“No public official, public member, or public employee may make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his office, membership, or employment to influence a governmental decision in which he, a family member, an individual with whom he is associated, or a business with which he is associated has an economic interest.” (SC 8-13-700(B))
Towards the end of their half hour meeting on October 11, 2021, Aiken City Council members enjoyed a lighthearted moment at the expense of this fundamental anti-corruption statute.
Mayor Osbon: Item number one is a request from the Kiwanis Club to hang banners in the downtown to promote Aiken’s Bacon and Brews event. I don’t know that we need any comment from staff…so at this time I would entertain a motion.”
Councilman Ed Girardeau: Question, I’m a member of Kiwanis, and should I recuse myself?
City Attorney Gary Smith: Are you gonna profit from the banners being raised up? I guess it wouldn’t hurt to recuse just to make sure you’re not having any impropriety.”
“Ed Girardeau: “Ok, yeah, recuse me.”
The exchange was followed by a round of laughter from Council members, as seen in this video.
Any casual observer was unaware this was an inside joke. Earlier in the meeting, City Attorney Gary Smith had recused himself, in writing, from an Executive Session legal discussion regarding property whose owners had employed a partner in his law firm. The recusal was not noted in the meeting minutes (1), and it is unknown who provided the legal advice in Smith’s absence. It is the only known written recusal by Smith in 2021 or 2022.
This recusal was obtained by Aiken resident Kelly Cornelius via a Freedom of Information Act Request.
There were no such insider jokes or chuckling during Council’s recent two-hour plus meeting on November 14, 2022. The meeting featured a serious discussion about conflicts of interest rules in the Equine Committee’s bylaws, and City Attorney Gary Smith formally recusing himself twice as many times as he had between January 1, 2021 and October 1, 2022.
Smith recused himself for the second reading of the repeal of the Newberry Street privatization ordinance, and again during discussion and voting on a resolution regarding a property negotiation involving his business partner Mary Guynn. As reported in The Pascalis Attorneys, Smith has been more notable for a lack of recusals in the past two years, which have been cited in three lawsuits alleging violations of South Carolina ethics laws.
The absence of recusals by the City Attorney also reflected poorly on City Council. No members recognized a conflict of interest during multiple potential and probable conflict of interest circumstances; such as when Smith was present and acting in his official capacity during discussions and/or votes to:
Pass a $10 million municipal bond for the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) to purchase properties associated with the secretive Project Pascalis demolition and redevelopment effort. Smith’s law partner Ray Massey was deeply involved in the project as an investor, and signed a contract to purchase the properties at half the price paid for by the AMDC a month prior. The contract was eventually terminated two months after a major lawsuit was filed seeking an injunction against the project.
Sell city-owned property bequested by the estate of Mattie C. Hall in the early 1970’s to his law firm associate Scott Patterson for the deeply discounted price of $150,000, as reported in The City of Aiken’s Mattie C. Hall Property.
Propose the sale of city-owned downtown property to another Ray Massey firm at a deeply discounted price.
The more direct discussion on ethics occurred shortly after Smith’s second recusal, during approval of the Equine Committee’s bylaws. Councilwoman Kay Brohl raised a question regarding the following clause:
“To avoid a conflict of interest, which occurs when an individual uses his or her committee position for personal economic benefit, a member may recuse themselves from the topic discussion and vote. In the case of recusal, the member does not count for establishing a quorum. All members of the Committee are considered to be ‘public members’ under state law, and therefore subject to the Ethics Act and other applicable conduct requirements established in the Code of Laws of South Carolina.”
At issue was whether the word “subsequent” should be inserted before the word “vote,” but the larger issue was addressed by Aiken resident and attorney Lucy Knowles, who stated:
“My suggestion is while you’re changing it you should change ‘may” to ‘must’. That is because that’s a requirement of state law that they have to recuse.”
The Equine Committee may not seem like a potential hotbed for conflict of interests, but local equestrian non-profits routinely receive funding from city accomodations tax revenues to help market their events. The city also contributed a million dollars in 2020 from hospitality and capital projects sales tax revenues to the Aiken Steeplechase Foundation for the purchase of its new venue.
The entire exchange solidified a subsequent contention, made by Aiken resident Luis Rinaldini, that the city needs to change the current relationship with its attorneys. Rinaldini, who helped found the Do It Right! Alliance and is a plaintiff in the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit, made the case against “continuing with the same cast of characters” in the wake of the failure of Project Pascalis:
“The City of Aiken has just witnessed the cancellation of the 100 million dollar Pascalis project. It’s undoubtedly maybe the largest in its history….yet here were are two months after cancellation and Council hasn’t said anything. I just don’t think that’s smart or a good idea. I think the public wants to know what council feels about this process, and unfortunately your silence isn’t helpful.
”You must see that saying nothing and pursuing business as usual isn’t going to work and it’s just going to make you look arrogant and tone deaf. Citizens want to reasonable change from Council. They want transparency, good governance and fiscal responsibility.
“And there are three other things citizens are looking for. They want a change in the composition and functioning of the Design Review Board, a change in the composition and functioning of the AMDC if it is not going to be abolished, and a change in the city’s relationship with its attorneys.”
The Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) is the branch of City of Aiken government that has pursued the proposed $100 million plus demolition and reconstruction endeavor known as Project Pascalis. The first eight months of project execution was conducted almost entirely in secrecy. Following announcements of land purchases and the selection of a developer, RPM Development Partners, AMDC officers and its Executive Director planned, organized, and executed illegal meetings between the developer and select members of the public, city council, and other city officials. The meetings were not announced to the public, not open to the public, were referred to as “influencer meetings,” and the scope of the meetings appears to have been strongly influenced by the developer.
