Category Archives: Freedom of Information

Aiken County Government, Editorials, Freedom of Information

How Aiken County Council Under-Informs Its Constituents

3 Comments

Monitoring of Aiken County Council’s legislative proceedings is hindered by several unique factors that serve to under-inform the citizens of Aiken County. Agenda information is withheld from the public almost until the legal limit. Committee meetings are held in backrooms. No meetings are live streamed and archived. Meeting minutes are minimal, tell no story, and provide no real history. At the present time, the only accurate archive of meetings is an audio recording that is only available upon request, and not openly shared on the Aiken County website.

This opaque situation could be easily improved. Some simple measures include live streaming and archiving of public meetings, releasing meeting agendas and documents on the same day that Council members receive their copies, holding all committee meetings in spacious Council chambers rather than in small back rooms, and publishing meaningful meeting minutes.

by Don Moniak
September 8, 2026

Aiken County Council meets twice a month (first and third Tuesdays of the month) from January until June, and once a month (third Tuesday) for the remainder of the year. The meetings usually begin around 5 pm with upwards of three Committee Meetings—Development, Administrative, and Judicial and Public Safety—that consume up to an hour in total. These are followed by a Work Session at 6 pm and the Regular Meeting at 7 pm. Public input is allowed during any planned Public Hearings (1) during the regular meetings, and during the “Informal Meeting of the Whole” (2) which marks the end of meetings—barring any closed-door Executive Session.

Meeting agenda background information is mostly contained in a package known as “CC Docs.” Citizens interested in Council business must figure out the order of meetings for the day and navigate between multiple documents to follow the issues.(3)

In regard to agendas and background documents, Council under-informs by legislative fiat. The Aiken County Code of Ordinances mandates a two-tiered information dissemination system, in which Council members receive their packets four days before the meeting while their constituents and media receive access to them the day before the meetings.

Section 2-55 of the County Code states that “the county administrator shall distribute all regular meeting agendas to the (Council) members, with associated background documents, the Friday evening preceding a Tuesday council meeting.”

The Ordinance goes on to state that the administrator “shall make the full agenda package available to the general public and the press at 8:30 a.m. on the Monday morning preceding a Tuesday meeting.”(4)

There is no discernible motive for this two-tiered system of information dissemination for Council’s meetings; but it does serve a purpose. By restricting access to the agenda until the day before meetings, the practice functions to protect Council members from being pestered on the weekend by calls and emails from constituents concerned with any agenda items—and prevents them from being inundated with calls regarding any proposed controversial measures.

A case in point occurred on January 20, 2026, when the Council’s Administrative Committee chaired by Councilman Andrew Siders had “possible dissolution of the Aiken Barnwell Bamberg Edgefield (ABBE) Regional Library system” at the top of its agenda.

With barely a day’s notice, approximately forty Aiken County residents traveled to the meeting, Administrative Building, driving from all over the County to attend a committee meeting. Although public input was not sought or allowed, numerous citizens held up signs saying “Save ABBE.”

The message from concerned citizens would certainly have been more pronounced if citizens had known on the previous Friday that the beloved ABBE system was under consideration for the chop block.

The Smokeless Back Rooms

This event also highlighted another aspect of Council’s propensity to under-inform. For the past few years Committee meeting venues have been in small conference rooms—-literally back rooms without smoke—instead of in the spacious Council chambers which seat upwards of 150 people.

The back rooms in this case are two conference rooms, one of them only about 300 square feet with a public seating capacity of about fifteen. Council members, the County Administrator, and the County Attorney sit at the table with their backs to the audience—instead of facing constituents as practiced during Work Sessions and Regular Meetings. The atmosphere is more clubby than legislative.

In the case of the library issue, the crowd was standing room only, with more than a dozen people confined outside the room, out of hearing range. Concerned Aiken County citizens were rudely shut out of the process and under-informed by choice of Council. (Figure 1)

Figure 1. January 20, 2026 Council Council Administrative Committee Meeting. The small back room was filled to capacity and attendees spilled into the hall. Two citizens can be seen in the doorway trying to listen to the discussion. At least a dozen people were behind them, completely shut off from the process. In the foreground is Councilman Phil Napier. Across the table and to his right is Councilman Mike Kellems. To the left is County Administrator Brian Sanders.

