Following is an update since June 13, 2022 on various aspects of the City of Aiken’s $100 million plus demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis. For information prior to that time, see A Project Pascalis Timeline.
Four developments and trends are notable:
A major lawsuit featuring nine plaintiffs and twenty-seven defendants was filed on July 5, 2022 seeking an injunction to halt the project.
The “Do It Right Alliance” amassed more than 2,000 signatures for a petition to overturn two City of Aiken ordinances; the 2022 ordinance allowing partial privatization of Newberry Street; and the 2019 ordinance establishing the AMDC.
Progress on Project Pascalis appeared to stall, and was likely in a process of reorganization prior to the lawsuit. A June 2022 billing invoice from the law firm of Pope-Flynn to the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) indicated work on a new redevelopment plan, a new “omnibus ordinance,” and a project “pivot.” No final Master Development Agreement has been reached that would trigger demolition work and the privatization of a portion of Newberry Street.
Increased secrecy surrounded the project. Only closed-door meetings regarding the project occurred since June 21, documents containing basic information were partially redacted, an increase in denial of documents occurred, and officials have declined comment due to pending litigation—even when the issue is outside the scope of the litigation.
Timeline Since June 21, 2022
June 13: The AMDC and City Council spend two hours in a joint closed-door Executive Session to discuss “to discuss Project Pascalis with City Council and the developers.” City Council cites the following open meeting exemption to justify closing the doors “pursuant to Section 30-4-70(a)(2) for consideration and discussion of matters related to development of Project Pascalis regarding negotiations incident to proposed contractual arrangements related to Project Pascalis and receipt of related legal advice.”
Prior to the workshop, AMDC Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. meets with AMDC to “work on a new direction and how to get there.” (2)
The AMDC checking account has a balance of $101,195.30
June 22: AMDC Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. works on an “omnnibus ordinance,” and “revising the redevelopment plan,” for 3.0 hours. Details are unknown. (2)
Gary Pope, Jr. also spends two hours reviewing South Carolina’s “Community Development Corporation Act, schedule, and proposed revisions to Project Pascalis plan.” (Community Development Corporation Act allows for the creation of non-profit corporations with “a primary mission of developing and improving low-income communities and neighborhoods through economic and related development,” and community development financial institutions to assist with credit and capital.
Page 1 of June invoice to AMDC from Pope-Flynn. Click to view full size.Page 2 of June invoice to AMDC from Pope Flynn. Click to view full size.AMDC payment of June invoice. Click to view full size.
June 24: The City of Aiken posts forty-five Demolition Application notices for a July 5th hearing in front of Newberry Hall, Warneke Cleaners, the former State Farm building on Newberry Street; the McGhee Building (historic CC Johnson Drug Store, On Board Realty, Security Finance), Taj Aiken Restaurant, and the former Holley House motel on Richland Avenue.
Two of the 45 Demolition Application notices posted by the City of Aiken on 6/24/22
AMDC Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. works on “redevelopment plan and necessary items to pivot project” for 5.5 hours.
June 27: Pope-Flynn staff work 12.2 hours to “prepare for meeting at City of Aiken. Participate in Executive Session.”
Aiken City Council votes unanimously to enter into closed-door, Executive Session “to discuss negotiations incident to proposed contractual arrangements relating to Project Pascalis and receipt of related legal advice.” The closed-door session lasts one hour, and there is no further discussion of Project Pascalis during the subsequent open meeting.
June 29: Demolition Application from RPM Development Partners, LLC to the Design Review Board to demolish motel iswithdrawn Current status of demolition plans is unknown.
”Withdrawn” stickers applied to Demolition notices on 6/29/22. Click individual images to view full-size
July 5:Lawsuit filed on behalf of nine plaintiff’s seeking injunction to stop project; citing violations of City of Aiken ordinances and laws governing South Carolina community development, local government comprehensive planning, ethics and conduct of public officials, freedom of information, and local government planning.
Plaintiffs seek to stop Project Pascalis by asking for “a declaration from the Court that certain actions of the City and certain municipal bodies are null and void and incapable of being implemented, in whole or in part” and “injunctions preventing the continued implementation of the null and void acts.” Plaintiffs do not ask for damages.
Court Filings to date in Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al; from most recent.
July 9: The law firm of Pope-Flynn submits $20,546.03 bill to the AMDC for fifty-nine hours of work completed in June, 2022.
July 11: Aiken City Council meets in closed door executive session with Attorney Daniel Plyler for two hours to discuss legal matters related to the lawsuit, but a Joint executive session with the AMDC is cancelled.
Aiken City Counciltables amendmentto amend AMDC establishment ordinance to correspond to by-laws written by the AMDC that allows non-residents of the city who have “vested business interests” to serve as AMDC members. No questions pertaining to the tabled amendment are allowed by Presiding Officer Mayor Rick Osbon.
