Attorneys representing former AMDC Chairman Keith Wood and Vice Chair Chris Verenes have filed a Motion for a Protective Order Authorizing Disclosure of Documents and Testimony pertaining to the failed Project Pascalis. The Motion seeks the full and unconditional disclosure of public records that otherwise might be construed as exempt from release due to being deemed as privileged and confidential attorney-client work product. In addition to the Motion for complete disclosure of once-privileged records, Wood and Verenes have already provided the Plaintiff with 1,318 pages of documents that were classed as non-privileged, demonstrating a willingness to cooperate with unveiling the complete Project Pascalis record; a willingness that is currently not shared by City officials.

(Update. The 1,315 pages of non-privileged information produced by Keith Wood and Chris Verenes in response to the subpoena described in this article is available via this FOIA response link.)

by Don Moniak
October 18, 2024
(Update May 25, 2025)

The July 5, 2022, Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit sought not only to halt the $75-100 million downtown demolition and redevelopment effort known as Project Pascalis; it also strove to have the courts issue a declarative judgement that the City of Aiken and two of its legal entities—the Design Review Board (DRB) and Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) violated the state’s Community Development Law and Freedom of Information Act.

On September 29, 2022, less than three months after the lawsuit was filed, the Project was officially cancelled. That action was followed within months by the repeal of the pivotal Newberry Street privatization Ordinance, and eventually by the dissolution of the AMDC—which had been the lead organizer of the project, and owner of the Pascalis properties that then reverted to City ownership and are currently up for sale.

Two of the City of Aiken’s contract attorneys, Daniel Plyler and Rachel Lee of the Smith Robinson Law Firm, successfully argued that these three actions rendered the lawsuit “moot,” The Plaintiffs appealed the court’s concurrence with that argument, contending that while the injunctive relief request may have been satisfied, the issue of declarative judgement remained.

While the case remained in the appeals stage, Plaintiffs continued to seek discovery of project records. The City resisted discovery, leading to a May 6, 2024, Motion to Compel project records.

In a subsequent July 5th Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs argued that the City “has not even tried” to respond to discovery requests—a statement supported by the fact that a mere nine records had been produced by the City—six of which were already public and one of which had been privately published in late 2022 after it was inadvertently made public by the City.

Five days later, on July 10th, Plaintiffs took the overdue approach of issuing one subpoena to former AMDC Chair Keith Wood and a second subpoena to former AMDC Vice Chair Chris Verenes.

The reason for the long wait was quizzical. Immediately after the project cancellation, both individuals had issued strong statements alleging malfeasance by city staff; sentiments that were reiterated in a November 2022 email to City Council and in their subsequent letters of resignation—all of which were written in protest of Aiken City Council’s refusal to meet with the AMDC in the absence of a Joint Defense Agreement, one that Wood and Verenes contended would inhibit the public’s right to know how the cancellation of the project had transpired.

Unlike Project Pascalis investment and development team leader Ray Massey, who successfully had a Motion to Quash his subpoena granted by the court, Wood and Verenes appear eager to testify and release records. The fact that they have procured their own legal counsel and have complied with discovery requests indicates the former AMDC officers are acting more in a whistleblower capacity than as players for a defense devoted to prolonging the case while spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in legal fees.

Also in contrast to the lengthy Massey subpoena was the brevity of the Plaintiffs’ request for documents from Wood and Verenes, simply written as:

“All documents and written communications in your possession pertaining to Project Pascalis and your involvement with the Aiken Municipal Development Commission.” (Figure 1)

Anyone who thought the two former AMDC officers might follow the City’s lead and stonewall the Plaintiffs would have been mistaken.

This past Thursday, October 17th, attorneys for the two former appointees filed a Motion for a Protective Order Authorizing Testimony and Documents. Specifically, the brief presents the argument that, since Wood and Verenes were “misled about the project and about relationships that city officials had with those involved,” and “they very much want to shed light on the improprieties hidden from them (and the public),” any records and testimony that might be construed as subject to attorney-client privilege should not be treated as such, and should be entered into the case record.