This photo is a screenshot from a video recorded by Aiken County resident Vicki Simons, who reported:

“I noted that the room in which the meeting was held was much, much too small to hold those interested in the second agenda item: Discussion of ABBE Library.
Although I was not able to count folks beyond the doorway, I counted:
– 37 people around the side (sitting and standing); and
– 10 people sitting at the table.
The documentation for the Administration Committee is on the County’s website, ADM pp. 1-26.
The purpose of agenda item #2 was summarized by Bradley T. Farrar, Aiken County Attorney, regarding the Aiken-Bamberg-Barnwell-Edgefield Regional Library System (ABBE), its history, the process for dissolving the regional library system, and matters related thereto.
Numerous attendees held signs reading:
“SAVE ABBE”.
Toward the end of the discussion, Councilman Phil Napier summarized the matter by saying:
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
My video shows (at one point) the number of people in and overflowing from the room, most of whom were there out of concern for ABBE.”


The Twentieth Century Council Meeting

The most problematic means of under-informing the citizenry is Council’s refusal to modernize by live streaming its meetings and then archiving the recordings. The only way to actually hear a meeting without attending in person is by requesting an audio recording and traveling to the County building to retrieve it.

The Board of the Aiken County Public School District, the North Augusta City Council, and the Aiken City Council—as well as its three decision making bodies (Planning Commission, Design Review Board, and Board of Zoning and Appeals)—all live stream their meetings for remote viewers in the spirit of openness and access. The City of Aiken has meetings archived on You Tube that date back more than a decade. The most recent City Council meeting drew 128 views—enough people to fill the council’s chambers.

In contrast, citizens in a county the size of Rhode Island must travel to the City of Aiken to “see their County Council in action;” as Chairman Gary Bunker states when bringing meetings to order. With Council’s regular meetings being as short as half an hour, and rarely longer than ninety minutes, any resident in the Beech Island, Jackson, Monetta, Windsor, Wagener or other far flung areas can spend more time traveling than at the actual meetings.

The only time Aiken County Council has live streamed its meetings was when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a public health emergency by Governor Henry McMaster. When the state of emergency was terminated, live streaming ended,

The ongoing lack of live streaming is not a unanimous choice.

The current discussion began at the Administrative Committee’s February 20, 2024 meeting when Committee member Kelly Mobley asked for the issue to be placed on the agenda. The idea did not proceed any further while Mr. Mobley was in office.

The issue resurfaced at the February 4, 2025 regular meeting, when Council voted on a proposed budget amendment to fund the live streaming of Council meetings. The meeting minutes read:

“Councilman (Mike) Kellems made a motion for an amendment to the budget to include the $80,000 for broadcasting expenses to live stream Council meetings. Councilman Ball seconded the motion. The motion failed with a 5-3 vote. Councilman Kellems, Councilman (Landon) Ball, and Councilwoman (P.K.) Hightower were in favor.”

There was minimal dialogue on the topic during the meeting. Only after the meeting did Vice Chairman Andrew Siders share his thoughts with the Aiken Standard, stating that:

“First of all, it’s a tight budget year and there was an $80,000 price tag with that, Second of all, when you have that sort of system, everything changes, from the audience to Council. We believe it becomes more of a performance than a real dialogue, and we want this to be real dialogue. We don’t want it to be a performance.”

The controversy lay dormant until June 2026 when Council’s Administrative Committee (Siders, Kellems, and Ball) returned to the issue; deciding that day to ask staff to report back with an estimate of costs and a recommendation for venues—Facebook vs You Tube.

A month later, at its July 21, 2026 meeting, after staff reported that a suitable camera would cost ~$4,000 and that You Tube was the better choice for streaming, the Administrative Committee unanimously recommended furthering the project.

Andrew Siders told the Aiken Standard afterward that:

“I was against it before because I thought, there would be too much grandstanding. But I think we’ve moved beyond that point, and I think we’re ready for it as a council now. There is always the possibility [of grandstanding], but hopefully we can keep from [doing] it.”

But then, at its August 18, 2026 meeting, County Council voted against the live stream option by a vote of 5-3. Siders, Kellems and Ball voted to approve; while Chairman Gary Bunker, Councilmen Phil Napier, Sandy Haskell, and Ron Felder, and Councilwoman P.K. Hightower (5) voted against live streaming. Councilman Danny Feagan was absent.

The vote occurred without any open deliberation from Council members. After the meeting, Chairman Gary Bunker repeated part of Andrew Siders’ original objection when he told the Aiken Standard that:

“When County Council meetings were live streamed because of COVID-19, ‘I know the numbers that were watching (the meetings during COVID-19) were not very high, so I would question whether there is really a significant viewership out there. Second of all, I think there was a concern about the cost. And third of all, I think there is concern that by broadcasting…the County Council meetings could become less deliberative and more performative in front of the camera. Cameras tend to change peoples’ behavior.”

