On Friday June 24 the City of Aiken posted 45 notices of a July 5th Design Review Board (DRB) hearing involving a proposal from the Aiken Municipal Development Association (AMDC) and RPM Development Partners, LLC to demolish the buildings on six properties in downtown Aiken, SC.
On Wednesday June 29 each of the 45 notices were prominently covered with a sign stating “withdrawn.”
Photos courtesy of Michael Aiken
Substantial confusion enveloped the issue, with the Aiken Standard reporting the hearings have been “postponed.” In a Zoom meeting at noon today to discuss Project Pascalis, Standard reporter Matthew Christian repeated the assertion the meetings were postponed; saying a city spokesperson cited proximity to the holiday weekend and undefined COVID-19 concerns for the postponement.
But according to DRB legal counsel Jim Holley, there are no pending applications, meaning the demolition requests are withdrawn—at least temporarily—and must be resubmitted for any hearing to take place. In an email addressing a related issue of possible ex-parte communications involving a Board member, Holley wrote:
“Based on my understanding, there are currently no pending applications before the DRB on the downtown project. Also, there are no work sessions currently scheduled on that subject.”
Mr. Holley served honorably as legal counsel for Aiken County Council for many years and presently is advising the Design Review Board during the most contentious downtown development plan of the century.
This is “a timeline,” regarding the creation, promotion, and stealth of the $100 million dollar plus downtown Aiken demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis from February 2019 through June 2022.
It is not “the timeline.” Due to the City of Aiken’s continued secrecy surrounding key aspects of Project Pascalis, gaps in knowledge remain. For example, the city still refuses to release its full May 2021 solicitation for a Request for Proposals.
Therefore, it is unknown whether any option to renovate the Hotel Aiken was offered to prospective developers; although the evidence to date strongly suggests the only option was demolition. The importance of this key issue cannot be overstated: if the solicitation dictated what the city wanted, then Project Pascalis is a homegrown project and its developers are mere contractors undertaking the wishes of its client.
February 2019
February 1: : Weldon and Tom Wyatt of “Wyatt Development” (which was dissolved in 2013) meets with Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon to discuss his $1.1 million offer to Aiken County to purchase the 9.3 acre “old hospital” and county administrative building property at 828 Richland Avenue, E. for $1.1 million
February 5: Mayor Osbon sends letter to Aiken County Chairman Gary Bunker describing his meeting with Wyatt executives and expressing his support for their vision for the old hospital property.
February 19: WTC Investments, LLC is registered as doing business in South Carolina with the Secretary of State. Attorney Ray Massey is the listed agent. (Unknown: presence of absence of Mr. Massey at February 1 meeting with Mayor.)
April 2019
April 16: WTC Investments, LLC enters into a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) with Aiken County to purchase the “old hospital” property at 828 Richland Avenue, E. for $1.1 million dollars.
WTC manager Tom Wyatt, son of Weldon Wyatt, announces plan to demolish existing historic structures and construct a new hotel, apartment complex, conference center, and parking garage.
August 2019
Ordinance establishing the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) passed by Aiken City Council and governed by South Carolina Community Development Law. Citizens told Commission will enable increased public input and participation in planning process.
November 2019:
Aiken City Council passes rezoning ordinance approving the Wyatts’ concept plan for the old hospital/County complex site.
January 2020
January 12: WTC Attorney Ray Massey informs Aiken County officials they are withdrawing from the old hospital purchase contract.
May 2020
May 26, 2020 First meeting of the AMDC. Commissioners receive tutorials on the Freedom of Information Act, Ethics, and South Carolina Community Development Law. (In the next twenty four months the Commission, always meeting at 3:30 pm, would enter into closed executive sessions forty percent of their meeting time. During the Pascalis planning and negotiations this figure increased to more than sixty percent.)
July 2020
July 15: The Aiken Municipal Development Commission submits a “Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Aiken” to the City of Aiken. The plan does not include properties on Newberry Street currently inhabited by Newberry Hall and Warneke Cleaners. No public hearing is held by the Commission as required by community development law.
August 2020
August 31. Attorney General Alan Wilson announces a $600 million dollar settlement to more than four years of litigation with the Department of Energy regarding storage of surplus nuclear weapons plutonium at the Savannah River Site. Wilson states that after attorney fees of $75 million, $525 million remains for the legislature to allocate.
August 2020. Aiken City Council approves first reading of the downtown redevelopment plan.