July 12: AMDC Property Manager On Board Realty deposits $11,205.00 in rent payments to the AMDC checking account.
AMDC cancels monthly meeting, reportedly due to quorum issues.
July 13-14. In response to a citizen alert to the City of Aiken, the AMDC removes dozens of files from its “Transparency Page” at aikenmdc.org. The files contained copies of AMDC checks and personal business information that was not properly redacted.
July 22: Historic Aiken Foundation sends letter to AMDC Chairman Keith Wood requesting increased safety and security measures at the Hotel Aiken.
July 25 to 31: City of Aiken code enforcement begin removing “Say No to Project Pascalis” signs from the right-of-ways in front of private residences, citing the city’s complex sign ordinance.
July 26: Chairman Wood replies to Historic Aiken Foundation, denying all issuesraised.
AMDC checking account has balance of $53,014.41
July 28: Aiken Public Safety conducts first fire inspection at Hotel Aiken since March, 2021.
August 4: City of Aiken begins to routinely triple the fees for some Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests; increasing the rate for document “search, retrieval, review, and redaction” from $16/hr to $48/hr.
August 9: AMDC cancels monthly meeting for second straight month due to lack of a quorum.
August 10-11 In response to a FOIA request, the AMDC reposts most of the invoices previously removed in mid-July, and invoices since April 1, 2022, within a file named “AMDC Financial Binder” is posted to the commission’s “Transparency Page,” https://aikenmdc.org/2022/03/29/project-pascalis-public-records/. The unannounced posting marks the first change to the AMDC website since the records were removed.
August 15: In Blake et al vs. City of Aiken et al, Attorneys for the City of Aiken file:
“Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Defendants Osbon, Brohl, Diggs, Girardeau, Gregory, Price, and Woltz.”
“Answer on Behalf of Defendants City of Aiken, Osbon, Brohl, Diggs, Girardeau, Gregory, Price, and Woltz.” (3. Comments on Motion and Answer)
August 18: In Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al, Attorneys for the Plaintiff file discovery questions and requests for information:
First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Rick Osbon
First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Rick Osbon
First Set of Interrogatories to All Members of Aiken City Council
First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to all Members of Aiken City Council.
August 22: In Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al, Attorneys for the City of Aiken file: “Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order on Behalf of Defendants Osbon, Brohl, Diggs, Girardeau, Gregory, Price, and Woltz;” in response to August 18th discovery issuance.
August 23-26: AMDC adds thirteen pages of partially redacted documents to its “AMDC Financial Binder.” Four of the documents had been already disclosed by the AMDC prior to mid-July; those copies contained no redactions.
Project Time Sheet from December 2021, formerly posted on AMDC website (left image), now redacted (right image).
Status as of August 28, 2022
As of August 25, no answer has been forthcoming from attorneys representing the Design Review Board or the Aiken Municipal Development Association.
The Master Development Agreement (MDA) necessary for any future work appears to be still in negotiation, and time is running short. On December 3, 2021, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) wrote:
The initial Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) announced today gives the AMDC and RPM until no later than Summer 2022 to come to terms on a mutually beneficial Master Development Agreement. (4)
No such agreement has been announced, and the AMDC has not replied to a letter asking for the exact deadline date on the PSA, even though this date is not pertinent to the lawsuit.
No announcements on the status of the MDA, the second demolition application, or any other aspect of the project such the “omnibus ordinance,” a new redevelopment plan, or the possibility of a non-profit corporation to replace the AMDC has been forthcoming from the City of Aiken.
The tree growing out of the window on the second floor of the Berkman Building on Laurens Street, above Beyond Bijou, remains. A photo of this tree was first used by the AMDC on November 9, 2021 to illustrate the “blighted status” of its new downtown properties. The AMDC has not acted to remove the tree since that time.
A Tree Grows in Aiken, November 2021A Tree Grows in Aiken, August 2022LEFT: Photo of tree sapling growing out of the 2nd story window above the business, “Beyond Bijoux” — one of three AMDC tenants at 106 Laurens Street, a building targeted for demolition with Project Pascalis. This photo was featured in the AMDC’s Nov. 2021 montage: “Project Pascalis: The Bold Plan for Aiken’s Future!” https://aikenmdc.org/2021/11/08/293/
RIGHT: Photo of the same tree, August 2022, representative, perhaps, of the level of upkeep exercised by the Aiken Municipal Development Corporation (AMDC), the landlord of this property. (Photo courtesy of Jacob Ellis)
__________________
References and Notes
(1) This information is contained in the Pope-Flynn law firm’s June 2022 billing invoice to the AMDC, found on Page 161-162.
