Project Pascalis is Punted Two Weeks Down the Road
by Don Moniak
September 12, 2022
On Friday, September 9, 2022, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) met for the first time in three months. For more than three hours, the Commission met in a closed door, Executive Session to discuss legal issues pertaining to its beleaguered, $100 million plus demolition and redevelopment effort in downtown Aiken known as Project Pascalis. The notification of a special Executive Session meeting was made on September 8 — at which time the commission also cancelled its scheduled September 13th meeting.
It is uncertain who was in the Executive Session, and the discussion remains confidential. But after leaving “Executive Committee,” five of the six remaining original voting members entered into a public session that lasted less than three minutes. (Three other commissioners have no vote because they are not city residents, and were appointed to the positions in contradiction of City law).
The brief public session was marked by:
- A reference to an Executive Session decision to take action, even though voting during Executive Sessions is illegal;
- A puzzling description of the contract with Pascalis project developer RPM Development Services as “purported;’
- An implicit acknowledgement that the AMDC violated South Carolina’s Community Development Law;” and
- A seconded motion to stop Project Pascalis overruled by a motion to amend, without any vote on the original motion.
The meeting was taped by a member of the public.
The following transcript is now provided:
AMDC Chair Keith Wood: Okay so we’ve taken the appropriate action to come out of Executive Committee and we are now in public session of the AMDC Meeting of September the ninth. We have decided to take some action. So I will entertain a motion relative to the action that we discussed.
Vice Chair Chris Verenes: Mr Chairman, I make a motion that we stop Project Pascalis, that we declare the purported existing contract null and void, and thirdly we propose to either amend or cancel the redevelopment plan so we can follow South Carolina Community Development Law.”
Chairman Wood: I second that motion.
Chairman Wood: Discussion?
(5 seconds pass).
Commissioner David Jameson: Mr Chairman, I agree with this motion but based on our counsel’s recommendation and additional due diligence that I feel like is needed I’d like to motion to amend to continue this to the week of September 26th.”
Commissioner Doug Slaughter: I second that motion.
Chairman Wood: Any discussion?
For the record we have Philip Merry on the phone, who is a Commissioner. We also have Stuart McVean here. Stuart technically is not a voting member of the Commission, but he has been involved and engaged in this process from Day one. His opinion is extremely valuable to us, which is why he is here but he cannot vote.
So we have a seconded motion, is there any discussion before we take a vote?
Okay, all in favor of accepting the approval of the amended motion David Jameson laid out please say Aye.
(Only Ayes are heard)
Chairman Wood: We have a full majority of the quorum that we have here today. That is all the action we will take today. We will set a meeting time the week of September 26to further discuss David’s motion.
[Meeting Adjourned].
Thus, the AMDC punted their decision to an undefined date that is likely to be announced at the last possible moment.
Thanks, Donald Moniak and The Aiken Chronicles, for another excellent report. It is a report that the “Aiken Standard” is either too inept to compose, or completely stifled by its masters at City Hall and the Aiken Chamber of Commerce — and its sycophantic allegiance to them. Once again, Chairman Wood demonstrates that he cannot comprehend the difference between “executive committee” (which he has never defined as it pertains to his beloved AMDC) and “executive session.” This is the guy who is supposedly leading the charge to “redevelop” center-city Aiken, under the watchful eye of Aiken City Council. So far, that has led to a comprehensive debacle. It is AMDC and City Council that should be “redeveloped,” me thinks.
I have been to two county fairs and a couple goat ropings, but this takes the cake.
Looks like the AMDC can even manage to fumble the ahem Pigskin in retreat. Was this public version of the meeting even noticed? It wasn’t on their website or the City’s website as anything but an Executive Session meeting. You can review the rules for public meeting notices here
SECTION 30-4-80. Notice of meetings of public bodies.
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t30c004.php
It reads in part
An agenda for regularly scheduled or special meetings must be posted on a bulletin board in a publicly accessible place at the office or meeting place of the public body and on a public website maintained by the body, if any, at least twenty-four hours prior to such meetings. All public bodies must post on such bulletin board or website, if any, public notice for any called, special, or rescheduled meetings. Such notice must include the agenda, date, time, and place of the meeting, and must be posted as early as is practicable but not later than twenty-four hours before the meeting.
Interestingly enough that same link takes you to the definition of Public Body and the DRB might want to review that section since their filing on the July 5th lawsuit seemed to indicate they thought they were not a public body. SECTION 30-4-20. seems to indicate otherwise.
On the bright side (besides the obvious) at least Friday’s AMDC meeting wasn’t at Vics and hopefully taxpayers didn’t pay for drinks at Prime after the meeting.