Category Archives: July 2025

Details Matter Regarding Protecting Freedom of Speech

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.

The Little Tree That Could

By Burt Glover
July 20, 2025

The Southern catalpa tree, Catalpa bignonioides, was once a common sight in southern yards. Native to the southeastern US, this old-fashioned favorite has something for every season — large panicles of exotic and delicately-scented flowers in the spring, followed in the summer with a generosity of cool shade from the tree’s oversized, heart-shaped leaves. In autumn, the leaves turn yellow, then fall to reveal the curious-looking seed pods that decorate the tree in the winter landscape. What’s not to love? 

Turns out, it’s the flowers, the leaves, and the seed pods that modern tastes so abhor. These are actually what earned its reputation as a “trash tree,” due to the tree’s habit of “littering” the ground year-round with spent flowers, brown seed pods and leaves as big as dinner plates. For people requiring a tidy, well-manicured landscape with not a leaf out of place, the catalpa is a nightmare. Some consider the tree invasive due to the prolific sprouting of seedlings from those brown pods. Worse still is the tree’s fast growth habit and easy-going nature, which makes it amenable to growing in a variety of soils and conditions. 

There was a time, though — especially during the days before air conditioning — when these fast-growing shade trees were considered indispensable. In the old mill villages of Aiken County, with many houses dating back to the 1870s, there is no shortage of catalpa trees. My own catalpa tree was not planted on purpose, however. It arrived by accident, the winged seed perhaps blown by wind and landing in no-man’s land — in that narrow strip of earth lying between the sidewalk and the busy road in front of my house.

When I took up residence in this house, the catalpa was already a small tree. It has never had an easy life. Seems that every time the tree sends out new growth toward the road, it is quickly “trimmed” by the large semis and cars passing by. A couple of years ago, it was even side-swiped by a hit-and-run that took my mailbox and part of the catalpa with it, the vehicle leaving in its wake a trail of broken truck fragments. By this point, my catalpa tree had to be about the sorriest, skinniest specimen in all of Aiken County. I couldn’t help but admire the tree and its tenacity to survive. I also wondered: what is the worst that could happen, now? I watched from my porch and sent it my well wishes. 

In a cruel answer to my question, Hurricane Helene hit. The storm left the catalpa undamaged; however, the giant oak tree in my front yard was not so fortunate. The cut-rate tree service I hired to remove the fallen oak piled the mess into that narrow strip of earth right next to the catalpa. When FEMA workers arrived to remove the storm debris from our area, the truck’s giant claw chewed out a 6-inch depth of soil at the base of the catalpa and, in the process, mangled and broke off some of the lower branches. I was not hopeful for its recovery.

This spring, I watched. I watched as those large, heart-shaped leaves appeared and grew to a profusion on the bare branches. My tree was back! That amazement was amplified when, in late spring, large clusters of flowers appeared in masses, up and down the tree — fragrant, trumpet-shaped blooms with creamy-white, papery petals and patterned purple dots and yellow spots on their insides. It was all too overwhelming. I watched as the bees and hummingbirds relished its flowers.

Catalpa flowers are followed by the long, green bean-like seed pods characteristic of the tree. Those pods eventually turn from green to brown, which earned catalpas two of its common names — bean tree and cigar tree.

ABOVE: Green catalpa “beans” which mature to cigar-brown in late summer.

As youngsters, my friends and I indulged in the fantasy of pretending to be proper barons of wealth with the pods, tho not actually lighting them up. As happened last year, I expected to see the spring flowers followed by green beans, then cigars. I was not prepared for what happened next.

At the start of July, my tree was green, healthy and surviving. Three days later, the tree was bare. No leaves, no green bean-like pods. Nothing but scraggly, bare branches. What happened?

I went out to investigate.

ABOVE: Catalpa caterpillars on a defoliated tree. Photos courtesy of the author.