FOIA and Open Meetings
South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exists to prevent wrongdoing by government officials, elected and appointed. The “Open Meetings” aspect of the law specifies that every “meeting of all public bodies shall be open to the public unless closed for distinct reasons.” There are no laws saying a meeting “must be” closed, only that it “may be” closed for reasons including issues of employment, contracts, property purchases and sales, and matters “relating to the proposed location, expansion, or the provision of services encouraging location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by the public body. “
The law directs city and county governments—councils, boards, and commissions; school boards and every other public body — to not circumvent this basic requirement for open meetings, by stating:
c) No chance meeting, social meeting, or electronic communication may be used in circumvention of the spirit of requirements of this chapter to act upon a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. (1)
The Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) was formed in 2019 by the Aiken City Council under the terms of South Carolina’s Community Development law. (2) The AMDC is legally restricted to addressing areas within the City of Aiken that meet the legal criteria for blighted and near blighted areas, (known as “conservation areas”), and is legally obligated to adhere to the state’s Open Meetings laws.
In March 2021 the AMDC announced the formation of “Project Pascalis,” and held meetings almost exclusively behind closed-door Executive Sessions for the next eight months. Nearly two-thirds of the commission’s public meeting time during that period was held in these closed-door sessions. The remainder of the meeting time was devoted to issues unrelated to Project Pascalis. (3) By the time preliminary details of the project were publicly announced on November 9, 2021, the City of Aiken had devoted $9.5 million to the purchase of seven downtown properties now forming the project’s proposed demolition zone encompassing nearly half of a city block.
On December 3, 2021 the AMDC announced the selection of RPM Development Partners, LLC as the Project Pascalis developer; and the existence of a purchase and sale agreement between the AMDC and RPM involving the seven properties. No legal request for proposals had ever been advertised prior to selecting RPM. The AMC actually ran a public notice for a request for proposals on December 13th and 20th, after choosing the developer.
Private Emails and a Zoom Call.
From December 9th to the 29th, 2021, the AMDC’s three officers and Executive Director Tim, planned and organized illegal, invitation-only meetings in the name of “public input” that were held on January 4th and 5th of 2022. At least four of the meetings were scheduled for the Aiken Chamber Of Commerce’s offices. One “dinner” meeting was eventually held at Prime Steakhouse in downtown Aiken and involved city officials and developers that eventually featured a $620 dinner and drinks bill for the six City officials in attendance— at taxpayer expense.
Preliminary, detailed information regarding these illegally closed meetings was reported on May 27, 2022, with an update issued on June 3, 2022. AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant denied the meetings met the legal definition of a “public meeting,” and even denied involvement by AMDC officials in the planning stages. (4)
A series of recently obtained emails (5) between AMDC Treasurer J. David Jameson, his fellow AMDC officers, and AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant shed light on the real involvement of AMDC officials. Mr. Jameson also serves as the President of the Aiken Chamber of Commerce, and most of the emails originate from his Chamber email account. AMDC Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chair Chris Verenes also used email accounts provided by their employers, Amentum and Security Federal Bank, respectively. No AMDC officers used their official government email accounts at the AMDC’s aikenmdc.org domain.
In fact, it does not appear that a single AMDC commissioner has used their AMDC email account, in spite of a June 2, 2020 warning from City Attorney Gary Smith to never use private email accounts to conduct city business:
Council and Board members must use their City provided email address for all official City business. [Hillary Clinton] 1. Use of private email for official City business may subject your private email address to be searched pursuant to the FOIA.
Smith also advised the Commission that day on public meetings:
All meetings must be properly noticed. I. Four members of City Council/ Boards cannot be together unless they arein a properly advertised public meeting. 1. No phone conferences that involve four or more members on the phone at the same time.
and
3. No secret meetings. [Sconyers BBQ] (6)
The emails reveal the three AMDC officers and Tim O’Briant initiated, planned, organized, and executed five Project Pascalis secret, “public input” meetings with only select invitees, and in consultation and coordination with Project Pascalis developer RPM Development Partners, LLC. (Agent: Ray Massey). The meetings were labelled “Influencer Meetings” in a few emails. Among the invitees were fellow AMDC commissioners, so any of the meetings easily could have exceeded the four commissioner limit triggering a proper and legal public notice.
The planning began on December 9, one week after RPM was announced as the project developer, when AMDC Chair Keith Wood wrote to Tim O’Briant:
Would you mind setting up a meeting with Grey Raines and the AMDC Executive Committee in the next couple weeks? We would like to understand his process for seeking public input and get a schedule from him on this topic. The meeting needs to take place prior to meeting with the DRB in January and preferably in person if possible.
Within two hours O’Briant responded “Will do.”
Grey Raines is the President of Raines Hospitality, a “development, management, and investment company that develops, operates, and owns the world’s leading hotel brands as well as boutique hotels,” and is commonly referred to as Rainesco (as in rainesco.com). Rainesco is one of three investor and development groups within RPM Development Partners, the other two being Lat Purser & Associates and Ray Massey and his local investors, if any.
The “Executive Committee” is composed of the AMDC’s three officers and Tim O’Briant, but its roles and definition cannot be found in the commission’s by-laws or founding ordinance. The schedule of full “Executive Committee” meetings are publicly posted as part of the AMDC’s meeting schedule.
O’Briant began organizing the Zoom meeting at some point, beginning with RPM Development Partners, LLC investor and agent Ray Massey. In a December 15th email to Grey Raines titled “Zoom Call” and cc’ed to Tim O’Briant’s private tim.obriant@icloud.com account, Ray Massey wrote:
Grey, is there a time next week that me, you, Tim, and Keith can jump on a quick zoom call? Keith just wants to hear from us how the process is handled with the public, if and when, any meetings might be necessary.
Raines responded to Massey and O’Briant’s private email the same day:
Sure thing. I have availability on Monday afternoon and Tuesday afternoon.
The email from O’Briant’s private account was forwarded the next day to the private employer accounts of the AMDC officers, ultimately confirming Tuesday, December 20, 2021 for a “call with RPM.”
The invitees to the December 20, 2021 zoom meeting organized by O’Briant were AMDC Chair Keith Wood, Vice-Chair Chris Verenes, Treasurer J. David Jameson, Grey Raines, and lead local investor and agent for RPM Development Partners, Ray Massey. The topic was “Project Pascalis public input discussion.” Conspicuously absent from the proceedings was Lat Purser, the third investor and developer in RPM. The meeting was not publicly posted as an Executive Committee meeting.
