified the documents were modified to include phrasing dismissive of McKie’s ethics controversy.

    “I was not aware of the addition of the extra line in the bond documents,” trustee James Manning said. “I really don’t have a response to the legitimacy [issue]. I’m spending all my research looking into why that [the paragraph] is there and why we need it, so I’ll be looking at that.”

    Lindsay Agostini, the former board secretary, said her attorney advised her not to sign the documents. She thinks the document revisions should have been brought to the board’s attention.

    “We weren’t briefed as a board,” she said. “I do believe, with the modifications, I think it would’ve been important for the board to be briefed, either individually or as a group.”

    District Superintendent Dr. Baron Davis couldn’t be reached for comment.

    At issue are clauses added to documents relating to the district’s $468.4 million building program. Richland Two voters recently approved a bond referendum that raises taxes to finance construction.

    Added to the bond documents was the following statement:

    “The School District is aware that members of the public have called for the resignation of the current Board Chair because of fines owed by the Board Chair to the South Carolina State Ethics Commission because the Board Chair did not have on file a current Statement of Economic Interest prior to being sworn in to a second term as a member of the Board,” the document states.

    “The School District is not aware of any litigation, regulatory effort, or official proceeding challenging the Board Chair’s right and title to serve as a Board member of Board Chair,” the document continues.

    Agostini repeated her call for McKie to step down as chair, but hasn’t called for McKie’s outright resignation as some members of the public have.

    Manning said he doesn’t question McKie’s eligibility to serve.

    “Our legal counsel has told us based on the current law and previous attorney general opinions, the board really has no purview over whether Ms. McKie is a legitimate board member or not,” he said. “That is beyond board control.”

    Manning thinks state law should more clearly state whether public officials who fail to file ethics forms are legally allowed to serve.

    Section 8-13-1110 of state law says no public official “may take the oath of office or enter upon his official responsibilities” unless a Statement of Economics Interest form is filed.

    Section 8-13-1520 further states that ethics law violations are misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in prison, a $5,000 fine or both.

     

  • McKie fails to file ethics form… again

    COLUMBIA – In January, after racking up $51,750 in fines over unfiled ethics forms, Richland Two school board chair Amelia McKie vowed she would remedy the problem.

    “I am working with my legal counsel to address the fines and penalties imposed,” McKie said at a January board meeting. “I’ve learned a lot from my experience. It’s a problem that certainly will not happen again.”

    Apparently, it has happened again.

    As of Tuesday, McKie had not filed her quarterly campaign disclosure report with the S.C. Ethics Commission, according to the agency’s online database.

    The disclosure report was due April 10.

    Replying via email Tuesday evening, McKie disputed she had any missed ethics filings.

    “All my filings are compliant,” the email said.

    Disclosure reports not filed between 2016 and 2018 prompted the ethics commission to fine McKie $41,000 in July 2018. Another $10,750 was tacked on after she failed to pay a percentage by Dec. 31, 2018.

    At the Jan. 22 board meeting, while reading from a prepared statement, McKie publicly apologized for the ethics flap.

    “I made a number of mistakes and trying to address them simply got out of hand,” she said. “I am human. I’m not infallible. I am responsible and I am not running from those problems. I am taking action to fully resolve and address them.”

    News of the missed filing comes as several public citizens and a fellow board member have called upon McKie to step down as board chair or the board altogether. McKie has said she’s not stepping down.