A review of the veracity and paucity of the FITS News story.
by Don Moniak
May 9, 2024
On Monday, Irmo, South Carolina-based FITS News published a brief story by its Founding Editor, Will Folks, headlined: “Aiken S.C. Mayor Facing SLED Investigation: Agency probing “exploitation of a vulnerable adult” allegations.”
Below are seven issues to know or consider about the FITS News story.
The information pertaining to the SLED investigation of Teddy Milner, aka Theodora Ely, was four sentences long—about a 20-second read. The remainder of the article was a rehash of the City of Aiken’s 2023 Mayoral election.
![](https://i0.wp.com/aikenchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image-20.jpeg?resize=474%2C287&ssl=1)
The SLED statement was one sentence long, and FITS failed to provide the full, actual, and official statement.
According to SLED’s Director of Public Information Renee Wunderlich (1), the agency’s official and only statement regarding the issue was as follows:
“SLED was requested by Aiken Department of Public Safety Director Charles Barranco on 2/29/2024 to investigate exploitation of a vulnerable adult allegations by Theodora Ely.”
FITS News chose to paraphrase the statement instead of simply quoting it.
There is no reference to “elder abuse” in the SLED statement.
The official statement is important because FITS News added the allegation of “elder abuse” for unknown reasons. FITS has declined to respond to a May 7th email (2) regarding the veracity of its “elder abuse” claim.
To date, SLED has stated it is investigating Ms. Milner for “exploitation,” but not “abuse” or “neglect.”
FITS News, and other subsequent news stories, opted to avoid citing the relevant state law governing the investigation and any potential criminal charges; a law that makes distinctions between “abuse,” exploitation,” and “neglect” of vulnerable adults.
The “Omnibus Adult Protection Act” (The Act), Title 43, Chapter 35 of the South Carolina Code of Laws provides a system for the protection of vulnerable adults. (The Act is outlined in plain English in a training and reference manual from the Adult Protection Coordinating Council, and in a Training Guide for Mandated Reporters.)
The Act legally defines a “vulnerable adult” as:
“A person eighteen years of age or older who has a physical or mental condition which substantially impairs the person from adequately providing for his or her own care or protection. This includes a person who is impaired in the ability to adequately provide for the person’s own care or protection because of the infirmities of aging including, but not limited to, organic brain damage, advanced age, and physical, mental, or emotional dysfunction. A resident of a facility is a vulnerable adult.” (3)
According to the Adult Protection Coordinating Council’s manual, the Omnibus Adult Protection Act is intended to protect vulnerable adults from caregivers. (4)
The Act distinguishes between “abuse,” “exploitation,” and “neglect;” although it must be noted that each offense involving “knowing” and “willful” behavior is a felony, and penalties (5) are similarly severe.
The Act’s legal definition of “abuse” is “physical abuse or psychological abuse.” The former is described as any act causing physical harm; the latter as “threats or harassment or other forms of intimidating behavior causing fear, humiliation, degradation, agitation, confusion, or other forms of serious emotional distress.”
“Exploitation” has a three-part legal definition, similar to the common understanding of “exploitive” as unfair, manipulative behavior for unethical and/or criminal personal gain. A financial component can be involved, but is not necessary. The criteria for exploitation are, in part:
- “Causing a vulnerable adult to engage in activity or labor which is improper, unlawful, or against the reasonable and rational wishes of the vulnerable adult.,”
- “An improper, unlawful, or unauthorized use of the funds, assets, property….for…profit and advantage.
- “Causing a vulnerable adult to purchase goods or services.”
The Act also identifies “neglect” as a third potential crime, defining it, in part, as:
“The failure or omission of a caregiver to provide the care, goods, or services necessary to maintain the health or safety of a vulnerable adult…”
According to SLED, at the present time Ms. Milner is being investigated for allegations of exploitation, not abuse or neglect. FITS provided no reason to include “elder abuse” in its 20-second read of the pertinent issue.
In this situation, the difference between abuse and exploitation should be as evident as the difference between assault and larceny; or violence and chicanery.
(For the full list of complete definitions, see Footnote 3.)