Details of the Zoom meeting are unknown at present, but a FOIA request for meeting notes, a copy of the transcript, and the video has been filed.
The Influencers Meetings Invitation List
On December 22nd Jameson emailed his three colleagues with the subject “suggested schedule for January 4/5” and an attachment titled “Influencer Meetings.” The body of the email was headed as “Random Thoughts,” and reveals an inclination to restrict public input to select, elite members of the public, as well as a preference for two exclusive Chamber of Commerce member meetings. Jameson’s random thoughts were:
I like Ray’s (Massey) list—maybe he should invite them to a session that several of us could also attend.
The Chamber is available for as many sessions as needed.
I would like one session for the Chamber Executive Committee.
I suggest that we bring back the Mosaic participant as a session—maybe the 8AM on the ‘s 5th.
I suggest that we have one session with Chamber Past-Chairs.
We’ll have to scrub the above lists to make certain folks are not invited multiple times
City Council, Some County Council, some Legislative Delegation
These invites would have to go out next week.
Just a starting point for me.
The Attachment titled “Influencer Meetings” shows four meetings scheduled for January 4th, followed by a Design Review Board meeting followed by “Dinner.” Four more meetings were originally scheduled for January 5th. (photo of meetings)
The email reveals the organization was led by the AMDC, with Jameson operating in a grey zone in his dual role as Chamber President by offering meeting space and seeking a greater role for Chamber luminaries.
A few hours later Jameson had the invitee list completed. In an email to O’Briant with the subject, “as we discussed,” was an attachment titled, “Final List with email addresses only.” The body of the email reads: “this is a good list.”
The “influencers” list (7) is three pages long and contains 113 names. Remarkably, the list even excluded two elected city officials and included only one County Council member. Although their list does not include the affiliations or title of invitees, among the 113 “influencers” were people who could have and should have raised a flag of concern regarding proper public meeting protocols, including:
(Then) Aiken Standard Publisher Rhonda Overbey;
Mayor Osbon and council members Lessie Price, Gail Diggs, Andrea Gregory, and Ed Woltz (Ed Girardeau and Kay Brohl are not listed);
Design Review Board, Velice Cummings;
Three members of the Aiken Planning Commission: Jason Rabun, Ryan Reynolds, and Steven Simmons;
Two members of the Aiken Housing Authority, Nathanial Dicks and James Gallman;
Former Aiken School District Board Chair Levi Green;
Superintendent of the Aiken School District, King Laurence;
Former superintendent of schools and current Executive Vice-President and Chief Administrative Officer for Savannah River Nuclear Solutions,(SRNS), Sean Alford;
Aiken County Council Vice-Chair Andrew Siders;
AMDC Commissioners Catina Broadwater, Douglas Slaughter, and Philip Merry;
Department of Energy Savannah River Site Operations Manage Michael Budney.
The invitation of five city council members indicates the potential for a quorum of members that would trigger a public announcement and notice. No such notice was issued.
It is unknown at this time if any concerns were raised, but letters of inquiry have been sent, and are still being sent to existing public officials (7). Only Andrew Siders of Aiken County Council has answered, stating he “was not aware of them” and did not attend.
One person not included on the list was Aiken area resident Christopher Hall, who had written to Commissioner Chris Verenes on November 30th inquiring about a public input schedule for Project Pascalis and offering some suggestions for development, such as bike paths and a “Complete Streets” initiative. Vice-Chair Verenes shared Hall’s one-page email with fellow officers and O’Briant, but there were no comments on any of his suggestions for improving the downtown area.
On December 28, Jameson wrote to fellow committee members with more refined plans for a new total of seven meetings in an email titled “Influencer Meetings for January 4/5”:
Tim and I met this morning to work on the influencer meeting for January 4/5. We have placed everyone among 5 groups. Four of the meetings will be at the Chamber. The four of us can attend any or all of the sessions.
This particular email indicates the potential for a quorum of AMDC members, which legally should have triggered a public meeting notice. No such notice was ever issued.
Four meetings were planned for January 4th, 2022, three prior to an announced, public Design Review Board meeting and a subsequent dinner with select city officials and the developer:
January 4th
11:00 — Ray’s (Massey) group 2:00 — Combined Leadership Group (Chamber Executive Committee, Aiken Corp., ADDA, some AMDC, several elected officials, etc.) 3:30 —Chamber Past Chairs 5 —DRB 7 —Dinner —Mayor, Stuart, Tim, Chris, Keith, David, and Grey’s group.
Two additional meetings planned for January 5th were devoted to another Chamber of Commerce group plus the singular meeting devoted to “many constituencies”:
January 5
9 —Chamber Board 11–Diverse group representing many constituencies.
To break it down, the secret “influencer” meetings consisted of five different groups, one led by the lead local investor, two restricted to Chamber of Commerce past and present VIPs, the “combined leadership group,” and a singular meeting devoted to “many constituencies.”
Jameson also submitted a draft invitation for review that clearly reveals he was acting as an AMDC member, and not in his Chamber role:
I am contacting you today in my capacity as a member of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) to invite you to a small gathering to meet Grey Raines, the preferred developer for Project Pascalis, and his team.
In November, the AMDC selected Rainesco for futher negotation and due diligence related to an exciting development project that envisions a hotel, conference center, apartments, and a parking garage on a prominent block downtown.
This is an opportunity for you to meet Grey and hear his development philosophy.
Expect to receive an Outlook appointment to arrive shortly. Please accept of decline the request. I hope that you can attend.
There were no comments on the draft invitation. The next day, December 29th, Jameson emailed the invitations to an undefined list.
The Influencer Meetings: Fellowship, Conversation, and a Celebratory Dinner
The City of Aiken has refused two FOIA requests for meeting minutes and attendee lists. The most recent submitted on July 28, 2022 asks for:
1. A listing of all attendees at the AMDC organized ‘influencer meetings’ held on January 4thand January 5th, 2022. The January 4th meetings was also referred to as a “stakeholders meeting” in a July 27, 2022 email from Aiken FOIA Officer Tim O’Briant. 2. Meeting minutes, notes, or other written documentation detailing comments and questions from the select audiences.