In all these instances, both Chairman Bunker and Vice-Chair Siders chose to share their opinions with a subscription newspaper but not with meeting attendees.

But even if they had also shared their thoughts with meeting attendees their statements would still have escaped inclusion in the meeting minutes.

The Council’s sparse meeting minutes continue to function as the final means of under-information. As described in “Obscuring the Present,” meeting minutes are minimalist at best, arguably falling short of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act requirements.

The majority of Aiken County Council members do not appear to understand how their opposition to live streaming, as well as other opaque practices, counterproductively fosters distrust of County government. A sense that something is being hidden permeates the public discourse. Instead of addressing this shortcoming, a majority of Council chooses a subtle regulation of speech to stem the bogeyman prospect of “performative” behavior or “grandstanding.”

This is unfortunate. As described in Aiken County Council, regular meetings are civil and professional affairs. Citizens seeking redress of any issues are treated with respect. Important legal information is conveyed when necessary in a thorough manner. The staff conveys a positive impression. Debate is mostly deliberative. In short, there is no reason to not share the proceedings and archive them in a more open manner that meets the spirit of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act.

Footnotes

(1) In regard to Public Hearings, County Council further under-informs in two ways, although these practices are not unique to the County.

First, the notifications meet the barest minimum requirement for publicizing public hearings. The only published announcements are made in the Aiken Standard, whose flagship newspaper the Post and Courier demands a $180/year digital subscription rate. The County refuses to post these advanced (14 day) notices on its website. The same holds true for the Aiken County Planning Commission.

Second, the narratives of public hearing notices often under-informs through the omission of key information.

For example, the notice for the Public Hearing regarding the sale of a County owned quarter-acre tract to an adjacent landowner conveniently left out the fact that the sale price was a mere $100. At that same meeting, an Ordinance Amendment failed to identify the subject was animal control, a subject that can draw considerable interest and controversy.

Finally, as reported in Transparency and Openness Needed in Aiken County Council Meetings, Council routinely fails to publicly disclose the names of companies and nature of business involved in Ordinances governing Fee in Lieu of Taxes agreements.

(2) County Council considered, but ultimately rejected, a proposal to place the Informal Meeting of the Whole public comment period AFTER any Executive Session. See Details Matter Regarding Protecting Freedom of Speech.

(3) Agendas are published by individual meetings. There is no summary agenda. As a result, there are up to nine separate files to follow for every meeting day. By comparison, the City of Aiken has two at the most.

Each committee has an agenda with its own packet, but agenda items are cross referenced with the Council’s documents, which creates more confusion. (Figure 2).

Figure 2: The set of eight files received from Aiken County Council for its February 17, 2026 public meetings. “CC Docs” contains supporting documentation for the Development and Administrative Committees’ agendas as well as for the Council agenda.”



(4) Seldom are the terms of the Ordinance met, as the release of information to the general public and the media generally occurs after 1 pm and sometimes as late as 4:30–barely meeting the SC FOIA mandate for release of agendas for public meetings within 24 hours.

Notably, the Aiken County Planning Commission employs even greater opaqueness regarding agenda packets. The County Planning Department does not even release, on the County website, the agenda documents provided to the Commission. Only the agenda is published. Citizens have to be on a mailing list to obtain the entire agenda packet.

(5) . An email was sent to Ms. Hightower inquiring as to the reason for her changed vote. No response has been forthcoming.

For a more detailed discussion of the live stream debate see Call for Livestreaming, Recording, and Archiving of Aiken County Government Meetings.





Aiken County Government, Editorials, Freedom of Information, June 2026

Call for Livestreaming, Recording, and Archiving Aiken County Government Meetings

4 Comments

by Vicki Simons
June 1, 2026

Do you ever wish that you knew what was going on at Aiken County Government meetings, but you:

  • can’t attend the meetings in person;
  • feel that it’s a hassle — yea, even an obstruction to open and transparent government — to have to request under FOIA an audio of each meeting individually; and
  • wonder why in the world Aiken County Government isn’t already providing livestreaming, recording, and archiving videos of all public meetings when so many other government entities are already providing this service?

    What follows includes:
  • aspects concerning this topic,
  • what I consider to be the need for this service,
  • parts of my speeches before Aiken County Council; and
  • an urgent call to action for readers to contact their Council members and the Council Chairman, requesting that money be put in the FY 2026-2027 budget, in order to make this service a reality this calendar year.