(2) Comments on August 15, 2022 motion and answer:
In the motion to dismiss Mayor Osbon and individual members of City Council, the city’s attorneys cited the South Carolina Tort Claims Act to argue that only a government entity must be named. They argue that individuals are “not proper parties” and “must be dismissed as they are already represented through defendant City of Aiken;” while admitting the City of Aiken was “correctly named the governmental entity” to which the Mayor and City Council belong. In other /words, they argue the City of Aiken can be sued in whole but individuals representing the city are exempt, under Tort law.
Torts are, by definition, “an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability.”
Since the lawsuit is not a tort action and not a liability case, and no damages are being sought, it is unclear why the City’s attorneys are making this argument.
In the “answer on behalf of defendants,” City attorneys cite the motion to dismiss by arguing, “Defendants are simply the alter-ego of the City of Aiken, and therefore said Defendants must be dismissed.” The South Carolina Tort Claims Act is cited again, even though the word “Tort” is absent from the July 5th Summons and there is no request for damages, only injunctive relief.
In total, City attorneys offered sixteen defenses but provided minimal to zero substance for the various defenses; and denied nearly every allegation beyond the fact the City of Aiken is a municipality.
(3) Comments on “Requests for Production of Documents” and the “Motion for a Protective Order” to exclude individual defendants from discovery.
The requests for documents is the first basic phase of discovery. It is a request casting a wide net for documentation relating to the project, and includes a request for:
“Any and all documents and other things, including letters, e-mail, texts, entries in social media, journals, photos, recordings, sketches, videos, logs, diaries, notes, or other written material of any kind in any media in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant or its counsel which relate in any way to the claims or defenses alleged in this action. If Defendant is asserting a privilege, please provide a privilege log.”
The defendant’s lawyers responded to the plaintiff’s request for the production of documents by arguing that individual city council members and the Mayor
“should not have to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests until a ruling has been made on their pending Motion to Dismiss.”
If the Motion to Dismiss the individual council members and the Mayor is denied, then the individuals will be subjected to the rules of discovery. If the motion is approved, any official business conducted by city council members and the Mayor will remain subject to the rules of discovery, because the City of Aiken will remain a defendant.
(4) The AMDC announcement from December 3, 2021 also reads:
“The agreement will include complete designs, engineering and permitting required to move forward with Project Pascalis. Any such development agreement would establish, among other things, the price the developer would pay for the property, and the amount the developers would be required to invest in the proposed privately funded, owned/operated hotel and residential portions of the project. The AMDC also intends for the agreement to hold the project to strict completion deadlines that will ensure it moves at a deliberate pace and avoids potential delays. The Master Development Agreement being negotiated would also establish fixed pricing for the proposed conference center and parking facility that would be purchased by the City of Aiken upon completion.”
From: AMDC begins Development Agreement negotiations Dec 3, 2021
What would happen if the $100 million plus downtown Aiken demolition and reconstruction endeavor known as Project Pascalis were to come up before the Aiken Planning Commission? How many of its members would have to recuse themselves due to conflict of interest, or abstain because any perception of neutrality was compromised by past endorsements of the project?
On November 9, 2021 the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) passed a resolution “authorizing the acceptance of certain options to purchase real property from the Greater Aiken Chamber of Commerce in connection with Project Pascalis and other matters related thereto.”
According to the meeting minutes for that November 9, 2021 meeting, AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant described the process leading to that point:
Mr. O’Briant stated that as we moved through the early process of negotiating with an initial developer who held contracts for the purchase of real estate that we (were) considering the purchase of, negotiations with that group broke down. We had a cost sharing agreement where we were doing pre-development explorations. In exchange for that agreement the developer had granted the Commission the right to maintain those options and contracts on the project to keep the project alive. The developer pulled out so late that it was impossible for the AMDC or Council to act in time to save the contracts by the deadline. The Greater Aiken Chamber of Commerce and their Executive Committee stepped in and agreed to hold those options and make available the sum of $135,000 to pay the earnest money on the contract. Today this resolution will repay the Chamber of Commerce for their advance for the options to purchase the property.
The resolution passed unanimously, although two AMDC members, Vice-Chair Chris Verenes and Treasurer J. David Jameson (better known as President of the Aiken Chamber of Commerce) abstained from the vote. According to the minutes:
The motion was approved by the Commission, with Mr. Verenes and Mr. Jameson abstaining from participating in the discussion and voting on the resolution.
Mr. O’Briant was referring to the chain of events that began around May 1, 2021, a literal “May Day” for the AMDC. On March 17, 2021, the AMDC announced it had “identified and recruited an “experienced” and “well capitalized” developer. That developer was not revealed at the time, but it was Weldon Wyatt, and he was backing out of the deal less than forty days after signing the cost sharing agreement cited by O’Briant (see Project Pascalis Property Acquisition Timeline below) .
