The Beef Stew and Mundane Vegetable Soup of Public Meetings
Updated July 29, 2022, with full series of referenced emails (2)
On January 12, the day after an Aiken Municipal Development Commission public meeting, the Aiken Standard reported:
“The Aiken Municipal Development Commission recently hosted talking sessions with the prospective lead development group behind Project Pascalis. Over the course of two days, a total of 57 people attended five sessions, billed as a conversation with Grey Raines, managing partner with Raines Co.”
Two months later the AMDC formally approved its January 11 minutes (The minutes were available for approval at its planned February 8 meeting but no quorum was present). The minutes do not clarify nor correct the Standard’s story; and create a strong, though admittedly ambiguous, impression that the AMDC had hosted private meetings with select invitees. These “talking sessions” and “fellowship” with the developer functioned as “social meeting” used “ in “circumvention of the spirit of requirements of” South Carolina’s open meetings rules defined with the state’s larger Freedom of Information Act law (SC 30-4-70(c)).
Aiken Economic Development Director and AMDC staffer Tim O’Briant denies the contention the AMDC was involved in illegal private meetings. In an email sent a few hours after the posting, he wrote:
“The small group introductions you reference from January of 2022 we’re (sic) organized by the chamber at the request of Raines to meet with various stakeholders in the community. These were not AMDC meetings and none of the sessions were attended by or conducted by the AMDC or its staff. Gray Raines held the meetings as indicated in the update to the AMDC at a subsequent public meeting recited in the minutes you reference. There would have been no need for such an update had the commission conducted and attended the meetings held by Mr. Raines.”
There are contradictions with this version of events. First, in a followup email responding to questions regarding his denial, O’Briant wrote:
“I attended these meeting (sic) as AMDC staff and David Jameson, an individual AMDC member was present at each in that capacity and in his role as Chamber president.”
Second, within the same January 11 meeting minutes is a report from the Marketing Aiken Committee chair Chris Verenes describing Commissioners, and not Raines, initiating the private meeting process:
“As a result of the publicity regarding the Pascalis Project, there have been questions. The Committee talked about a process that we can get some feedback and discussions along the way. He noted there was a phone conversation about getting Rainsco to start getting out into the community to talk about the project. Rainsco was contacted and some meetings were set up. He pointed out that they met with the DRB and other groups.”
There was no reported discussion pertaining to any need to hold public meetings or forums to “talk about the project.” The entire effort was conducted under the public radar. Only after a contentious March 28th City Council public hearing and vote on the Newberry Street privatization (conveyance) ordinance did the AMDC plan and schedule the April 20 public meetings. Four months passed between the elite private meetings and the first open sessions regarding the entirety of Project Pascalis.
Third, O’Briant claims the meetings did not constitute a public AMDC meeting because there was no quorum of members present; and presented the following argument:
“By its nature and definition, a pot of beef stew must contain beef. By nature and definition, any meeting of a public body must include the members of that public body. How could it be otherwise. One could ask, where’s the beef? Or, more appropriately, how can one say a public body met when the membership was never assembled in any way, shape or form?”
He further stated:
“What you are presenting as beef stew was actually a mundane vegetable soup.”
This misdirected metaphor presents an effort to overlooks the fact that using the Aiken Chamber of Commerce as a surrogate to “answer questions” and “introduce” the developer circumvented the spirit of the law.
While a quorum is necessary to vote on matters and declare the meeting official, the possible absence of a quorum does not disqualify planned meetings from being announced to the public. Nor does the lack of a quorum preclude the body from keeping minutes, as it did for its shortened February 8, 2022 meeting. The April 20, 2022 “design workshops” were described as “public meetings” in the AMDC’s April 12, 2022 meeting minutes.
While this particular incident will not be aired in a judicial setting in the near future, the AMDC’s contempt for early and full public involvement has been on display as prominently as somebody driving fifty miles per hour through downtown. Just because they were not pulled over and ticketed does not make it legal.
____________________
(1) Original posting at:
(2) Following is the complete email exchange between May 27th and May 31st between Donald Moniak and Tim O’Briant based on the story originally posted on the Do It Right! Facebook Page and later posted to The Aiken Chronicles website:
On Fri, May 27, 2022, 3:53 PM Tim O’Briant wrote:
Mr. Moniak,
Your post regarding the small group meetings with Gray Raines has been brought to my attention. Just as you are, I am always concerned about public bodies observing, meeting and exceeding all notice requirements for their meetings.
The small group introductions you reference from January of 2022 we’re organized by the chamber at the request of Raines to meet with various stakeholders in the community. These were not AMDC meetings and none of the sessions were attended by or conducted by the AMDC or its staff. Gray Raines held the meetings as indicated in the update to the AMDC at a subsequent public meeting recited in the minutes you reference. There would have been no need for such an update had the commission conducted and attended the meetings held by Mr. Raines.
As you are likely aware, the SC FOIA SECTION 30-4-20 defines a public meeting as follows:
(d) “Meeting” means the convening of a quorum of the constituent membership of a public body, whether corporal or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.
(e) “Quorum” unless otherwise defined by applicable law means a simple majority of the constituent membership of a public body.
Please update your posting to correct any impression that the AMDC violated public meeting requirements in this case. Thank you in advance for your commitment to truthful and accurate commentary.
Regards,
Tim O’Briant
Economic Development Director
City of Aiken, South Carolina
803-508-1429
On May 27, 2022, at 3:32 PM, Donald Moniak wrote:
Mr O’Briant,
1. The Aiken Standard in the cited article clearly reported the meetings were held by the AMDC. If they were in error, is there any record of the AMDC or City ever correcting the mistake?