Because confidentiality of records is a pervasive hallmark of The Omnibus Adult Protection Act, the FITS News’ “sources familiar with the inquiry” could arguably be subject to penalties if there was any disclosure of confidential information; particularly if any investigating authority law was involved in the leaking of information leak.
There are numerous references to confidentiality requirements within The Act, including specific exemptions of some records and meetings from the requirements of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act.
For example, SECTION 43-35-60 states that,
“Unless otherwise prohibited by law, a state agency, an investigative entity, and law enforcement may share information related to an investigation conducted as a result of a report made under this chapter. Information in these investigative records must not be disclosed publicly.” (emphasis added).
The reasons for high levels of confidentiality should be evident. The law requires investigations into allegations that often involve personal family matters that might have devolved into a criminal matter. In this respect, it is not much different than the high degree of privacy and confidentiality afforded in family law.
SLED publicly announces the filing of criminal charges, not the existence of investigations—except for shootings involving law enforcement officers.
SLED’s media release webpage for this year to date contains 38 announcements of various criminal charges filed, and 12 investigations into officer-involved shootings. No announcements of any other investigations other than officer-involved shootings are in the 2023 list of media releases.
The SLED statement regarding the Milner investigation was clearly made in response to a FITS News inquiry that was based on information from what reporter Will Folks described as “sources familiar with the inquiry.”
The source or sources of the leaked information is unknown, as is the motive; both are likely to remain unknown.
FITS News has yet to update its story, despite new information being presented on WJBF News Augusta and in the Aiken Standard.
WJBF published the full, unedited statement (6) from Milner’s attorney Chris Austin, that described the accusations as unfounded and unsubstantiated.
FITS stated in its story that, “we will obviously update our audience,” when Ms. Milner responds. As of noon on May 9th, no update has occurred.
______________________
Footnotes
(1) May 7, 2024 Email from SLED.
![](https://i0.wp.com/aikenchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image-23.jpeg?resize=474%2C240&ssl=1)
In response to a subsequent email pointing out the awkward phrasing of the statement, Ryan Alphin wrote: “She (Teddy Milner) is the subject of the investigation.”
(2) May 7, 2024 Email to FITS News and Will Folks, with no response to date.
![](https://i0.wp.com/aikenchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image-21.jpeg?resize=474%2C196&ssl=1)
(3) Definitions in the Omnibus Adult Protection Act; Title 43, Chapter 35 of the South Carolina Code of Laws.
![](https://i0.wp.com/aikenchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image-17.jpeg?resize=474%2C484&ssl=1)
![](https://i0.wp.com/aikenchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image-18.jpeg?resize=474%2C161&ssl=1)
(4) From the Adult Protection Coordinating Council manual:
![](https://i0.wp.com/aikenchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image-24.jpeg?resize=474%2C294&ssl=1)
(5) Penalties for criminal behavior in the Omnibus Adult Protection Act;”Title 43, Chapter 35 of the South Carolina Code of Laws.
![](https://i0.wp.com/aikenchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image-22.jpeg?resize=474%2C329&ssl=1)
(6) Full statement by Teddy Milner’s attorney, Chris Austin, as published on WJBF.
We extend our gratitude to members of the press for their impartial approach as we received calls and emails from the local news stations and newspaper. Their professionalism has allowed Mayor Milner the opportunity to provide a statement and offer insight into to the recent events.
Unfortunately, Mayor Milner is currently facing unwarranted scrutiny amidst a highly publicized situation characterized by unfounded accusations. Mayor Milner vehemently denies any wrongdoing. It is regrettable that her accusers did not opt for direct resolution of this personal family matter, depriving my client the chance to address and refute the allegations without undue publicity.
To provide context, as I currently understand it, the allegations were initially reported to the Department of Social Services (DSS) which referred the matter to Aiken Department of Public Safety (ADPS) for investigation. Recognizing the conflict of interest, the case was subsequently sent to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) in accordance with standard protocol for handling such allegations. I have been in communication with the SLED special agent overseeing the investigation, and we anticipate participating in an interview shortly, once SLED has completed its information gathering process. While no specific requests have been made of us thus far, we are actively compiling relevant information and documentation to support SLED in its investigation.
We remain fully committed to cooperating with SLED throughout its investigation and maintain confidence that these allegations against Mayor Milner will ultimately prove unsubstantiated.”