In that regard, a sixteen-page “privilege log” listing ~120 written records —that mostly involved, in some manner, AMDC Attorney Gary Pope—accompanied the brief.

Even without the “privilege log” documents, Wood and Verenes have already collectively provided to the Plaintiffs 1,318 pages of non-privileged documents; expressing and demonstrating a willingness to cooperate—while Aiken City Council has apparently directed its attorneys to obstruct the Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.

For example, in their Response to the Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories, City of Aiken attorneys objected, in part, “to the extent that they seek disclosure of information subject to attorney-client privilege, the work product protections afforded by Rule 26(b)(3) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, or any other applicable privilege or immunity. By responding to these Interogatories, Defendant does not waive any privilege or immunity, but instead relies specifically on such privileges and immunities.”

Attorneys for Wood and Verenes argued the opposite, that since the project was cancelled, the AMDC is defunct, and Wood and Verenes were removed as individual defendants, the sixteen pages of records listed in the “privilege log” should be made available to the Plaintiffs; both as original records and during verbal depositions.

Most important among the reasons to unconditionally release the records was that “public policy favors disclosure of government action occurring behind closed doors,” concluding, in that respect:

“When government closes its doors, it selectively controls information rightfully belonging to the people. (Detroit Free Press vs. Ashcroft…2002)”

The argument made is that, while Executive Sessions and privileged records may once been arguably appropriate, time itself, coupled with the dissolution of the AMDC, have rendered moot any objections to full public disclosure.

The latest stance from Wood and Verenes is consistent with their written statement to City Council, made on November 21, 2022, that, “Any meeting restricting open, frank, and complete information would be a disservice to City Council, AMDC, and the citizens of Aiken.”

After more than two years of litigation, one thing appears certain—the City of Aiken and Aiken City Council appear willing to stonewall as long as necessary, while their former project leaders are willing to leave no stone unturned in “the best interests of justice.” As the Motion made by Wood and Verenes states,

“The citizens of Aiken deserve to hear Mr. Wood’s and Mr. Verenes’ perspectives because this is a matter of public concern involving governmental spending of millions of taxpayer dollars to renovate the most prominent block in the City and the Hotel Aiken.”

Update, May 25, 2025

In the case of Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al (The Pascalis lawsuit) the Court issued a Consent Order on March 10, 2025, pertaining to the 120 or more documents held by Keith Wood and Chris Verenes that contained potentially privileged information.

The Court ruled that 

1. “All communications and documents in the possession of Mr. Wood and Mr. Verenes pertaining to the dispute surrounding Project Pascalis that were created or took place before the Aiken Municipal Development Commission retained attorney David Morrison on July 9, 2022, are not subject to a valid claim of privilege. Mr. Wood and Mr. Verenes are authorized to testify about all communications they were a part of regarding Project Pascalis and produce all relevant documents pertaining to the project so long as those documents and communications were created or took place prior to Mr. Morrison’s engagement as counsel in this matter.”

2. “All documents produced AFTER the AMDC obtained counsel are on a case by case basis and records involving their counsel are subject to challenges by the City asserting privilege.”

Related Articles

Project Pascalis Legal Costs provides a breakdown of all legal fees incurred by the City of Aiken related to Project Pascalis, as well as which lawyers represented each of the Defendants—City of Aiken, Aiken City Council, the AMDC, the DRB, and City Attorney Gary Smith.

The Project Pascalis RFP provides background on the key issues behind the cancellation of Project Pascalis.

Moot or Not Moot describes the City of Aiken’s Motion for Summary Judgement and the Plaintiff’s response—which is further detailed in “A Continuation of Project Pascalis.

The First and Last Council/AMDC Meeting? chronicles the process, through March 2023, of dissolving the AMDC and transferring the Commission’s Project Pascalis properties to the City of Aiken.