All posts by donaldmoniak

City Government, Freedom of Information, Project Pascalis 2025, September 2025

The Project Pascalis Depositions

3 Comments

by Don Moniak
September 13, 2025

Yesterday the Plaintiffs in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit, aka the “Pascalis Lawsuit,” released a media advisory, a summary of two depositions from former Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) Chairman Keith Wood and Vice Chair Chris Verenes, and the depositions themselves.

The Media Advisory read as follows:

“Today the Plaintiffs in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit, also known as “The Pascalis Project Lawsuit,” are releasing the sworn depositions of former Aiken Municipal Development Commission officers–specifically former Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chairman Chris Verenes. In addition, Plaintiffs are also releasing a six-page memo summarizing the findings from the deposition and other discovery documents. 

The revelations from the Wood and Verenes depositions include the following: 

  • Some City officials knowingly failed to comply with state law and standard ethical guidelines for procurement practices by “steering” the contract for the $75 million Pascalis Project towards a preferred developer who was not selected via an open, official procurement process. 
  • The procurement aspect of Community Development Law was knowingly violated when an official, open procurement process was knowingly delayed in November of 2021 until AFTER a contract was signed with a preferred developer in December of 2021. The depositions reveal that the AMDC was not made aware of this irregular, unethical, and illegal process by City staff and their attorney until seven months later, at a closed-door meeting on June 23, 2022. Shortly thereafter, the AMDC took the position to restart the project with a new redevelopment plan and a legal, open, official procurement process. This restart, however, was derailed by this litigation. 
  • After being informed of the transgressions, at least two Aiken City Council members advocated a no action approach, declining to pursue an investigation as to the cause of the debacle.”

    More details are contained in a September 5, 2025 Memorandum and Summary.

    The full depositions are available here: 

  • KeithWood
  • Chris Verenes

    Supporting documentation.

    While the Plaintiffs have yet to release their volume of exhibits, some key documents cited in the depositions were obtained from the City of Aiken via a Freedom of Information Act request that yielded approximately 120 formerly “privileged” emails (spread out in redundant fashion in more than 1200 pages) and that provides additional supporting documentation to the summary.

    The key documents include a June 29, 2022 email from Keith Wood in which he described “knowing violations” of state Community Development Law; and a three-page memo from Woods outlining a timeline of key Pascalis project events in which he highlighted “facts associated with what transpired that is potentially unethical and potentially in violation of SC statute.” These documents are available at Privileged Records of the Pascalis Project.

    The depositions, coupled with pertinent records, indicate that some city officials did knowingly violate the law, and were reportedly advised by legal counsel not to delay a Request for Proposals. The Defense, which did cross examine both Wood and Verenes, failed to provide any documentation to challenge the assertions of at least one serious willful violation. No evidence was presented that indicated the delay of an official Request for Proposals in order to benefit a preferred developer was an “honest mistake.”

    ——————————————————————————————

    Coming soon: The Steering” of the Project Pascalis Contract: May 2021 to June 2022.

Related Aiken Chronicles articles

The Project Pascalis RFP.
A Hotel in the Alley…
The Pascalis Attorneys
The AECOM Plan

Development Issues, Planning, September 2025, Traffic & Safety

The Parker’s Kitchen Variance Request

1 Comment


This Thursday, September 11th, the Aiken County Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing regarding an application for an exemption, or variance, to the legal requirement that driveways be 300 feet apart on a major thoroughfare—in this case Whiskey Road.

The applicant is the Drayton-Parker Company, from Savannah, Georgia, who plans to build a Parker’s Kitchen convenience store and gas station at the junction of Chukker Creek Road and Whiskey Road. In doing so, the company is proposing to build a driveway that is only 170 feet from the existing driveway at the South on Whiskey Event and Entertainment Venue and JC’s Seafood. It also proposes a deceleration lane on Whiskey Road that will begin only 30 feet from South on Whiskey’s driveway, creating a new safety concern on an already hazardous road.

by Don Moniak
September 10, 2025

Three months ago, the Drayton-Parker Company, owner of the Parker’s Kitchen convenience store and gas station chain, bought a pair of properties totaling 3.67 acres at the junction of Whiskey and Chukker Creek Roads. The company did so with the intention of building its fourth establishment in Aiken County. The plan is for an eight-pump (16 filling stations) gas station and a 5,700 square foot convenience store similar to its existing locations in northwest Aiken and North Augusta.