In spite of Jameson stating he was acting in his capacity as an AMDC member in the invitation, Tim O’Briant answered the FOIA an hour later by denying the existence of such records and the involvement of the AMDC:
“The City of Aiken has determined that it retains no records related to these meetings hosted privately by the Aiken Chamber of Commerce and Raines Development. For further information please contact those organizations.”
To date, the only documentation of the meetings remains the week-old recollections of O’Briant, Verenes, and Jameson. According to the AMDC’s meeting minutes (8) for January 11, 2022, fifty-seven people attended five meetings, so half of the people on the invitation list had not been invited, declined the invitation, or were no-shows the day of the meetings.
The AMDC meeting minutes of January 11th indicate the January 4th and 5th “influencer” meetings were more about marketing than obtaining public input. Vice Chair Chris Verenes is credited with stating:
The Executive Committee is part of the Marketing Committee. He pointed out that as a result of the publicity regarding the Pascalis Project, there have been questions. The Committee talked about a process that we can get some feedback and discussions along the way. He noted there was a phone conversation about getting Rainsco to start getting out into the community to talk about the project. Rainsco was contacted and some meetings were set up. He pointed out that they met with the Design Review Board and other groups. He said they were planning to meet with Mark Chostner to get details on the timeline for the Pascalis Project to see how they can couch the marketing plan with some general concepts of when things will be done.
In a subsequent discussion titled “Rainesco Visit Recap,” the January 11 meeting minutes describe some of the “influencer” meetings in general terms, but left out mention of the dinner meeting:
Mr. O’Briant stated Mr. Jameson was great in putting meetings together. He said Mr. Jameson took the opportunity to gather people together for fellowship and information with Rainsco. He said we tried to include people in different walks of life for diversity so we have people from different thoughts. Mr. Jameson stated there were five sessions, with a total of 57 people attending the sessions over two days. Mr. O’Briant stated there will be more meetings. The Rainsco people, the developers for the Pascalis Project, were in town and introduced themselves to the Design Review Board. He noted the Design Review Board will make very important decisions about the project. They did not show plans at this time, as they wanted to just introduce themselves. He pointed out that Rainsco has handled a large number of public-private partnerships throughout the South. They like to meet in small groups instead of having a large public session. They like to explain what they want to do and then take input and questions. They will be doing more sessions.
Mr. Jameson stated Rainsco was available the Tuesday after Christmas. It was not an ideal time, but people responded very well. The sessions were presented as a conversation with Gray Rains. Mr. Rains introduced himself, talked about his development philosophy, referred to some projects that he had done, what the obstacles were and how he had overcome them, and things that had worked smoothly. It was explained that there were no plans, renderings, and no site plan yet. They are in the beginning stages. Mr. Jameson stated people appreciated the fact that they got to look into the eye of the person that may become the master developer of this project. They got to see him early on and understand his philosophy. He said he received thank you notes from people who appreciated being included.
Since two of the meetings involved Chamber’s Board members and its Executive Committee, and nearly all of these members were on the invite list, it is safe to assume many of the Chamber’s VIPs attended. (9)
The only publicly announced meeting on the list was closed to input from the general public. The DRB meeting was a public “workshop” that began at 5:30 p.m. and was termed a “pre-application conference.” A discussion between the Board and RPM representatives occurred, with most answers being noncommittal. No questions were accepted from the public. The list of attendees is incomplete, ending with “other interested parties.” (10)
The 7 p.m. “Dinner Meeting” went as planned, with Mayor Osbon, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, Tim O’Briant, Keith Wood, J. David Jameson, and Chris Verenes enjoying a tax-payer funded dinner with a $620 dinner and drinks bill that included seven orders of premium whiskey and dinners that started at $46 apiece. According to Tim O’Briant, the RPM representatives dining with the city officials. but paying for their own dinner and drinks, were Ray Massey and Raines executives David Tart and Brandon Graham. O’Briant most recently described the day’s events in a FOIA response as a:
business social gathering following a day of stakeholder meetings held by RPM, LLC and Raines, and followed by the AIken DRB meeting earlier in the evening. (11)
Conclusions
Ample evidence now exists illustrating that the AMDC “Executive Committee” planned, organized, and conducted meetings deemed illegal under SC FOIA law. Even though the meetings clearly had the potential for a quorum of AMDC members, no public notice was issued. The “Executive Committee,” whose meetings are routinely publicly posted (11), participated in a ZOOM conference organizing call that was not publicly announced. While the meetings were deemed “influencer meetings,” one intent behind the meetings was to gain “public input.”
The implications of these secret meetings extend beyond their illegalities. Although there is no attendee list publicly available at present, the fact is the invitation list included elected and appointed city officials tasked with making legally binding decisions based on an objective review of the facts regarding Project Pascalis and related matters.
While the City of Aiken Planning Commission is not scheduled to hear any Project Pascalis requests, that could change, as Project Pascalis is frequently described by Tim O’Briant as an “evolving process.” The presence of three members on the list indicates the potential to taint any future commission hearings. Even if he did not attend any meetings, Chamber of Commerce Executive Board member and Planning Commissioner Jason Rabun has already expressed his “full support” for the project, which should disqualify him from any future proceeedings.
If five members of City Council were invited to a single meeting, that would constitute a public meeting and the need for a public notice. An effort to separate the members into different meeting groups could indicate illegal intent to circumvent the quorum requirement. Because there was no notice, there was the potential for “ex-parte” communications that are prohibited among public officials and which taint and undermine the public input process.
In May 2022, Aiken City Council has already passed one ordinance related to the project — the privatization of a part of Newberry Street, a proposal originating in March, 2021 before any conceptual designs were commissioned. These meetings call into question the legitimacy and credibility of the Newberry Street ordinance.