September 2020
September 14: Aiken City Council amends the AMDC ordinance, replacing three City Council members with three new voting members, and reclassifying council members as ex-officio. Chamber of Commerce President J. David Jameson, former city councilperson Philip Merry, and Second Baptist Church pastor Douglas Slaughter are added as voting commissioners.
Second reading of minor redevelopment plan passes.
September 2020 to December 2020: AMDC discusses plutonium funding lobbying efforts. A letter requesting $30 million for redevelopment purposes is sent to the legislative delegation and other officials.
January 2021.
January 4: WTC Investments, LLC dissolves.
Unknown date in early 2021: WTC Investments, LLC signs contract to purchase Hotel Aiken, and the adjacent motel, 106 Laurens Street, the former Johnson Drug Store, and Warneke Cleaners from Shah Investments and other Shah family holdings.
March 2021:
March 15: Royal J. Robbins and Garnett Family Holdings sell 210 The Alley to Aiken Alley Holdings LLC for $2,025,000. Ray Massey is agent for Aiken Holdings LLC. (This property was adjacent to the original Project Pascalis footprint, but is now within it).
March 18, 2021: AMDC first announces the existence of Project Pascalis. City of Aiken Development Director Tim O’Briant tells the Aiken Standard “Transparency is key” and promises more pubic information within a few months. (Although details are not released, even the initial plan was to demolish Hotel Aiken and surrounding properties and construct a new hotel, apartments, parking garage, and conference center complex similar to that originally proposed at 828 Richland Ave. E, the old hospital).
O’Briant and Chair Keith Wood authorized by the Commission to execute an agreement with an unnamed, “experienced and well-capitalized” private developer that was “recruited and identified” by the AMDC. (public learns in 2022 that developer was Weldon Wyatt’s GAC LLC; and only in the November 4, 2021 meeting minutes is it revealed that WTC, Investments, LLC was involved with property purchases).
April 2021
April 13: Aiken Standard reports AMDC meeting behind closed doors to discuss Project Pascalis, indicating it involves downtown properties.
April 15: WTC Investments, LLC signs purchase and sale agreement with Newberry Hall property owner Myrtle Anderson to buy the property for $2 million. Modified lease agreement provides Newberry Hall business operators options to negotiate repurchase the new building, operate the new conference center, and receive compensation for lost income during construction stages.
Vampire Penguin opens for business at 106 Laurens Street, while planning to demolish the building proceeds in secrecy.
May 2021:
May 5: WTC Investments, LLC re-registered to do business in South Carolina. Agent: Attorney Ray Massey.
May ?? 2021. WTC Investments, LLC withdraws from its contracts to purchase downtown properties. The Chamber of Commerce takes “assignment” of the property contracts while the AMDC seeks funding to purchase them on behalf of the city. This all occurs behind closed doors.
May 19, 2021. The AMDC sends solicitations for Requests for Proposals to continue the new hotel/apartments/garage/conference center project to select developers. In the solicitation, the AMDC offers to privatize a part of Newberry Street. (The entire solicitation remains secret to this day, withheld under a FOIA exemption by the City of Aiken, despite fact that FOIA clearly states the city “may” release the documents. The AMDC does not deny the solicitation is only for demolition, not renovation of Hotel Aiken and surrounding properties.)
June 2021
June 8: Longtime State Farm agent Joseph Harrison sells his office property at 121 Newberry Street SW—adjacent to Newberry Hall—to Aiken Alley Holdings LLC (Ray Massey, agent) for $675,000.
July 2021:
July 12, 2021. AMDC Chair Keith Wood sends letter requesting $10 million in city funds from Aiken City Council to purchase “Parkway area properties” between Morgan and Williamsburg Street.
August 2021
August 25: City of Aiken approves $10 million in funding for the AMDC to purchase properties in the “Parkway District” bounded by Morgan Street, Hampton Avenue, Park Avenue, and Beaufort Street. Exact properties remain unspecified.
September 2021
September 20, 2021: AMDC announces it will conduct a fact finding trip to review the redevelopment of downtown Florence.
September , 2021: AMDC and several officials, joined by Attorney Ray Massey and representatives of Rainesco hold a “public meeting “ at a Florence restaurant. Meeting minutes are noticeably short.
October 2021
October , 2021. RPM Development Partners, LLC registers with the SC Secretary of State. Agent: Ray Massey. Key Players: Rainesco and Lat Purser (RPM likely to represent Raines, Purser, and Massey). Story not reported.