This is the second location on Whiskey Road sought by Parker’s. The first was at the junction of Stratford Drive and Whiskey Road. That plan did not move forward following Aiken City Council’s decision in June 2023 to let the proposal die by not voting on the matter. After that, the company moved a half a mile south to its newly planned location.

The latest rendition of a Parker’s Kitchen on Whiskey Road appears to be a done deal. The appropriate zoning, Urban Development (UD), is already in place; meaning that the planned use does not have to endure a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Aiken City Council approved sewer and water services at its September 23, 2024 meeting. (Pages 171-185) At that meeting, there was some discussion of traffic concerns and close proximity to nearby residences, but the concerns paled compared to the failed effort to build at Whiskey and Stratford.

There is one stumbling block for this Parker’s on Whiskey Road, and that is access from Whiskey Road. At issue is Section 24-2.12.9.(1) of Aiken County Code, which states:

“No more than one driveway shall be allowed for every 300 feet of street frontage on major thoroughfares.”

Parker’s plan is for a driveway on Whiskey Road that will only be 170 feet from the nearest existing driveway.

That nearest existing driveway is owned by the South on Whiskey Event and Entertainment Venue at 3197 Whiskey Road, an activity center that has operated since 1998 and includes a miniature golf course, an event center, JC’s Seafood restaurant, and The Classic Cone ice cream stand.

Parker’s Kitchen proposes a deceleration lane that begins only 30 feet south of the JC Seafood’s driveway. While the deceleration lane is planned for the right of way and does not encroach directly upon South on Whiskey’s property, the move is nonetheless an infringement upon the businesses—it greatly reduces the buffer between the roadway and the miniature golf course, and it negatively impacts the ability of customers to safely turn either way onto Whiskey Road. (see Figures 1-3)

Figure 1: “X” is approximate location of the start of the deceleration lane. South on Whiskey is outlined in red, Drayton-Parker’s property is outlined in blue.

Figure 2: Approximate location of the deceleration lane. South on Whiskey’s driveway is in the foreground. Chukker Creek intersection is in the far background.

Figure 3: Parker’s Kitchen site plan. South on Whiskey is to the north/left. The deceleration lane is in the far upper left. On the upper right is a right hand turn lane that Drayton-Parker also proposes. The right-in, right-out driveway in the upper left is 300 feet from the Chukker Creek Road intersection, and 170 feet from the South on Whiskey driveway, which is not shown in the drawing.



The deceleration lane will lead to a right turn access into Parker’s Kitchen. The reason for that proposed access point is to keep a sufficient distance (300 feet) from the intersection of Chukker Creek Road. But in the process, Parker’s proposes its driveway be only 170 feet from the South on Whiskey entrance—-nearly half the required 300 feet between driveways required by the County regulations; and thus the need for a variance from the regulation.

The criteria for a variance, as defined by Section 24-9.3.4 of the County Code, are four-fold:

1. “There must be extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property.”

Drayton-Parker argued, in their application, only that “sub-standard spacing exists,” a known condition when it applied for utilities services and when it bought the property. The circumstances are only exceptional because Parkers anticipates traffic levels that would dwarf another use; i.e. a medical office or a Dollar Store.

2. “These conditions do not generally apply to other property in the vicinity.”

Drayton-Parker has argued that “‘There are properties to the northwest that do not meet the 300’ driveway space.”

This is true for much of Whiskey Road, but not necessarily true for businesses that were established after the 2006-2007 time frame when the Highway Corridor Overlay (HCO) Ordinance was put into effect. The establishments that had to follow the driveway rules include Dollar General, Circle K, Mi Rancho, Lowe’s Foods, Fortress Storage, and Holiday Inn Express. In fact, Parker’s was prepared to adhere to this safety rule at its failed Stratford Drive location, and has adhered to the rule at every one of its other locations in Aiken County.

The driveway rule exists because too many driveways in close proximity were a contributing cause, if not a root cause, for the unsafe and congested conditions that characterized Whiskey Road twenty years ago. The safety regulation was put into place to avoid exacerbating that aspect of the problem.