March 2, 2021: $7.5 million purchase and sale agreement (PSA) signed by WTC Investments, LLC* for “Shah Property” on Laurens St, Richland Ave, and Newberry St.
March 15, 2021: Aiken Alley Holdings (Agent; Ray Massey) purchases 210 and 200 The Alley for $2.025 million.
March 23, 2021: Aiken Municipal Development Association (AMDC) and GAC, LLC (Agent Weldon Wyatt) sign cost-sharing agreement with options for AMDC to buy properties obtained by GAC, LLC and its affiliates (WTC Investments)
April 4, 2021: Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes, LLC (Agent Gary Smith III) send $6800 Invoice for property acquisition work to WTC Investments*
April 15, 2021: $2.0 million PSA signed by WTC Investments* for “Anderson Property”
May 1-10, 2021: GAC, LLC withdraws from cost-sharing agreement. AMDC, Aiken Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) and WTC Investments, LLC* negotiate “assignment” of Shah and Anderson properties to the Chamber allowing WTC Investments to recover $135,000 in nonrefundable earnest money held by Smith, Massey et al.
May 12, 2021: The Chamber Aiken takes assignment of “Shah Property” from WTC Investments, LLC (Agent Ray Massey).
June 3, 2021: The Chamber takes assignment of “Anderson Property” from WTC Investments, LLC
June 3, 2021: Email from WTC Investments to Mary Guynn and Ray Massey requesting release of $35,000 Earnest Money for “Anderson Property.”
June 7, 2021: Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC purchases 121 Newberry St, SW for $675,000.
August 23, 2021: Aiken City Council authorizes $10 million in general obligation bonds for AMDC to purchase unspecified properties in the city’s Parkway District.
October 27, 2021: RPM Development Partners, LLC (Agent Ray Massey) registers with SC Secretary of State.
November 9, 2021: AMDC “accepts assignment” of Shah and Anderson properties from the Chamber for $9.5 million.
December 3, 2021: AMDC signs PSA for Shah and Anderson properties with RPM Development Partners for unspecified sum, pending demolition approvals and a final development agreement.
May 16, 2021: AMDC reports it will sell properties at a discount as a “one time incentive.”
*WTC Investments, LLC dissolved on January 4, 2021 and re-registered with the South Carolina Secretary of State on May 11, 2021. Ray Massey was agent for both entities.
__________________
In order to preserve the option to purchase the seven properties in the proposed Project Pascalis demolition zone, the AMDC and the Aiken Chamber of Commerce struck a deal with Wyatt’s WTC Investments, LLC that allowed Wyatt to recover $135,000 in earnest money deposited with the law firm of Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Maynes.
As Tim O’Briant described, the Chamber essentially advanced the AMDC $9.5 million, also known as taking “assignment” of the properties, while the AMDC hustled the Aiken City Council for its own $9.5 million to buy the properties. The council obliged in August, 2021 with a $10 million general obligations bond issuance prepared by the law firm of Pope-Flynn. The AMDC finalized the deal on November 9, 2021 by purchasing the properties.
The Aiken Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee is currently composed of Norman Dunagan, Jason Rabun, Charlie Hartz, Joe Lewis, Van Smith, Ryan Reynolds, and J. David Jameson. Both Rabun and Reynolds also serve on the Planning Commission:
Planning Commission Chair Ryan Reynolds is the “Immediate Past-Chair” of the Aiken Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee. Reynolds was the Chamber’s Executive Committee Chair during the Wyatt-AMDC-Chamber of Commerce deal.
Planning Commission Vice-Chair Jason Rabun is the “Chair-Elect & Membership Services” officer for the Aiken Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee. Rabun was a newly elected Chamber Board member in 2021.
Jason Rabun also submitted a brief comment during the second of two April 20, 2021 Project Pascalis public meetings. (3) While not identifying his affiliations, he wrote:
“I am very much in support of this project.”
GIven the deep involvement of the Aiken Chamber of Commerce and Chamber President Jameson’s abstention from a key vote involving the Project, are Planning Commission members Rabun and Reynolds also obliged to recuse or abstain if any Project Pascalis issues come before their purview?
The Real Estate Adventures of City Officials are Hazardous to the Financial Well Being of Aiken’s Taxpaying Citizens
There are two groups of people that are primarily at the helm of the shipwreck that Project Pascalis has become – (1) Aiken City Council, including the mayor, and (2) members of an organization that the Council established known as the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC). These groups {“city officials”) have been freely and carelessly spending tax revenue. A particular aspect of that spending is the subject of this piece.
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.