October , 2021: City of Aiken signs contract with Attorney Gary Pope for assistance with legal counsel. (This agreement cited in May 2021 as evidence of City Attorney Gary Smith’s “recusal” from all things Pascalis, but no such recusal is in document).
November 2021
November 5: In an Aiken Standard article, Development Director O’Briant again emphasized the need for transparency, and stated the AMDC would soon have a website to share information.
November 6: Project Pascalis is discussed at a Design Review Board meeting. Responding to a question about the future of Hotel Aiken, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh states a decision is still pending.
November 9: AMDC announces the purchase of several downtown properties for a total of $9.5 million, including Newberry Hall and Warneke Cleaners. The information is shared on the AMDC’s website, aikenmdc.org:
Aiken Standard fails to report involvement of the Chamber of Commerce.
According to County Records and the AMDC report, the purchases were:
106 Laurens St SW for $1 Million from Shah Enterprises.
235 Richland Ave (Hotel Aiken) and 112 Bee Lane/219 Richland Ave (The motel portion of Hotel Aiken) for $4.25 million from Historic Hospitality LLC (which had “purchased” the hotel in 2017 from Shah Enterprises for $5).
211 Richland Ave West, 203 Richland Ave West, and 113 Newberry Street (Warneke Cleaners) for $2.25 million from S & N Hospitality LLC (which had purchased the properties in 2018 for $ 1 million from Myrtle Anderson).
111 Newberry Street (Newberry Hall) for $2 million from Myrtle Anderson.
December 2021
December 3, 2021. RPM Development Partners announced as Project Pascalis developer. Purchase and Sale agreement made between RPM . Aiken Standard reports that AMDC owned properties scheduled to be “razed.” (Document released in April 2021 shows that one developer rejected in part for only offering $1 million for Hotel Aiken).
December 13 and 20; 2021. AMDC advertises for Requests for Proposals for Project Pascalis, as required by community development law, but after choosing a developer.
December 26-December 31: At the urging of the AMDC, Rainesco CEO Grey Raines hosts five private meetings organized by Aiken Chamber of Commerce President and AMDC Commissioner J. David Jameson. AMDC Director Tim O’Briant attends every meeting with Commissioner Jameston. (City of Aiken denies the meetings qualify under Open Meetings clause of FOIA).
January 2022
January 4: : Rainesco engineers conduct structural assessment of Hotel Aiken, even though decision to demolish building was made behind closed doors in early 2021.
January 22: Aiken Standard reports that “CTR, LLC, a group of local investors led by attorney Ray Massey, has offered $800,000” for two city-owned properties: the east half of the 214 Park Avenue municipal building and the parking lot across from the Hotel Aiken. Council meets in Executive Session to discuss the offer, no results are reported. Attorney Massey’s law partner, City Attorney Gary Smith, does not recuse himself from the proceedings.
February 2022
Feburary 17: DRB tours Hotel Aiken during a “special work session.”
March 2022
March 1: DRB approves demolition of Hotel Aiken and 106 Laurens Street by a vote of 6-1. Vice-Chair Lucy Knowles casts sole dissenting vote. (Councilperson Andrea Gregory withdraws support for Ms. Knowles within a month of the vote, and nominates non-resident Laura Blessing to the Board to replace Ms. Knowles at the end of her term).
March 28: Ten months after AMDC offered part of Newberry Street to interested developers, Aiken City Council conducts first public hearing (reading) of ordinance to privatize 0.6 acres of Newberry Street, in exchange for 123 Newberry St. SW and parking area behind 210 The Alley. Council unanimously approves first reading of ordinance despite nearly 100 percent of comments being against the proposal. City Attorney Gary Smith acts in usual parliamentarian role.
April 2022
April 15: Aiken Standard reports unilateral AMDC decision to repurpose soon to be vacated 214 Park Avenue municipal building into the new conference center. Tim O’Briant credits DRB Chairman McDonald Law with the suggestion. (Mr. Law later denies this was an “ex-parte” communication that violates FOIA Open Meetings law). Aiken County Chair Gary Bunker expresses concern about stalled negotiations with city to utilize the building for office space for county judicial functions.