3. Because of these conditions, the application of the rule in question “would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property.”

Drayton-Parker argued that “The application of the ordinance to this property would prohibit access on S.C. Hwy 19 (Whiskey Road).” This appears to be the only criteria that the application meets in a clearcut manner.

4. The authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the public good, and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance.

Drayton-Parker claimed that a Traffic Impact Analysis showed that the project will “not have a negative impact on the adjacent properties.”

John Hyder, the owner of South on Whiskey and JC’s, disagrees, and is challenging the variance. He believes the deceleration lane is both dangerously located too close to his driveway, and that the increased difficulty of right hand turns from his driveway will deter business.

As he puts it:

“I am not against growth and development. I feel the codes and regulations were put in place to guide development in a safe and consistent manner. I just want developers to follow these rules.”

It appears that Drayton-Parker Company bought its property with the knowledge that it had to obtain an exemption to a traffic safety regulation in order to have access from Whiskey Road.

There is little question that its plans will have a detrimental impact on the adjacent business, South on Whiskey’s operations; the question is whether that detriment will be “substantial” and whether Drayton-Parker is deserving of an exemption that has not been granted to other entities on the Whiskey Road Highway Overlay.

(The Board of Appeals meeting is at 6:30 p.m. in the Sandlapper Room on the first floor of the County Administration Building at 1930 University Parkway. The application for the variance can be found on pages 38 to 46 in the agenda documents. )


Annexation, August 2025, City Government

The 10-Foot Wide Strip of City Land

5 Comments

How the City of Aiken is poised to expand via a creative annexation trick.

by Don Moniak
August 9, 2025
Updated August 13, 2025

The City of Aiken could soon expand to its east via a 650-foot-long, 10-foot-wide strip of land that it purchased in 2020. The strip of land will enable annexation of 66 acres between Toolebeck Road and Charleston Highway ( State Hwy 78); across the road from the AGY Plant. The property (Figure 1) is proposed for development of a 157-home subdivision called Toolebeck Commons.

Figure 1: Location of proposed Toolebeck Commons residential development. (From Aiken County public.net)

The process by which this innovative expansion has come about began in 2020. 

At its August 24, 2020 meeting (pages 34-40), Aiken City Council approved the provision of sewer service* for 247 homes on the Toolebeck Road property.

During its September 14, 2020 meeting, Council approved a $5,000 purchase of a strip of land from property owned by Dominion Energy (Figure 2) that would enable annexation of the Toolebeck parcel and proposed subdivision. That sale was finalized in December 2020.

Figure 2. The 10-foot-wide strip of land purchased by the City of Aiken in December 2020. The Toolebeck Commons property is to the right, and city-owned property with Deodora Plantation’s detention pond is to the left. Dominion Energy’s parcel is to the North, above the 10-foot strip. (From Aiken County public.net)

The City Manager’s memorandum (Page 148) read that: 

“Council has been very clear that the City should grow through targeted annexation. Recently, Council authorized the provision of sewer service to a future residential development of +/- 60.6 acre as on Toolebeck Road that is currently not contiguous to the City of Aiken. As a condition of sewer service, the property must be annexed once contiguous. I reached out to Dominion Energy to purchase a small strip of property that is +/- 0.15 of an acre for $5,000 that would allow for continuity between our existing corporate limits to this undeveloped property.  Dominion has agreed to the sale.

 I recommend Council approve this transaction…costs would come from Economic Development funds.”

The resolution passed unanimously and without question.

According to the meeting minutes the purchase was considered a step towards city expansion to the east: 

“Councilman Girardeau thanked Mr. Bedenbaugh for checking on purchase of the property so other property can be annexed. He said it is part of the movement to grow to the east.”

Between the time of Council’s approval and the closing on the purchase, a proposed cost-sharing agreement for the sewer expansion failed to materialize and the development was shelved.

As it turns out, the developer was unaware that this purchase and annexation effort was in the works. According to its narrative (Page 33), for the currently proposed 157-home subdivision:

“This purchase by the city was never mentioned during the City Services request process. If the city had been forthcoming with their intentions, the applicant would have waited until the purchase by the city was completed and an annexation petition would have been submitted instead of going through the City Services request and now the Annexation request wasting everyone’s time and fees.” 