The meetings also raise credibility issues for the AMDC and its Executive Director, who is on the record denying involvement by AMDC members. On May 27, 2022, O’Briant wrote in an email disputing the first full story on these meetings:
The small group introductions you reference from January of 2022 we’re organized by the chamber at the request of Raines to meet with various stakeholders in the community. These were not AMDC meetings and none of the sessions were attended by or conducted by the AMDC or its staff.
O’Briant later repeated this assertion in a May 31 email:
What I wrote, copied here verbatim, was “these were not AMDC meetings and none of the sessions were attended by or conducted by the AMDC or its staff.”
“An Update to Did the AMDC Violate Open Meetings Law” by Don Moniak was originally posted to the Do It Right! Facebook page and a version with complete email correspondence between Tim O’Briant and Don Moniak was later published at The Aiken Chronicles website:
(5) July 11, 2021 Freedom of Information Act Request:
“Copies of all emails to and from AMDC Commissioner J. David Jameson involving AMDC related business between May 1, 2021 and June 15, 2021 and then for the month of December 2021, including but not limited to the following topics: Project Pascalis, WTC Investments, LLC, Weldon Wyatt, RPM Development Partners, LLC, Raines Company, Smith Massey et al Law Firm, and Newberry Street. The official email address djameson@aikenmdc.org (if that is correct) as well as the email addresses listed in City of Aiken board memberships (attached) should be searched. The two other emails identified with Mr. Jameson are djameson@aikenchamber.net and jdavidjameson@gmail.com. While Mr. Jameson was a commissioner at the time of the AMDC’s June 2, 2020 AMDC, he should have been briefed on Mr. GAry Smith’s thorough presentation of state FOIA and ethics law when he became a Commissioner, and should be aware that private email accounts are subject to FOIA.”
The City responded on July 18th with a $192 bill for search, retrieval, and review costs.
After a 25% deposit was made, the city released 238 pages of responsive records, and considers the response complete. The response was not complete, as there are major gaps in the timeline of events.
(7) The ‘influencers list” is not being released for the simple reason that the parties listed did no wrong. However, emails have been sent to many of the present day officials, including the entire City Council, Andrew Siders, and Michael Budney asking if they had received invitations and their responses to them. No responses have been forthcoming to date.
However, one comment made during the real public input process on the entirety of the project that formally began on April 20th is important to note. During the evening meeting, Chamber Executive Committee vice-chair and Aiken Planning Commission member Jason Rabun wrote to the city’s Zoom call moderator:
“I am very much in support of this project.”
Mr. Rabun did not identify any of his affiliations, most notably his role on the planning commission.
According to the AMDC’s “transparency page,” Capstone Services has earned more than $10,000 for undefined “professional services” from the AMDC. The invoices for these services were removed from the website in mid-July due to the presence of copies of AMDC checks with bank routing and checking account numbers not redacted. Today, only the checks remain.
Chamber President J. David Jameson is also Treasurer of the AMDC. On May 9th, 2022 he spoke at an Aiken City Council meeting during the second hearing of an ordinance to privatize part of Newberry Street, part of the Project Pascalis plan. Mr. Jameson did not identify himself his dual role as an AMDC commissioner during those comments.
Chamber Vice President for Administration Diane Philips also expressed support during the Zoom meeting portion of the April 20th public meeting, although she did not mention her affiliation with the Chamber.
The Chamber’s Executive Committee has been active in promoting Project Pascalis. Charlie Hartz wrote a letter to the Aiken Standard, Jason Rabun spoke in favor at the April 20thmeeting, and Norm Dunagan spoke at the April 20th meeting and May 9th public hearings. Van Smith was featured in a WRDW story speaking in support of the project.
Attendees were “City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, Assistant City Manager Mary Catherine Lawton, Planning Director Marya Moultrie, Planner Mary Tilton, Zoning Official Mike Dennis, Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant, Erica Sanders, Ray Massey, Grey Raines, Brandon Graham, Stephen Overcash, Susan French, David Blake, Mandy Drumming, Mark Chostner, Philip Merry, David Jameson, Christopher Verenes, Martin Buckley and other interested parties”
Stephen Overcash is the lead architect at ODA Architecture, which is a contract firm for RPM working on the designs of various parts of Project Pascalis—specifically the Hotel and Conference Center.
(11) “Toast of the Town: The January 4th Social Business Gathering at Prime Steakhouse.” Don Moniak. July 28, 2022.
The Beef Stew and Mundane Vegetable Soup of Public Meetings
Updated July 29, 2022, with full series of referenced emails (2)
On January 12, the day after an Aiken Municipal Development Commission public meeting, the Aiken Standard reported:
“The Aiken Municipal Development Commission recently hosted talking sessions with the prospective lead development group behind Project Pascalis. Over the course of two days, a total of 57 people attended five sessions, billed as a conversation with Grey Raines, managing partner with Raines Co.”
Two months later the AMDC formally approved its January 11 minutes (The minutes were available for approval at its planned February 8 meeting but no quorum was present). The minutes do not clarify nor correct the Standard’s story; and create a strong, though admittedly ambiguous, impression that the AMDC had hosted private meetings with select invitees. These “talking sessions” and “fellowship” with the developer functioned as “social meeting” used “ in “circumvention of the spirit of requirements of” South Carolina’s open meetings rules defined with the state’s larger Freedom of Information Act law (SC 30-4-70(c)).
Aiken Economic Development Director and AMDC staffer Tim O’Briant denies the contention the AMDC was involved in illegal private meetings. In an email sent a few hours after the posting, he wrote:
“The small group introductions you reference from January of 2022 we’re (sic) organized by the chamber at the request of Raines to meet with various stakeholders in the community. These were not AMDC meetings and none of the sessions were attended by or conducted by the AMDC or its staff. Gray Raines held the meetings as indicated in the update to the AMDC at a subsequent public meeting recited in the minutes you reference. There would have been no need for such an update had the commission conducted and attended the meetings held by Mr. Raines.”
There are contradictions with this version of events. First, in a followup email responding to questions regarding his denial, O’Briant wrote:
“I attended these meeting (sic) as AMDC staff and David Jameson, an individual AMDC member was present at each in that capacity and in his role as Chamber president.”