April 20: AMDC holds first public meetings to discuss entirety of Project Pascalis. RPM Development Partners, LLC and City contractors devote 85% of the scheduled meeting time to presentations before accepting a single comment or question. Public comments at the first meeting is suspended after an hour due to “prior engagements” of Raines representatives. Two AMDC Commissioners, Keith Wood and Chris Verenes, speak in favor of the project without disclosing their affiliation.
Attorney Gary Pope sits at a city meeting for the first time, in place of City Attorney Gary Smith. Mr. Pope offers the information that Mr. Smith called him at “an early point in the project” to recused himself; but provides no date. (No written recusal documentation is offered in response to subsequent FOIA requests).
May 2022
May 9: Aiken City Council votes 6-1 on second reading 6-1 to approve Newberry StreetOrdinance, with councilperson Ed Woltz the lone dissenting vote. Among other falsehoods, Councilperson Kay Brohl supports her yes vote by describing The Alley as an unlively place prior to the city’s 2016 renovation. AMDC Commissioner Philip Merry speaks in favor of the proposal without revealing his affiliation. Attorney Gary Pope sits in place of City Attorney Gary Smith.
May 10: Lawsuit filed by area resident and Aiken property owner Drew Johnson documenting conflict of interest violations by City Attorney Gary Smith due to the role of his law partner Ray Massey in Project Pascalis. (In subsequent response, defendants do not deny the allegations but call for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).
May 11, 2022: Formation of the Do It Right! Alliance is announced, with the goal of preserving historic properties and holding city officials accountable to the law.
May 15: AMDC releases “Just the Facts…,” revealing its intent to resell city properties to developers at a discounted price.
June 2022
June 7, 2022: Aiken Downtown Development Association sponsors public “design workshop” to solicit comments on modified design of Hotel Aiken facade. AMDC Director Tim O’Briant tells WJBF News in Augusta that appraisals were unnecessary because the property is like gold.
June 21, 2022. Design Review Board holds “design workshop.” Attendees not told until beginning of the meeting of a no public comment policy. City officials summon a police offer
June 24, 2022: City of Aiken posts 45 notices announcing DRB public hearing on proposed demolition of Newberry Hall, Warneke Cleaners, Motel portion of Hotel Aiken, Johnson Drug Store, Taj Aiken Restaurant, and adjacent businesses.
June 27: Historical Aiken Foundation, which is identified as a key city partner in its strategic development plan, releases fact sheet documenting concerns that support its opposition to Project Pascalis.
AMDC is knowingly violating state law and official city planning process. Stop this Bait and Switch.
To: City of Aiken Design Review Board (rseymour@cityofaikensc.gov)
Re: Known violations of SC Community Development Law
As described previously, the City of Aiken’s Municipal Development Commission is proceeding with Project Pascalis in violation of SC Community Development Law. The AMDC and City officials are quite aware of the law governing their very existence and limitations on their powers.
Here are two examples of this knowledge:
In a June 12, 2019, City of Aiken memo from Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, regarding “questions posed during public comment” regarding the ordinance proposed to form the AMDC:
The first question he addressed was:
“Will the Proposed commission reduce public participation and/or reduce approval to a single public hearing?”
His answer was a clear no:
“The commission would actually add additional opportunity for public review and input. Any plan to be considered for a recommendation to City Council by the Commission would require advertisement of a public hearing 15 days prior to consideration. Once such development ..plan recommendation is passed by Commission, the project itself would move through the planning commission to determine compliance with the comprehensive plan and all zoning requirements, and the Design Review Board as required. Then, and only then, would City Council consider the project recommendations through the regular two reading, public hearing and approval process. ..”
Mr. O’Briant then cited City Ordinance 31-10-100 to support his position.
This was the correct answer.
A second example occurred at the first AMDC meeting in May 2020. According to the meeting minutes, Mr. O’Briant discussed a “very small redevelopment plan” prepared by Arnett Muldrow and Associates:
“essentially surrounding the Regions Bank Building which is now being retrofitted as the new City Hall. It includes the corner of Richland and Laurens. If this group has any thoughts about Hotel Aiken it would be appropriate to have those discussions. Whether we come up with anything or not, we can’t really get into it if we don’t have a plan that encompasses the area”
This too was the correct perspective.
So here are two concrete examples of a city official displaying full awareness of the laws governing the AMDC and the municipal code governing the City of Aiken’s public process.