This is not the only time the City has found a creative way to expand via annexation. Nor is it the only time that a third party found fault with its methods—which have continued to contribute to the fragmented and irregular shape of the city’s boundaries.

As reported in Who Bought This Property, the annexation of the new Steeplechase Foundation property was enabled via the February 2020 purchase of a 0.4-acre parcel of land by the Aiken Corporation. In exchange for this $40,000 purchase, the City forgave $246,600 in loans to Aiken Corporation.

In January 2021, Generations Park was annexed via another 10-foot wide strip (Figure 3) that had been obtained to facilitate a sewer line. This occurred two years after the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SC DOT) threatened to nullify a misguided attempt to annex via a highway right-of-way. The City had annexed Generations Park via the right-of-way in 2018 and was compelled to repeal that annexation in 2019.

Figure 3: Map showing path for Generations Park annexation. From January 25, 2021 City Council agenda packet.

(The city’s Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Toolebeck Commons annexation and concept plan requests on Tuesday, August 12th, at 6 p.m. in the Aiken City Council chambers at 111 Chesterfield Street S. )

Update.

The Planning Commission’s August 12th meeting took a few unexpected turns, ultimately resulting in a 3-2 vote against a Motion to Approve the Toolebeck Commons subdivision.

The Motion was made by Caleb Connor, and included the amendment that Condition #3 would be removed from the list of requirements. Condition #3 required the developer to create an access point at Woodward Drive, which is now a dirt road, and improve it to City standards.

The developer, on the other hand, proposed to having that access be for emergency access only. Connor advocated this approach in response to concerns by area residents over converting a rural dirt road into a paved road and thus ruining the agricultural integrity of the area.

The Motion was not seconded by any Commissioner, so Chairman Ryan Reynolds took the unusual step of seconding it. (Presiding officers are not supposed to make motions nor second them).

Commissioners Reynolds and Connor voted to approve without Condition #3; and Commissioners Roscoe Epps, Peter Messina, and Sam Erb voted against it.

Erb had expressed the opinion earlier that two access points were needed. Messina expressed the same opinion, but went much further by stating his opinion that the concept plan did not meet the requirements of Planned Residential zoning. Specifically, the density was too high relative to the surrounding properties and landscape.

This is the second subdivision in three months to be rejected by the Planning Commission. However, the developer can move forward to City Council, which can agree with or overrule the Commission’s recommendation. The developer could also agree to provide a second entrance point, and this would alleviate half of the concerns raised against the project. I predict Council will approve this one if it is brought before it.

Footnote

* Because the property is in the Montmorenci-Couchton Water District, the request was only for sewer services; but not drinking water services.

City Government, Elections, Planning

Update to Local Politics and Planning 2025

3 Comments

(An update on City Elections and the rewrite of the City of Aiken’s Zoning Ordinance; reported in Local Politics and Planning: 2025.)

by Don Moniak
July 25, 2025

Aiken City Council Election Campaigns Begin

Aiken City Council will have a different look in 2026.

Municipal elections are scheduled for November 4, 2025. Four City Council seats are open this year: Districts 2, 4, 5, and 6.

Aiken2025, a newly formed, nonpartisan group whose goal is to raise awareness of the elections, promote a set of values for candidates, and create a forum for candidates, has published this map of the electoral districts.

Councilman Ed Girardeau (District 4), Councilwoman Andrea Gregory, (District 5) and Councilman Ed Woltz (District 6) all opted not to seek reelection. Councilwoman Lessie Price (District 2) will be the only incumbent on the ballot in November. Unless a strong challenger emerges via petition or write-in ballot, she will be reelected.

The Primary

Only the District 6 race will feature a primary; between Republican candidates Barbara Morgan and Clayton Clarkson.

Ms. Morgan served as the Solicitor (equivalent to a District Attorney) for the Second Circuit– Aiken, Barnwell, and Bamberg Counties– from 1990 to 2009; having been elected four times in total. Most recently she has served on the City’s Design Review Board after being appointed by Councilwoman Andrea Gregory in February 2024. For more information, visit her Facebook page and website.

Clayton Clarkson has served as Councilwoman Kay Brohl’s appointee on the City’s Planning Commission since February 2020. For more information, visit his Facebook page and profile on Aiken2025.com.