The tree was full of caterpillars, who had reduced those enormous, heart-shaped leaves to a heavy scattering of caterpillar poop on the ground.  My hope for a flock of hungry birds to come and dispense with the caterpillars came and went. With nothing else to eat, the caterpillars dropped off to the steamy sidewalk below, squirmed a bit, and then crawled off.  I was sure that this was finally the death knell for my tree — but maybe not! 

I did a bit of reading and consulting with other local catalpa tree owners and learned that these fancifully-decorated yellow and black caterpillars, Ceratomia catalpae, are the “catalpa worms” I’ve heard about over the years. Serious southern fishermen actually plant groves of catalpas in their yard solely for the purpose of harvesting these ‘worms’ for fish bait. While catfish, bass and bream find the caterpillars irresistible, most birds do not. Apparently, a compound in the catalpa leaves renders the caterpillars distasteful to many birds. Not so for certain species of braconid wasps, which parasitize the developing caterpillars by laying eggs inside them. These wasps are probably the most effective predators for keeping the caterpillar populations in check. 

ABOVE: Catalpa caterpillars molt through multiple stages of growth, as seen in the various arrangements of dots, stripes and ikat patterns on this Graniteville, SC catalpa tree from a recent summer. Note the distinctive black “horn” at the end of abdomen. Photos courtesy of Wren Dexter, whose catalpa tree survived Hurricane Helene but was unfortunately destroyed during the removal of large, damaged trees nearby.

Having solved that mystery, I wondered where the caterpillars had crawled off to after defoliating the tree and thumping down onto the sidewalk. It turns out that those caterpillars were looking for a nice soft spot in the soil to dig into the ground, where they will pupate over the winter. In spring, they will emerge as catalpa sphinx moths — large, gray moths with a wingspan of 3” that will take to the night air and be drawn back to the catalpa tree to repeat the life cycle.

The male catalpa moth, Ceratomia catalpae. Image shared via Wikipedia Creative Commons license. Muséum de Toulouse, CC BY-SA 4.0.

Like so many flowers pollinated by moths, Catalpa flowers draw night pollinators with their white coloration and enhanced night-time scent and nectar production. After feeding, the female moths mate, then lay hundreds or thousands of eggs on the tree, from which hordes of hungry caterpillars will emerge to devour the leaves and, in some cases, completely defoliate the tree.

The good news is that catalpa trees have somehow adapted to this. In the probable 60 million years of coevolution between moth and catalpa, the two species have apparently reconciled some benefit to the occasional destruction. Healthy trees have been known to survive repeated defoliations in a season. Catalpas may be the only tree that can do this. Interestingly, not all catalpa trees play host to the caterpillars. Also, some trees play host every year, while others do it only some years. It seems the more I learn about the catalpa trees, the more questions I have.

One unexpected find in my reading was the news that the Southern catalpa is falling back into favor, due in part to the greater understanding of the integral role of native plants in a healthy ecosystem. Perhaps future generations will find, as past generations knew, that the “littering” of leaves and flowers (compost!) is a small price to pay for a tree’s beauty, its shade value, and importantly, those catalpa worms that arrive just in time for the June fishing season. 

Catalpa wood was also valued as a rot-resistant option for making fences and posts, and has a long tradition in furniture-making, wood turning and musical instruments, notably guitars. The wood is said to be lightweight, easy to work with, and carries a beautiful tone.

For earlier generations that drew their subsistence from the land — through home gardens, a backyard flock of hens and a bounty of bream, bass and catfish from the local fishing hole — a bucket of catalpa worms was a princely gift. It’s all a matter of perspective.

Speaking of which, here it is July 20, and, much to my amazement, new leaves have already appeared on the denuded tree. If not for my story, you’d never know the tree had suffered such an assault less than three weeks ago.

ABOVE: My catalpa tree, recovered in less than three weeks!

Given its location, my catalpa will most likely continue to live a hard-scrabble existence and will never grow to be a grand, centuries-old specimen, (see photo below), but the tree is nonetheless part of a functioning ecosystem, providing food and shelter for other native species. For my part, I will be watching from my porch and, as always, hoping for the best. I do love that tree.    