Second, within the same January 11 meeting minutes is a report from the Marketing Aiken Committee chair Chris Verenes describing Commissioners, and not Raines, initiating the private meeting process:
“As a result of the publicity regarding the Pascalis Project, there have been questions. The Committee talked about a process that we can get some feedback and discussions along the way. He noted there was a phone conversation about getting Rainsco to start getting out into the community to talk about the project. Rainsco was contacted and some meetings were set up. He pointed out that they met with the DRB and other groups.”
There was no reported discussion pertaining to any need to hold public meetings or forums to “talk about the project.” The entire effort was conducted under the public radar. Only after a contentious March 28th City Council public hearing and vote on the Newberry Street privatization (conveyance) ordinance did the AMDC plan and schedule the April 20 public meetings. Four months passed between the elite private meetings and the first open sessions regarding the entirety of Project Pascalis.
Third, O’Briant claims the meetings did not constitute a public AMDC meeting because there was no quorum of members present; and presented the following argument:
“By its nature and definition, a pot of beef stew must contain beef. By nature and definition, any meeting of a public body must include the members of that public body. How could it be otherwise. One could ask, where’s the beef? Or, more appropriately, how can one say a public body met when the membership was never assembled in any way, shape or form?”
He further stated:
“What you are presenting as beef stew was actually a mundane vegetable soup.”
This misdirected metaphor presents an effort to overlooks the fact that using the Aiken Chamber of Commerce as a surrogate to “answer questions” and “introduce” the developer circumvented the spirit of the law.
While a quorum is necessary to vote on matters and declare the meeting official, the possible absence of a quorum does not disqualify planned meetings from being announced to the public. Nor does the lack of a quorum preclude the body from keeping minutes, as it did for its shortened February 8, 2022 meeting. The April 20, 2022 “design workshops” were described as “public meetings” in the AMDC’s April 12, 2022 meeting minutes.
While this particular incident will not be aired in a judicial setting in the near future, the AMDC’s contempt for early and full public involvement has been on display as prominently as somebody driving fifty miles per hour through downtown. Just because they were not pulled over and ticketed does not make it legal.
(2) Following is the complete email exchange between May 27th and May 31st between Donald Moniak and Tim O’Briant based on the story originally posted on the Do It Right! Facebook Page and later posted to The Aiken Chronicles website:
Your post regarding the small group meetings with Gray Raines has been brought to my attention. Just as you are, I am always concerned about public bodies observing, meeting and exceeding all notice requirements for their meetings.
The small group introductions you reference from January of 2022 we’re organized by the chamber at the request of Raines to meet with various stakeholders in the community. These were not AMDC meetings and none of the sessions were attended by or conducted by the AMDC or its staff. Gray Raines held the meetings as indicated in the update to the AMDC at a subsequent public meeting recited in the minutes you reference. There would have been no need for such an update had the commission conducted and attended the meetings held by Mr. Raines.
As you are likely aware, the SC FOIA SECTION 30-4-20 defines a public meeting as follows: (d) “Meeting” means the convening of a quorum of the constituent membership of a public body, whether corporal or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power. (e) “Quorum” unless otherwise defined by applicable law means a simple majority of the constituent membership of a public body.
Please update your posting to correct any impression that the AMDC violated public meeting requirements in this case. Thank you in advance for your commitment to truthful and accurate commentary.
Regards,
Tim O’Briant Economic Development Director City of Aiken, South Carolina 803-508-1429
On May 27, 2022, at 3:32 PM, Donald Moniak wrote:
Mr O’Briant,
1. The Aiken Standard in the cited article clearly reported the meetings were held by the AMDC. If they were in error, is there any record of the AMDC or City ever correcting the mistake?
2. The meeting minutes cited create a clear impression of AMDC involvement. There is no mention of the event as being Chamber sponsored. The AMDC approved these minutes, creating a distinct impression that it was involved in some capacity. Why is there no mention that AMDC related business was Chamber sponsored?
3. Mr. Jameson is an AMDC Commissioner and its treasurer. If he commingled his two roles at this meeting to advance the AMDC’s position, the public has a right to know. Did Me. Jameson disclose his position as an AMDC Commissioner, or did he, like Philip Merry on May 9th, pretend to be just an interested observer?
4. In your citation of open meetings laws, why did you omit SC 30-4-70(c), regarding the use of social events or other means to circumvent the spirit of the law?
5. If Raines requested these meetings, were they encouraged to do so by AMDC members, or is their standard operating procedure to circumvent the public process regarding public-private partnerships involving tens of millions of dollars in public funds?
I will post an update that includes your entire response and these questions. But even if legal, the act of setting up private, invitation only meetings regarding a major development within an area of long term contention wreaks of elitism and disdain for true public input.
I will remind you that like myself, you are not a lawyer. Perhaps Mr. Smith or Mr. Pope should be weighing in on the legalities of the meetings. Were either of them consulted?
Thank You,
Donald Moniak
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 7:33 PM Tim Obriant wrote:
Mr. Moniak,
By its nature and definition, a pot of beef stew must contain beef. By nature and definition, any meeting of a public body must include the members of that public body. How could it be otherwise. One could ask, where’s the beef? Or, more appropriately, how can one say a public body met when the membership was never assembled in any way, shape or form?
I attended these meeting as AMDC staff and David Jameson, an individual AMDC member was present at each in that capacity and in his role as Chamber president.
A quorum of a public body (five voting members in the case of the AMDC) must be present at the same time and in the same location, or even virtually, to constitute a meeting. That did not occur during any of these several meet-and-greet sessions with 57 community members and Mr. Raines, nor has anyone, including the Aiken Standard, ever asserted such.
What you are representing as beef stew was actually a mundane vegetable soup. No aspect of FOI was violated intentionally or otherwise, and, yes, attorney Gary Pope vetted the plans for the event to ensure full compliance. Thank you for your questions and efforts to make sure you get this right and fairly represent the facts of both the law and the reality of the event described.