Candidates in the General Election

Five candidates will only appear on the general election ballot.

Jacob Ellis is running as the Democrat for the District 4 seat. He has been a regular participating attendee at Council meetings, and ran as a write-in candidate in 2021. For more information see his Facebook page and website.

Peter Messina is running as the Republican for the District 4 seat; He has served as Councilwoman Andrea Gregory’s appointee to the Planning Commission since February of 2021. For more information see his profile at Aiken2025.com.

Braylen Waldo is running as the Democrat for the District 5 seat. He is a newcomer to city politics. For more information see his Facebook page.

Kent Cubbage is running as the Republican for the District 5 seat. He served on the City’s Planning Commission from 2013 to 2017. For more information, see his profile at Aiken2025.com.

Lisa Smith is running for the District 6 seat as a Democrat. In 2022, she was a leader in the Do It Right Alliance movement that defeated Project Pascalis; and has continued in an activist role in city politics. She will face the winner of the August 12th primary between Clarkson and Morgan.

The remaining schedule of the elections is as follows:

July 28 to August 8: Early voting for primary
August 12: District 6 Primary.
August 21: Closing of entries for nomination by petition. 
November 4: Election Day.

Status of the Rewrite of the City of Aiken’s Zoning Ordinance

The next City Council will be responsible for helping to craft and ultimately approve a rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance, which has been retitled as the “Unified Development Ordinance” (UDO). The UDO will govern all future development for the foreseeable future; it will help determine what Aiken will look like in the coming decades.

In January 2024, the City of Aiken issued a Request for Qualifications for a consultant to facilitate a rewriting of the Zoning Ordinance. In July 2024, the Chicago-based firm of Houseal and Lavigne was chosen by a committee of four city employees–City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, Assistant City Manager Mary Tilton, Planning Department Director Marya Moultrie, and Planner Richard Cowick. City Council had no input on the selection process; it only validated the final choice.

Information on the bids was recently obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Three firms submitted bids: Chicago-based Houseal and Lavigne, Charleston and Kansas City-based White Smith Cousino, and Charlotte-based Freese and Nichols.

The latter only submitted a four-page skeletal bid and received the lowest collective grade of 311 out of 400 points. Their monetary bid was $179,000.

According to the FOIA response, White Smith Cousino worked as consultants during preparation of the City’s 2017-2027 Comprehensive Plan. The firm’s bid and their website indicates widespread experience with communities across the Southeast.

Their 38-page submittal contained a detailed schedule and breakdown of tasks for completing the job; including a commitment of 160 hours of “stakeholder and public engagement.” They also made reference to the importance of historic preservation.

Houseal and Lavigne has more limited experience in the Southeast, and had no previous experience with Aiken. Their 26-page submittal contained no details of the tasks at hand; it was predominantly a review of the firm’s background. No reference was made to historic preservation issues.

The City awarded the job to Houseal and Lavigne for $208,000. Planning Director Moultrie and Planner Cowick both gave the firm’s proposal a perfect grade of 100.

Overall, White Smith Cousino scored a collective numeric grade of 339 out of 400; whereas Houseal and Lavigne scored a 379. (see review files in FOIA response).

The monetary bid by White Smith Cousino is unknown because City officials claim it cannot be found and thus was not part of the FOIA response.

A Rocky Start

To date, Houseal and Lavigne has experienced a rocky start, largely due to the minimal amount of public involvement prior to their first presentations on initial recommendations.

The firm and the Planning Department hosted a single, two-hour long, informational public drop-in session at the City Municipal Building on a cold rainy evening this past February. It only attracted 26 people. No similar session was held on the Southside of Aiken.

A survey was also posted online. As of June 2nd, after four months, only 125 people had completed the survey.

In early May, Houseal and Lavigne and the Planning Department began to present initial recommendations through the use of powerpoint presentations; whereas the final recommendation documents remained (and continue to remain) in undisclosed drafts.

The firm’s first stop was a Design Review Board (DRB) work session on May 8th; where Board members expressed concerns over a proposal to shift more power to the Planning Department and redraw historic overlay boundaries. Another issue raised was the development of recommendations without any initial consultation with the Board. (A video of the two-hour presentation and discussion is available here.)