_________________________

Contributor Burt Glover became an accidental naturalist during his earliest childhood days exploring the dirt roads, backyards, polo field and barns of the Magnolia-Knox-Mead neighborhood of 1950s Aiken. Birds are his first love, and he can identify an impressive range by song alone. He asserts that he is an observer, not an expert, on the topics of his writings, which range from birds, box turtles, frogs and foraging, to wasps, weeds, weather and beyond.

An old Catalpa bignioides said to be 200 years old.
Photograph from Dreamstime. Photographer: Gunold.

The $45,000 FOIA Fee

An update to City of Aiken Ordered to Produce Project Pascalis Records, Former AMDC Officials Seek Full Disclosure of Project Pascalis Records, and Which Project Pascalis Records Remain Hidden from Public View?

by Don Moniak
July 17, 2025

For four years, the City of Aiken has pursued an unwritten policy of opaqueness regarding the disclosure of information related to Project Pascalis; and for that matter, the Pascalis project properties that the city still owns and is seeking to sell.

Throughout most of 2021, project details and progress were kept secret or obscured via multiple closed-door Executive Sessions.

In August 2021, Aiken City Council’s approval of a $10 million general obligation bond to fund the Aiken Municipal Development Commission’s (AMDC) purchase of Project Pascalis properties failed to identify any specific properties. Instead, the bond issuance was tied to purchases of any parcels in “the Parkway District” as part of a “land bank.” However, it was known to some, if not all, Council members that the properties in question were for the AMDC’s downtown Pascalis demolition and redevelopment project.

As reported in City of Aiken Information Games, obstructionism of citizen efforts to learn details of the project began in March 2022 when city officials issued identical, exorbitant** $5,312 fee determinations to two distinct and separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requestors.*** Two months later, an identical fee determination letter was issued in reply to a third FOIA request; one bearing no similarity to the first two. None of the requestors became aware of this malfeasance until six months later.

In August 2022, City officials went further in their efforts to deter public inquiry by levying a charge of $48 per hour for time spent redacting Freedom-of-Information-released documents—but only for Pascalis-related queries. This tripling of FOIA fees was implemented under the justification that “high volumes” of requests were being filed.

That same month, officials attempted to redact project invoices that had previously been publicly disclosed. This trend would continue with the attempted redactions of legal invoices that were also already a matter of the public record; an effort that went as far as redacting the very term “Project Pascalis.”

In November 2022, one week after inadvertently posting the AMDC/RPM Development Partners purchase and sale agreement (PSA) in the City’s document repository, officials removed the document from public view only one day after the publication of the PSA in “Downtown Aiken Half Priced Sale.” That PSA remains in the public domain but is still not archived in the City’s document repository.

That same month, AMDC Commissioners Keith Wood and Chris Verenes objected to a “Joint Defense Agreement” for Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al (the Pascalis lawsuit), claiming that it would have “restricted frank, open, and complete information.” City Council opted not to honor their wishes and ultimately shut them out of an Executive Session to discuss the lawsuit.

As reported in Three Missing Pages, an arguably fraudulent $599 FOIA fee determination was made in April 2023 for a request pertaining to the Pascalis properties; one that ultimately led to a response involving only a single three-page document.

Sometime during the Summer of 2024, the City took down the AMDC’s website, aikenmdc.org, and in the process erased the history of the Pascalis project as viewed from the AMDC’s perspective.

Finally, in the case of Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al, in January 2025, a Judge ordered the City to produce requested records to the Plaintiffs by March 10, 2025–by this time, the City was claiming there were approximately 120,000 emails that met the discovery criteria.

There was a catch. The judge allowed a “clawback” of any documents the city deemed, within ninety days of the production of records, to fall into the privileged records category. The Plaintiffs, who had to commit to a nondisclosure agreement, then would have seven days to challenge the City’s assertions of privilege. All documentation is to be treated as confidential until a final determination is made on whether a document falls under the privileged category.