Tim O’Briant Economic Development Director City of Aiken, South Carolina 803-508-1429
On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 12:21 Donald Moniak wrote:
Mr. O’Briant,
Could you provide a date, other than March 15, when the January 11 meeting minutes were addressed and corrected?
The Aiken Standard story clearly described the private meetings as “talking sessions” “hosted” by the AMDC. There is no ambiguity in their report as their is in the January 11 minutes. The story was published on January 12and the AMDC had two full months to set the record straight, but chose not to until your May 27, 2022 email disputing the accuracy of my social media posting and email that was also sent to City Council.
In your initial email, you stated “no staff” was present at the five private meetings, yet in your subsequent email you stated you were present. You are listed under “Staff” at the AMDC website. Did you or Mr. Jameson take notes at these meetings or conduct any followup with interested participants?
Also, in those 1/11 minutes there was a reference to additional future meetings being planned. How many of these were held, who organized them, and who was present?
As to quorums, there was no quorum for the planned February 8 meeting, yet some discussions took place and minutes were recorded. No quorum of Commissioners was present at the April 20, 2022 public “workshops” that were described in the April 12 AMDC meeting minutes as “public meetings,” as only two AMDC members spoke up–although they did not clearly identify their affiliations, similar to Mr. Merry’s lack of disclosure on May 9. Yet, these were videotaped and available for participation via Zoom, which was commendable but also in accordance with established City of Aiken transparency policies and practices.
Your response to my questions did not address 30-4-70(c). The issue here is not the AMDC conducting business by holding votes or setting policy without a quorum, but using a private organization as a surrogate to facilitate private meetings that should have been open to the general public. The list is 30-4-70(c) does not appear to be exhaustive, these are examples of inappropriate conduct that functions to circumvent open meeting laws.
Finally, please work on your metaphors. If a recipe calls for a pound of beef stew meat but only a quarter pound is used, it is still beef stew. If the stew meat is excluded, that makes it a vegetable stew, not a “mundane vegetable soup,” As to the latter metaphor, would you be willing to tell the 57 select invitees their participation was “mundane” and they were not provided any meat at their private meetings?
Thank You, Donald Moniak
On May 31, 2022 at 3:57 p.m. Tim O’Briant wrote:
Mr. Moniak,
When you quote me as saying that “(I) stated “no staff” was present at the five private meetings, yet in your subsequent email you stated you were present,” you are misrepresenting my actual correspondence. What I wrote, copied here verbatim, was “these were not AMDC meetings and none of the sessions were attended by or conductedby the AMDC or its staff.” Admittedly, my use of the compound verbs, attended by or conducted by, was somewhat imprecise in that my intent was to explain the AMDC as an assembled body politic did not participate at any point those days. I was at each of the meetings, but played no official role in my staff capacity. I apologize that my response was unclear and caused any confusion.
As to your other questions/comments, I am in receipt of your FOI request 109-2022 related to this matter and the response to that query will within ten days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) of the receipt of the request, notify you of the City’s determination as to the public availability of the requested public records. In the interim, feel free to call me directly or stop by the next time you’re in the City if you need additional assistance.
Regards, Tim
This was Mr. O’Briant’s first suggestion that a FOIA request response would be withheld until the legal time limit.
Project Pascalis is the name for a proposed $100 million plus demolition and redevelopment project targeted for downtown Aiken. The project is being directed by the Aiken Municipal Development Agency (AMDC), which in December 2021 officially announced RPM Development Partners, LLC (agent: Ray Massey) as the project developer. RPM represents the three primary investors and developers: Raines Company, Lat Purser and Associates, and Ray Massey.
Information obtained yesterday regarding an extravagant taxpayer funded dinner featuring shots of premium whiskey reveals that the Mayor of Aiken, the City Manager, the city’s Economic Development Director, and three Aiken Municipal Development Commissioners participated in a “social business gathering” with three members of RPM Development Partners. A separate check was provided to the latter group. Most of the participants also attended a City of Aiken Design Review Board (DRB) workshop just prior to the gathering.
On July 13, 2022 I emailed (1) Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh with concerns and questions regarding two issues on the “transparency page” of Aiken Municipal Development Commission’s (AMDC) website:
The existence of copies of AMDC checks within invoice and billing files with routing number and account number not redacted; and
A January 10th check from the AMDC to the City of Aiken for a $620 bar and dinner bill dated January 4, 2022 from Prime Steakhouse in downtown Aiken. On that bill were seven orders of premium whiskey worth $130, four orders of steaks, one order of short ribs, one order of veal piccatta, and an appetizer of Calamari.
Within a few days, all files containing copies of compromised AMDC checks were removed from their “transparency page,” and have yet to be returned.
In regard to the Prime Steakhouse bill, one question posed was:
Can you identify the people in the party who dined on fine steaks along with premium whiskey that afternoon?
After two weeks without any further response, on July 25th I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the expense report, the meeting notes, and a listing of all attendants including those on a referenced second check.(2)
On July 27th Aiken Economic Development Director and FOIA officer Tim O’Briant responded with another copy of the dinner and bar tab and a copy of the AMDC check, with banking information redacted.
Copy of AMDC check and City of Aiken purchasing card statement
In an emailed response, Mr O’Briant explained that the City’s purchasing card was used “because the restaurant does not accept checks as the AMDC intended to pay;” and the city was later reimbursed by its commission. O’Briant also explained the following regarding attendees and meeting notes:
Those from the City of AIken present were Stuart Bedenbaugh, Rick Osbon and Tim O’Briant. From the AMDC, attendees were Keith Wood, Chris Verenes and David Jameson.
There was no record of discussion and no agreements were made during this business social gathering following a day of stakeholder meetings held by RPM, LLC and Raines, and followed by the AIken DRB meeting earlier in the evening
Neither the City nor the AMDC maintains a record of those attending from RPM or Raines, but by memory it included David Tart, Ray Massey and Brandon Graham. Ticket number two was for their meals and the City of Aiken nor the AMDC maintain a record of the charges paid by RPM/Raines.