According to the sanitized minutes of the sometimes chaotic meeting, Board members also expressed concern about the lack of preparation time and failure to provide an entire report before the meeting. Two months later, the final recommendation report on the historic districts remains unavailable on the Planning Department’s UDO webpage.

The next stop was a June 2nd joint work session with City Council and the Planning Commission; which was attended by approximately 30 citizens. (An audio of that meeting can be found here and the meeting minutes can be found here).

City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh began the meeting by acknowledging that reception to the process had not been positive; stating that:

“We have received comments from all sectors, and they have been largely negative.”

The issue of the lack of meaningful citizen involvement was summarized by the first speaker, Aiken resident Linda Johnson:

She stated she thought the presentation had some good work and a lot of great ideas. However, she does have some issues with the process that has happened so far. The process so
far did not include interviewing the Design Review Board, the Board of Zoning Appeals or other appointees to other commissions, and stakeholders. She was baffled how they could come up with all the strengths and weaknesses without having talked to those people. (From meeting minutes, pages 6-7)

Johnson also asked for a show of hands from Council and Commission members who had taken the online UDO survey. Only one of the twelve officials, Councilwoman Kay Brohl, acknowledged taking the survey.

The citizen involvement issue was reiterated by Councilwoman Lessie Price, who admonished the consultant and the Planning Department that “it is not always about asking folks to come to us, we have to go to them.”

As a result of this myriad of concerns regarding involvement of both appointed boards and commissions, Planning Department Director Marya Moultrie announced an extension of the public input period at Council’s July 14th meeting.

The survey remains on the UDO website, the drop in boards are now stationed in the Municipal Building, and there are plans to replicate or move them to the Odell Weeks Center.

The next steps for Houseal and Lavigne are to meet with “focus groups,” of which only the Planning Commission is identified by name; and to complete its recommendations, which are now a few months late.

Overall, the process is approximately six to eight months behind schedule and will not be completed in 2026; meaning that the next City Council is likely to have the final say.









Aiken County Government, Freedom of Information, July 2025

Details Matter Regarding Protecting Freedom of Speech

1 Comment

One of Aiken County Council’s July 15th public hearings took an unusual turn when the Council voted 6-2 to table a proposed ordinance to amend the manner in which it conducts business; for now voting on the side of The People. Most notable among the proposed changes are practices that could marginalize citizen engagement with their elected representatives.

(Editor’s note: Aiken County residents Vicki Simons and Don Moniak commented during the public hearing. Their full comments can be read here.)

by Don Moniak
July 22, 2025

On July 5, 2025, Aiken County government published a public notice in the Aiken Standard to announce the County Council’s July 15th Public Hearings. One of the public hearings was vaguely titled:

Ordinance Amending Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, Council, “Generally,” “Standing Committees,” “Rules of Procedure,” and “Preservation of Council Actions.”

Chapter 2 of the Aiken County Code governs the administration of county business. Article II addresses how the County Council conducts its business. It contains seemingly innocuous, routine rules, including the Order of Business during meetings, publication and distribution schedule of agendas, composition of committees, and completion of meeting minutes.

Most important to County residents– Article II defines the rules for concerned citizens to engage with, provide input to, and obtain information from their elected representatives on the County Council.

Presently, the four facets of these rules of public involvement are:

1. The open public comment period known as “The Informal Meeting of the Whole;” where citizens are alloted three minutes to speak to Council on any issue not already on the agenda. This is oftentimes the most informative and problem-solving portion of the meeting.
2. Public hearings; where citizens are alloted five minutes to address proposed ordinances.
3. Public presentations of up to fifteen minutes, if requested at least five days in advance.
4. The publication and distribution of County Council’s meeting agendas and associated documentation–collectively known as “the agenda packet.”

The Amendments, or Lack Thereof

On July 14th, the County Administrator’s office publicly released Council’s agenda packet for the July 15th meeting. According to the agenda, details of the Chapter 2 amendments were on pages 46-64.

On examination of those pages , details of the proposed amendments to Article II were absent. No strikeouts were present to indicate the language that was being stricken, and no text was underlined to indicate additions. Only the final amended version was presented.

To determine what changes were proposed, Council members and concerned citizens were required to cross-check the final amended ordinance with the existing ordinance.