The Need

Aiken County, South Carolina, (A) is larger than the State of Rhode Island (B) and it takes considerable effort for Aiken County residents from outlying areas to attend meetings in person.

Earlier this year, one speaker commented during the “Informal Meeting of the Whole” (public input period of Aiken County Council meetings) that for every speaker who spoke that night, there were 20 other people who wanted to be there to speak.

In my opinion, livestreaming, recording, and archiving videos of Aiken County’s public meetings will:

1. Enhance government transparency and accountability;

2. Increase public trust in elected officials, county employees, and appointees;

3. Ensure equal access to government proceedings for all citizens, including:

a. those who cannot attend meetings in person,
b. shift workers,
c. parents with school-age children,
d. the elderly,
e. those with disabilities,
f. those who cannot drive at night, and
g. those who live a distance from Aiken;

4. Increase civic engagement and voter awareness;

5. Create a permanent record of government decisions;

6. Prove that county government has nothing to hide;

7. Attract businesses and investors by showcasing government transparency;

8. Demonstrate a commitment to innovation and technological advancement;

9. Reduce the need for personnel to fulfill individual FOIA requests for meeting audios;

10. Allow viewers to see and hear material that is not captured in meeting minutes or reported by the press;

11. Help educate students on government processes;

12. Increase general political awareness in the community;

13, Reinforce the idea that the government works for the people, not behind closed doors; and

14. Many other reasons not listed here.

Many people these days consider it backwards not to livestream public meetings, since resources show that:

  • These South Carolina cities are already doing so:

    o Aiken (C), Charleston (D), Columbia (E), Fort Mill (F), Goose Creek (F), Hardeeville (G), Rock Hill (H), and York(I); and
  • These South Carolina counties were listed as doing so:

    o Abbeville, Georgetown, Williamsburg, and York. (J)

Times When Livestreaming Meetings Would Have Been Helpful

1. During Council’s June 3, 2025, meeting, a Public Hearing took place regarding an AI data center, during which one speaker asked 12 specific questions, none of which Council members addressed, but Council subsequently approved the ordinance authorizing the Fee in Lieu of Tax and Incentive Agreement anyway. (Agenda: G.1., H.1.) (K)

2. During Council’s February 3, 2026, Work Session, a presentation was made via Zoom meeting about impact fees.

In my opinion, this use of technology was a win-win.

It would have been very helpful if the people of Aiken County could have seen the presentation about impact fees, to keep them informed.

Figure 1: February 3, 2026 County Council work session zoom meeting regarding impact fees. This zoom session was not publicly accessible, Photo by Vicki Simons.
Figure 2: Example of slide presented during February 3, 2026 zoom meeting.


3. During Council’s March 17, 2026, meeting, the County Attorney made an excellent presentation on a Resolution in Opposition to H. 5321, A Bill to Establish the “Horse Creek Regional Public Service Authority” and to Dissolve the Aiken County Public Service Authority. (Agenda K.1.) (L)

This is the only time when I have personally heard that two government entities — Aiken County Council and the Aiken County Legislative Delegation, both of which represent Aiken County voters — had a major disagreement.

It would have been very helpful if the people — including Aiken County citizens, Aiken County businesses, and the Delegation — could have seen not only the PowerPoint presentation, but also Council’s interaction with the County Attorney about this subject.

4. During Council’s April 14, 2026, meeting, a Public Hearing took place about a proposed ordinance regarding putting a referendum about Sunday alcohol sales and consumption on an upcoming ballot. (Agenda: G.3.) (M)

In my opinion, it would have been helpful if people could have heard the viewpoints presented.

I could provide numerous other examples of when livestreaming Aiken County Council meetings — including Committee meetings — would have been helpful.

Calls to Livestream Aiken County Meetings

1. During the Judicial and Public Safety Committee meeting on January 6, 2026 (N), and during Aiken County Council’s meeting on January 20, 2026 (O), two different people requested that all public meetings be broadcast online.

2. I have publicly requested seven (7) times that Aiken County Council approve funding for livestreaming meetings — on 11/19/2024, 3/18/2025, 5/6/2025, 6/3/2025, 7/15/2025, 2/3/2026, and 4/14/2026 — one of those speeches being made during the Public Hearing on Aiken County’s budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.

3. For two years in a row, one County Councilman has requested that money for livestreaming meetings be put in the County’s budget.

How Much Money is Really Required?