David Tart is a managing partner of Raines, Brandon Graham is a project manager for Raines, and Ray Massey is a lead investor and agent for both Project Pascalis developers RPM Development Partners and Aiken Alley Holdings.
Prior to the Prime Steakhouse dinner and drinks, Stuart Bedenbaugh, Tim O’Briant, David Jameson, Chris Verenes, Ray Massey, and Brandon Graham all reportedly attended the City of Aiken’s Design Review Board Workshop (DRB), but not its monthly public meeting.(3) Mayor Osbon was not listed as an attendee at that important workshop.
The following two questions posed to Mr O’Briant at 4:30 p.m. today went unanswered:
If this was not a meeting, why was it paid for with city funds?
Under what city procurement authorization is this type of party of six allowed?
___________________
Next: The “Stakeholders Meetings.”
__________________
(1) The email read:
“Mr. Bedenbaugh,
I have some questions and comments regarding two issues:
1. I suddenly realized that the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) has been published sensitive city financial information online. Specifically, the AMDC has published copies of its checks to various consultants, vendors, utilities, etc that contain the routing number and account number of the checking account.
1a. Can you explain why this routing and account number information was not redacted? Even with a banking executive on the commission?
1b. If this information was released via a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) before being placed on the AMDC site ( as it appears to have been since no recent payments are posted) did the failure to redact violated any city or state FOIA rules or policies?
You all really should go back through and redact that account number before somebody goes out and buys some premium whiskey online; which provides a segue to item 2.
2. Pertaining to the $620 bill from Prime Steakhouse on January 4, 2002, identified as “City of Aiken payment for Prime 011022” on the AMDC “transparency page” of its website:
2a. Can you identify the people in the party who dined on fine steaks along with premium whiskey that afternoon?
2b. Was this considered a meeting under state open meetings law?
2c. Was the dinner and drinks related in any way to the structural assessment of the Hotel Aiken also conducted that day by a consultant for RPM Development Parters, LLC, or is that pure coincidence?
Thank You,
Don Moniak
Eureka Fire Protection District
Aiken County, SC.”
Mr. Bedenbaugh responded that day: “I will review.”
(2)A FOIA request was submitted on July 25, 2022 for: “1. The expense report that was submitted for the steak and whiskey dinner at Prime Steakhouse on January 4, 2022; as required by City of Aiken statutes and policies governing reimbursement of expenses. 2. The memo for record (or other document) that recorded the discussion and agreements reached at the Steak and Whiskey dinner, and a listing of all attendants at the meeting, including those on the second check cited on the dinner and whiskey tab.”
(2) From the DRB January 4, 2022 Workshop Meeting Minutes, the following people were listed as present: “City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, Assistant City Manager Mary Catherine Lawton, Planning Director Marya Moultrie, Planner Mary Tilton, Zoning
Official Mike Dennis,Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant, Erica
Sanders, Ray Massey, Grey Raines, Brandon Graham, Stephen Overcash,
Susan French, David Blake, Mandy Drumming, Mark Chostner, Philip
Merry, David Jameson, Christopher Verenes, Martin Buckley and other
interested parties”
Although the meeting minutes state the workshop began at 5:30 p.m and ended at 6:30. The bar and dinner bill time appears to be 19:55 (7:55 p.m).
According to Aiken Municipal Development Corporation (AMDC) meeting minutes, (1/11/22) Gray Raines of Project Pascalis developer Rainesco (a key player in the RPM Development Partners, LLC consortium) met with fifty-seven people over the course of two days and five separate meetings in late December, 2021 to discuss his development philosophy and pertinent experience. According to statements attributed to Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant, Rainesco likes “ to meet in small groups rather than a large public session.”
Aiken Standard reporter Landon Stamper was in attendance that day, and reported on the meetings (1):
The Aiken Municipal Development Commission recently hosted talking sessions with the prospective lead development group behind Project Pascalis. Over the course of two days, a total of 57 people attended five sessions, billed as a conversation with Grey Raines, managing partner with Raines Co.
The story went on to quote AMDC Commissioner J. David Jameson stating:
People just appreciated the fact that they got to look into the eyes of the person that may become the master developer of this project. We got to see him early on and understand his philosophies.
No large public meeting regarding Project Pascalis was held until April 20, 2022 — four months after Mr. Raines privately met with what appears to be invitation only audiences. Mr. Raines himself was not introduced at either of the April 20 meetings, so the general public did not get “to look into the eyes” of the master developer.
South Carolina law is clear about the requirements public agencies must adhere to when announcing, posting, holding, and documenting public meetings. According to state law, SC 30-4-60, meetings of public bodies must be open except for very specific exemptions. “Talking sessions” with select invitees is not on the list of exemptions.”
Executive sessions require a vote of approval, and “No chance meeting, social meeting, or electronic communication may be used in circumvention of the spirit of requirements of this chapter to act upon a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.” (SC 30-4-70(c)).
When the AMDC held public meetings in April, the public was restricted from asking questions while the developers and other AMDC contractors presented their case for all but fifteen minutes of the scheduled meeting time. During the first session, public input and questions were abruptly cut off by the moderator, Tim O’Briant, because Rainesco representatives had “prior engagements.”
This is just the latest in a long series of legal issues confronting Project Pascalis, including:
—City of Aiken has yet to hold a formal public hearing for Project Pascalis, as required by South Carolina redevelopment laws; —The AMDC has yet to follow that law and amend its obsolete, July 2020 redevelopment plan that was approved eight months before “Project Pascalis” entered the public discourse; —The AMDC failed to issue a legal public notice for their Requests for Proposals until eight months after first soliciting bids; —-The AMDC offered the prospect of city property to interested developers without permission from City Council, and did not seek permission for nearly a year; —Conflict of interest allegations raised in the recent lawsuit involving the City Attorney; —Violations of City ordinances regarding the parkway district;
Now, it appears a City Commission repeatedly violated very simple, basic Open Meetings laws; reminiscent of the City of North Augusta’s Open Meetings violations in the early days of its Project Jackson development on the riverfront.