Aiken County resident Vicki Simons discussed this oversight during the Public Hearing. She described how legislation routinely involves markings to show changes to South Carolina law–underlined text for additions and strikethroughs for deletions—before pointing out that “this ordinance is completely devoid of these markings.”

She went on to state that “this lack of transparency reflects badly on both Aiken County Government and the Aiken County Council.”

Marginalizing Citizen Input

One of the changes was easy to detect, and it was the most egregious. If the amendments were approved, county residents would have to wait until after any scheduled closed-door Executive Session—which can last for more than an hour—in order to present their ideas, thoughts, and concerns during the “Informal Meeting of the Whole.”

Article II, in its present form, places the Informal Meeting of the Whole towards the end of the meeting, but prior to any scheduled, closed-door Executive Session. The proposed amendments include reversing that order, so that people who come to speak to Council about a myriad of issues—-i.e. noise and light pollution, bad roads, stormwater runoff—would have to wait an additional undetermined length of time to speak their mind.


Ms. Simons addressed this issue by reminding Council that Aiken County is larger than the state of Rhode Island and “it takes considerable effort for Aiken County residents from outlying areas to attend meetings in person.”

She described the proposed reversal of the order of the Executive Session and IMOTW in two ways. First, she stated, “I strongly oppose this change because it would codify a marginalization of the very people whom you were elected to represent!”

After describing how people had to wait for more than an hour during the April 15, 2025, meeting for an Executive Session to end, she explained, “forcing people to wait to speak on matters important to them may be considered a form of censorship that undermines their Creator-endowed right of freedom of speech.”

Article II also allows for individuals or groups to request, in advance, time to make a presentation on their subject of choice to Council for up to 15 minutes during the Regular Meeting.

Officially, any public presentation must be on the regular meeting agenda; currently item 12 in the Order of Business. In practice, Council has been ignoring this rule for years by scheduling presentations either during committee meetings or work sessions. While work sessions tend to have large time windows to allow for 15-minute presentations in spacious Council chambers, committee meetings have very narrow time windows and are held in the tight confines of relatively tiny conference rooms.

Even though public presentations are uncommon, the amendments would result in further marginalization. The new timing would arguably censor citizens by shifting their presentation time from better-attended regular meetings held in spacious Council chambers to poorly attended committee meetings held in relatively tiny conference rooms—thus preventing a larger audience from hearing the message of presenters. Since Council still refuses to livestream its meetings or keep detailed meeting minutes, any message would, in practice, be largely unheard and lost in the largely inaccessible audio archives of Council meetings.

No Amendment to Improve Timely Information Access

The release of agendas determines how much time citizens have to be fully informed about what is actually being proposed at Council meetings.

Presently, Article II dictates that agenda packets be distributed to Council members on the Friday before the regular meetings, which are generally held on the third Tuesdays of the month, as well as the first Tuesdays from January to June.

However, these agenda packets are not made available to citizens and the media until the day before the meeting. Although Article II dictates that the packets must be released by 8:30 a.m. on Mondays, that is rarely the case. While this timeline meets the letter of the Open Meetings section of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act, it clearly violates the spirit of the law by withholding completed agendas and agenda packets over the weekend.

There is no proposed change to allow citizens access to agendas and agenda packets on the same day Council members receives theirs—meaning that residents will still have to wait until the day before meetings before being able to review the large amounts of information pertaining to public hearings and other Council business.

The Vote

When it came time to vote, Councilman Mike Kellems made a Motion to Table the agenda item and send the proposed ordinance back to the County Administrator’s office for rework. Council then voted 6-2 to table–choosing to demand better information prior to moving forward on the ordinance amendments. This will require another public hearing.

The six who voted to table were Council members Ron Felder (District 1), Mike Kellems (District 2), Landon Ball (District 4), Sandy Haskell (District 5), Phil Napier (District 6), and P.K. Hightower (District 8).

Voting against tabling were Chairman Gary Bunker and Councilman Danny Feagan (District 3).

What is Next?

The effort to amend Article II is likely to return during the next Council meeting this August 19th. Aiken County residents can share their opinions on the rules governing citizen input and access to information by contacting Chairman Gary Bunker and their elected Council representative, or by attending the August 19th meeting and addressing the issues directly to Council.