2. The meeting minutes cited create a clear impression of AMDC involvement. There is no mention of the event as being Chamber sponsored. The AMDC approved these minutes, creating a distinct impression that it was involved in some capacity. Why is there no mention that AMDC related business was Chamber sponsored?
3. Mr. Jameson is an AMDC Commissioner and its treasurer. If he commingled his two roles at this meeting to advance the AMDC’s position, the public has a right to know. Did Me. Jameson disclose his position as an AMDC Commissioner, or did he, like Philip Merry on May 9th, pretend to be just an interested observer?
4. In your citation of open meetings laws, why did you omit SC 30-4-70(c), regarding the use of social events or other means to circumvent the spirit of the law?
5. If Raines requested these meetings, were they encouraged to do so by AMDC members, or is their standard operating procedure to circumvent the public process regarding public-private partnerships involving tens of millions of dollars in public funds?
I will post an update that includes your entire response and these questions. But even if legal, the act of setting up private, invitation only meetings regarding a major development within an area of long term contention wreaks of elitism and disdain for true public input.
I will remind you that like myself, you are not a lawyer. Perhaps Mr. Smith or Mr. Pope should be weighing in on the legalities of the meetings. Were either of them consulted?
Thank You,
Donald Moniak
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 7:33 PM Tim Obriant wrote:
Mr. Moniak,
By its nature and definition, a pot of beef stew must contain beef. By nature and definition, any meeting of a public body must include the members of that public body. How could it be otherwise. One could ask, where’s the beef? Or, more appropriately, how can one say a public body met when the membership was never assembled in any way, shape or form?
I attended these meeting as AMDC staff and David Jameson, an individual AMDC member was present at each in that capacity and in his role as Chamber president.
A quorum of a public body (five voting members in the case of the AMDC) must be present at the same time and in the same location, or even virtually, to constitute a meeting. That did not occur during any of these several meet-and-greet sessions with 57 community members and Mr. Raines, nor has anyone, including the Aiken Standard, ever asserted such.
What you are representing as beef stew was actually a mundane vegetable soup. No aspect of FOI was violated intentionally or otherwise, and, yes, attorney Gary Pope vetted the plans for the event to ensure full compliance. Thank you for your questions and efforts to make sure you get this right and fairly represent the facts of both the law and the reality of the event described.
Tim O’Briant
Economic Development Director
City of Aiken, South Carolina
803-508-1429
On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 12:21 Donald Moniak wrote:
Mr. O’Briant,
Could you provide a date, other than March 15, when the January 11 meeting minutes were addressed and corrected?
The Aiken Standard story clearly described the private meetings as “talking sessions” “hosted” by the AMDC. There is no ambiguity in their report as their is in the January 11 minutes. The story was published on January 12and the AMDC had two full months to set the record straight, but chose not to until your May 27, 2022 email disputing the accuracy of my social media posting and email that was also sent to City Council.
In your initial email, you stated “no staff” was present at the five private meetings, yet in your subsequent email you stated you were present. You are listed under “Staff” at the AMDC website. Did you or Mr. Jameson take notes at these meetings or conduct any followup with interested participants?
Also, in those 1/11 minutes there was a reference to additional future meetings being planned. How many of these were held, who organized them, and who was present?
As to quorums, there was no quorum for the planned February 8 meeting, yet some discussions took place and minutes were recorded. No quorum of Commissioners was present at the April 20, 2022 public “workshops” that were described in the April 12 AMDC meeting minutes as “public meetings,” as only two AMDC members spoke up–although they did not clearly identify their affiliations, similar to Mr. Merry’s lack of disclosure on May 9. Yet, these were videotaped and available for participation via Zoom, which was commendable but also in accordance with established City of Aiken transparency policies and practices.
Your response to my questions did not address 30-4-70(c). The issue here is not the AMDC conducting business by holding votes or setting policy without a quorum, but using a private organization as a surrogate to facilitate private meetings that should have been open to the general public. The list is 30-4-70(c) does not appear to be exhaustive, these are examples of inappropriate conduct that functions to circumvent open meeting laws.
Finally, please work on your metaphors. If a recipe calls for a pound of beef stew meat but only a quarter pound is used, it is still beef stew. If the stew meat is excluded, that makes it a vegetable stew, not a “mundane vegetable soup,” As to the latter metaphor, would you be willing to tell the 57 select invitees their participation was “mundane” and they were not provided any meat at their private meetings?
Thank You,
Donald Moniak
On May 31, 2022 at 3:57 p.m. Tim O’Briant wrote:
Mr. Moniak,
When you quote me as saying that “(I) stated “no staff” was present at the five private meetings, yet in your subsequent email you stated you were present,” you are misrepresenting my actual correspondence. What I wrote, copied here verbatim, was “these were not AMDC meetings and none of the sessions were attended by or conducted by the AMDC or its staff.” Admittedly, my use of the compound verbs, attended by or conducted by, was somewhat imprecise in that my intent was to explain the AMDC as an assembled body politic did not participate at any point those days. I was at each of the meetings, but played no official role in my staff capacity. I apologize that my response was unclear and caused any confusion.
As to your other questions/comments, I am in receipt of your FOI request 109-2022 related to this matter and the response to that query will within ten days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) of the receipt of the request, notify you of the City’s determination as to the public availability of the requested public records. In the interim, feel free to call me directly or stop by the next time you’re in the City if you need additional assistance.
Regards,
Tim
This was Mr. O’Briant’s first suggestion that a FOIA request response would be withheld until the legal time limit.