Yet, here we are two years later and those laws and ordinances have knowingly not been followed:
1. There was no public hearing proceeding the two readings of the Redevelopment plan; and
2. The approved redevelopment plan has not been amended to allow for demolition, to account for business relocations, to address the partial privatization of Newberry Street, and to include the properties housing Newberry Hall and Warneke Cleaners; and
3. The planning commission step was skipped despite the fact this project has nearly doubled in size since March 2022.
These violations in the law constitute a genuine, illegal bait and switch. If the DRB acts on this demolition request, it is complicit in this illegal bait and switch.
Following is more commentary detailing violations of SC Community Development laws in regard to Project Pascalis. As I have written before, the DRB has an obligation to address evidence of wrongdoing as part of its review. Failure to do so makes Board members complicit in any crimes.
This is not a typical DRB hearing. The applicant is not a developer or private property owner. The City of Aiken bought these properties and is funding much of the development. The AMDC intends to sell the properties at a loss. You simply cannot ignore these facts while claiming to be working for the public.
Project Pascalis Reminder of the Day By Don Moniak
CC: Aiken Design Review Board.
Warneke Cleaners and Newberry Hall are not Precursors to Blight
As previously reported, the City of Aiken approved a single downtown redevelopment plan (1) that complies with SC redevelopment law in September, 2020, six months before Project Pascalis was announced.
The plan designated nine properties as part of a larger “conservation area,” which is defined in SC Community Development Law as “any improved area that is not yet a blighted area,” and meets a mere three out of fourteen criteria to be deemed “detrimental to the public safety, health, morals, or welfare and may become a blighted area.” So while it was a strange term for lawmakers to utilize, “conservation area” functions as “precursor to blighted area” within the confines of this law.
The fourteen criteria that can lead to “conservation area” designation are: “dilapidation; obsolescence; deterioration; illegal use of structures; presence of structures below minimum code standards; abandonment; excessive vacancies; overcrowding of structures and community facilities; lack of ventilation, light, or sanitary facilities; inadequate utilities; excessive land coverage; depreciation of physical maintenance; or lack of community planning, is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals, or welfare and may become a blighted area.” (2)
The 2020 Redevelopment Plan cited five of the fourteen: “dilapidation, obsolescence, deterioration, presence of structures below minimum code standards, depreciation of physical maintenance.” Subsequently, the properties in the plan were designated for the following future uses: renovation of the hotel and mixed commercial. There was no mention of five story residential and “demolition” is absent in the plan.
Warneke Cleaners and Newberry Hall are also absent in the plan, and are not a part of the “conservation area.” How can these two long time, profitable businesses be described in any way as dilapidated, obsolete, or deteriorating? How many people attending Newberry Hall functions have described it as obsolete or dilapidated? Demolishing Newberry Hall and Warneke Cleaners is not essential to prevent blight because they do not even meet the definition of the precursor to blight.
If a private developer that owned these properties was seeking to demolish these buildings, the case would be made that they have a right to do what they want with their land as long as they comply with the city’s planning and zoning laws.
But a private developer does not own these properties, and this is not a free market project:
—The City of Aiken’s Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) is the owner, the AMDC is chartered under the terms of Chapter 10 of South Carolina’s Community Development Law, and it is obligated to follow that law; and
—RPM Development Partners, LLC is a contractor at this point, and its future as a property owner and developer is entirely dependent on tens of millions of dollars of public funds in financial assistance, and millions of dollars in subsidies in the form of discounted property sales.
Letter from Don Moniak After the June 21 DRB “Worksession” sent June 21, 2022/10:06 p.m.
Dear DRB Members,
Most sources define “public meetings” as meetings involving public comments. For example, at lawinsider.com:
‘Public meeting means an informal meeting, hearing, workshop, or other public gathering of people to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a proposed project permit prior to the local government’s decision.”
The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government does not mince words when it asks “is it a (public) meeting?
” A rose by any other name smells as sweet, and a meeting by any other name still gets the job done. It doesn’t matter whether it’s called a work session, retreat, training seminar or phone tree — under the Open Meetings Act, a meeting occurs whenever a quorum of a public body:(a) formulates public policy,
(b) discusses public business, or
(c) takes action.”
The EPA, which has as miserable a record on real public meetings as Project Pascalis, does describe the intent of them in an eloquent fashion:
“Public meetings bring diverse groups of stakeholders together for a specific purpose. Public meetings are held to engage a wide audience in information sharing and discussion. They can be used to increase awareness of an issue or proposal, and can be a starting point for, or an ongoing means of engaging, further public involvement. When done well, they help build a feeling of community.”