On October 29, 2014, the City of Aiken announced, “Live and Archived City Council Meetings Now Available on YouTube.” (P)

At that time, the City of Aiken was paying $1,500 a month for this service. (P)

Multiplying $1,500 per month times 12 months per year, the annual cost would have been (at that time) $18,000.

One Aiken County Councilman proposed modifying the County’s budget to allow for $80,000 per year for video services.

That price seemed high to me, but upon further investigation, I learned that that price quote had been received from a county department.

I requested publicly that that quote be examined in detail because livestreaming public meetings to YouTube or other video platforms cost a fraction of the cost cited.

I have not received an answer to my request.

Aiken County Voters Must Speak Up

Even though a line near the top of every Aiken County Council meeting agenda reads, “Council Administrator Form of Government…”, the Aiken County Organizational Chart (Q) clearly shows that Aiken County Voters are over numerous government entities, including Aiken County Council.

Furthermore, we know that The Declaration of Independence (R) says that,

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” meaning that Aiken County Government derives its just powers from the people of Aiken County.

Going beyond just livestreaming Council meetings, I have publicly requested that Aiken County Government’s budget include paying for livestreaming, recording, and archiving videos of all public meetings, including, but not limited to, meetings of:

  • the Planning Commission;
  • the Board of Appeals;
  • the Voter Registration and Elections Board;
  • all Aiken County Council committees; and
  • Aiken County Council’s work sessions, regular meetings, and special meetings.

In my opinion, there is no valid reason why Aiken County Council should delay approving funding for livestreaming, recording, and archiving services similar to those used by the City of Aiken.

Yet, the request for this service can’t come from just a couple of concerned Aiken County citizens. There must be a massive outpouring of requests from across Aiken County.

Urgent Call to Action

The Aiken County Administrator presented a proposed FY 2027 County Budget to Aiken County Council during their meeting on May 5, 2026. (S)

Since Aiken County Council has been holding budget work sessions for the 2026-2027 Fiscal Year, now is the time when the Aiken County Voters’ voices need to be heard.

This urgent call to action is for Aiken County Voters to:

  • contact (T) their Council members and the Council Chairman by no later than June 12, 2026; and
  • request that, in their FY 2026-2027 budget, money be allocated to pay for livestreaming, recording, and archiving videos of all public meetings, with implementation this calendar year.

    The budget must be passed by the end of June, so time is of the essence.

    (Editor’s note: The Aiken County Council Public Hearing on the 2026-2027 County budget will be held Tuesday, June 2, 2026, at 1930 University Parkway (County Administration Building, 3rd Floor) at 7 pm. This is the Second Reading and vote on the matter. The Third Reading will likely be June 16th).

References:

A. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiken_County,_South_Carolina

B. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island

C. https://www.cityofaikensc.gov/event/city-council-meeting/

D. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxDws_o-1voXBNOAZ17gZxw

E. https://columbiasc.gov/city-of-columbia-launches-new-online-meeting-management-system/

F. https://www.masc.sc/uptown/10-2022/online-engagement-brings-local-government-residents

G. https://hardeevillesc.gov/2355/Live-Broadcast

H. https://www.cityofrockhill.com/departments/office-of-strategy-management/communications-marketing/live-stream

I. https://www.yorkcountygov.com/531/Meeting-Videos

J. https://www.sccounties.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resources/virtual_meetings.pdf

K. https://files.teamup.com/3997068/attachment/01JWRPQ96QYKG3BNYQDV51ZVGQ/Council%20AGENDA%206.3.25.pdf?hash=0c42b0f8a5dc72bf851a6c018adbeccc4e1293237cb32e64cc85ab305f681069

L. https://sc-aikencounty.civicplus.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03172026-100

M. https://sc-aikencounty.civicplus.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04142026-114

N. https://files.teamup.com/3997068/attachment/01KE7DZ1R5J1JFCAHSRS0E9E55/JPS%20Agenda%201.6.2026.pdf?hash=b70ed747304bcd15f319229f2f73d577528b8f4be490956587a64f23de088b35

O. https://sc-aikencounty.civicplus.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_01202026-42

P. https://www.cityofaikensc.gov/live-archived-city-council-meetings-now-available-youtube/

Q.  https://www.aikencountysc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/522/County-Organizational-Chart-PDF-

R. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

S. https://sc-aikencounty.civicplus.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_05052026-137

T. https://www.aikencountysc.gov/529/Council-Members

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

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.

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

The $45,000 FOIA Fee

10 Comments

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.