In May of this year, the City denied access to any property appraisals of its downtown Pascalis properties, citing the FOIA exemption for documents related to the sale or purchase of a property. Such knowledge earlier in the process would certainly have sullied the City’s proud announcement on June 9th of a new developer for the properties. (Seven weeks later, the appraisal was released. It showed the remaining six properties to be worth only $2.5 million, meaning a potential $5 million loss for the City.)

A few weeks later, City Solicitor Laura Jordan responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the Pascalis lawsuit discovery documents with a $45,000 fee determination (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Response and fee determination to City of Aiken FOIA Request 129-2025. The documents in question have already been turned over, in part or in whole, to the Plaintiffs in the Blake et al. vs. City of Aiken et al lawsuit. Therefore, there are no search and retrieval costs.

While this beyond-exorbitant fee would never be paid, even in part, it has clear implications for city taxpayers who have already footed legal costs exceeding $200,000 (Figure 2).

The redaction fees cited in the FOIA response reflect the potential legal costs to the City of determining which of the reportedly 120,000 emails contain privileged information. But at a rate of $180-250 per hour, four times that quoted in the FOIA response, even a fraction of the total time dedicated to reviewing for privilege could yield costs similar to the $45,000 FOIA fee.

Figure 2. Memorandum to City Council with update on Project Pascalis lawsuit costs to date.

Finally, the City took more than six weeks to even reply to FOIA request 166-2025, filed on May 21, 2025, for a series of emails from Keith Wood and Chris Verenes. The statutory response time is only ten days.

For this request, the City charged $365 for redaction fees for a relatively meager 1,300 pages of records. In a separate email, the City made the spurious claim that the request that yielded a $45,000 fee “is duplicative of 166-2025 and the response will be issued through request 166-2025.” The City then canceled the $45,000 FOIA request.

Thus, according to the City of Aiken’s legal department, a request that involves an alleged 120,000 emails and requires a $45,000 fee to process is “duplicative” with a request that involves 1,300 pages that requires $365 to process.

As reported in Which Project Pascalis Records Remain Hidden from Public View, City Council members are on the record supporting the release of all Pascalis project records. Yet, nine months after Keith Wood and Chris Verenes revealed the presence of 120 emails that are in a “privilege log,” and four months after a judge ruled that any pre-July 2022 emails from the pair should be released, the privilege log documents remain a secret; although one that might be unlocked, at least in part, through a deposit to the city coffers.

To this day the City of Aiken continues to obfuscate and erect detours obstructing information access to Pascalis project records, whether it be exorbitant FOIA fees, nondisclosure agreements for discovery records, or excessive redactions.

This is not just a matter of withholding documents; it is a matter of withholding the basic facts as to whether city officials unwittingly violated state law or did so knowingly. Without a full accounting of the project, how can elected officials and city administrators arrive at any real lessons learned?


Footnotes

* In July 2022, AMDC Chair Keith Wood wrote, in a letter to the Historic Aiken Foundation, that the AMDC had purchased the Pascalis properties “at the behest” of City Council.

** According to South Carolina law (Section 30-4-30(2)(B)), public bodies “may establish and collect fees…reasonable fees not to exceed the actual cost of the search, retrieval, and redaction of records…the records must be furnished at the lowest possible cost to the person requesting the records… Fees may not be charged for examination and review to determine if the documents are subject to disclosure.

In the case of the $45,000 FOIA fee determination, the City of Aiken charged unreasonable fees in two manners:

First, by inappropriately charging for review time to determine if documents needed redaction; whereas SC FOIA only allows for actual redaction time and explicitly states that fees may not be charged for examination and review time. Notably, the City also made the same mistake in 2022 for the $5,312 fee determination described in City of Aiken Information Games.

Second, by failing to acknowledge that the records requested were already in bulk files that had been released to the Plaintiffs in Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al. As such, the records were already reviewed for privileged and confidential legal status.

*** The City and AMDC did take the opportunity to create an illusion of openness by releasing information that was mostly already publicly available—i.e., news releases, AMDC resolutions, meeting minutes and agendas—on a new website, aikenmdc.org. Some of the new information did include spending receipts and banking information (the books), but very few pertinent records were released unless prompted by a FOIA request.