And under SC FOIA law, a “meeting” is simply defined as: “the convening of a quorum of the constituent membership of a public body…to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public body supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.”
Tonite the DRB claimed it held a public meeting, but it was not a public meeting by any acceptable definition of the term.
Here is the link to the AMDC document I referred to after Mr. O’Briant decided to go all North Augustan and summoned an armed, uniformed policeman, lostensibly to haul out by force some recalcitrant senior citizens.
In it, three DRB “special work sessions” are on the list, as are four regularly scheduled City Council workshops. That is seven of the twenty-five. And before you think the rest of the “meetings” cited by the AMDC pertained to Project Pascalis, seven of those occurred before the project was even a notion.
So obviously people are going to be upset when meetings that are described as public turn out to be closed to public comments, and without advance notice. The fact these commentary free sessions are allowed in some legal loophole does not excuse the fact that the law does not require them to be comment free.
Mr. Holley is well aware of the difference between may, must, shall, and should and provided advice that was contrary to the common good tonite. You all had a chance to “build community” and instead treated the long table in a crowded room as a fortress.
If one City of Aiken public body is going to cite these as public meetings, with all the implications of public input and involvement, then as a city public body you have an obligation to do one of two things:
1. Ask the AMDC to not count work sessions in which public comment is prohibited as “public meetings.”
Or
2. Open work sessions to public comments.
In either case, every DRB meeting involving this contentious proposal known as “Project Pascalis,”–a moniker that alone offends the sensibilities of many Aikenites–should identify these rules ahead of time, and DRB members and counsel should keep up with the politics of this situation instead of feigning that your operate in a vacuum.
A few secondary issues from this latest meeting:
a. Tonite, the DRB chair and counsel should have acknowledged the reason for these changes and address the basic qualifications of Board members. If members who recently resigned did so because they were never qualified by virtue of their residency status to begin with, how legitimate were past meetings where unqualified members cast votes?
b. As counsel, Mr. Holley should advise every Board member request a City email address or a separate email server like the AMDC has done with its members. In either case, all new and existing Board members should be made well aware that official email correspondence from a private account is still subject to SC FOIA requests and it is best to separate public from private. Didn’t Hillary teach us that without even trying?
c. Tonite’s workshop failed at a basic level. At least from 530 pm to 7 pm there was no discussion of the suitability of the Apartments/Garage on Richland/Newberry on the site of the historic Johnson Drug Store, Newberry Hall, and Warneke Cleaners. There was only discussion of the suitability of select design elements. This gives a clear impression that the decision is already made, that the DRB, even with three new members with minimal exposure to the project, already accepts the parameters of this part of the project with no reservations other than colors and materials.
While no vote was taken, it sure looked like a decision was already in place.
d. This meeting confirmed that the Newberry Street “encroachment,” a.k.a a “conveyance” in the Newberry St privatization ordinance, was not the developer’s idea, but one first secretly proposed by the AMDC in May 2021 and not brought before public scrutiny until a year later.
This is the politics of the situation to which I refer and Board members should be cognizant of. This entire process was shrouded in secrecy for most of 2021, and to this day transparency is a moving target. If you choose to take part in a charade, then you are complicit in the crimes of Project Pascalis.
Thank You
Don Moniak
Please forward to Ben Lott)
Anonymous Response from DRB Member (rivulet00_swathe@icloud.com). Tue, Jun 21, 2022, 11:06 PM
You are dead wrong … and probably know it!
A publicmeeting is any meeting open to the public and where the public is notified of its time, place and topic as required by law. A public hearing allows for comment by the public, but not all meetings are public hearings. The public is allowed to be in the room and observe at a work session or any public meeting, but not to participate unless invited to.
As DRB members, we have every right to hear from applicants and do our work without the interruption and disruption of “Recalcitrant senior citizens” as you describe yourself. Trust that we will hold public hearings when a vote is scheduled and hear all of your half-truths and twisted conspiracies then. We have to suffer through it by law. I can’t wait.
General assembly and congress meetings are public too, but I dare you to speak up in one of those and see what happens. You’ll be dragged out by your wrinkled, hairy old ears.
Response from Don Moniak to Anonymous DRB member, sent June 22, 10:10 a.m.
Btw meetings of Congress etc are public proceedings.
Have you finished your resignation letter yet? I would like to be the first to make it public.
