AMDC Agreed to Sell Pascalis Properties for $5 Million.
by Don Moniak
November 10, 2022
Without any public notice, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) has finally made public (1) its December 3, 2021 Purchase and Sale Agreement(PSA) with RPM Development Partners, LLC (RPM). However, the AMDC has yet to release the amended version of the PSA that was completed in June, 2022.
The AMDC purchased the seven Pascalis properties on November 9, 2021 for a total of $9.5 million, using a grant from the City of Aiken from its August, 2021, $10 million municipal bond issuance. The PSA with RPM was signed on December 3, 2021 by AMDC Chairman Keith Wood, and RPM authorized agent Ray Massey.
The AMDC refused to disclose the proposed sale price for the properties and denied Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the PSA as recently as September 13, 2022–one day before RPM terminated the agreement. The AMDC also refused to release the PSA in early October, stating the process was ongoing.
According to the PSA, the AMDC proposed to sell the Berkman Building on Laurens Street, the Hotel Aiken, the Holley House, Taj Aiken Restaurant, the McGhee Building, Warneke Cleaners, and Newberry Hall for a collective $5 million— a 47% discount from the AMDC purchase price that would have resulted in a $4.5 million loss to the City of Aiken.
Other portions of the PSA included requirements that:
The City of Aiken perform all changes to Newberry Street at no cost to RPM; including removal of parking spaces, relocation of southbound traffic lanes and stormwater drainage and other utilities. If the City of Aiken failed to agree to these terms, RPM had the right to require the AMDC to repurchase the properties for $5 million.
The AMDC maintain insurance policies on all the properties and “manage and operate the Property in accordance with past practices and maintain the Improvements and the tangible Personal Property in substantially its current condition and repair, ordinary wear and tear excepted, to be delivered in a broom clean condition at Closing.”
A Master Development Agreement be completed prior to closing that defined the purchaser’s requirements and set a repurchase price for the garage and conference center at $3 million.
As reported in Portions Rescinded, But No Cancellation, RPM terminated the agreement on September 14, 2022, although that action was not publicly disclosed by the AMDC at the time. On September 29, 2022 the AMDC voted to render the agreement null and void, and commission members Keith Wood and Chris Verenes pinned blame for violations of South Carolina Community Development Law on unnamed “staff.” Since that time, longtime AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant was removed from the list of staff on the AMDC website.
In May 2022, the AMDC admitted that a “sole, one-time, financial incentive [for the developers] will be a discounted price for the property upon which they will build the hotel and apartments.” In light of the revelation that the discount was nearly a half-price sale, that statement might qualify as the top understatement of 2022 from the City of Aiken.
(1) The document appears to have been posted at the City of Aiken’s Laserfiche ecodocs document repository on October 21, 2022; filed under “other documents” in the AMDC folder.
The City of Aiken has yet to respond to the following FOIA request, filed on September 29, 2022:
“A copy of the unredacted version of the attached document, Pascalis offers comparison_Redacted, located at: https://aikenmdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Pascalis-offers-comparison_Redacted.pdf 2. A copy of all documents related to “Pascalis proposal solicitation and RFP scoring“ not presently at https://aikenmdc.org/2022/03/29/project-pascalis-public-records/; including, but not limited to: a. All emails or other correspondence to prospective developers that accompanied the RFP package; b. All memorandums describing proposals; and c. All submitted proposals. Under SC Community Development Law, all records of the AMDC are to be made available for inspection. I am willing to inspect the files as is to reduce and eliminate search and retrieval time. SECTION 31-10-160. Availability of commission’s books, records, bylaws, rules, and regulations for public inspection; annual report of commission’s activities. (a) The books and records of a commission are at all times open and subject to inspection by the public.”
UPDATE: November 17th 2022. The Kershaw St. leak was repaired over the past week (see photo below). The Sumter St. leak has not yet been addressed. Notice was resubmitted to the City this morning through the City of Aiken Explorer app.
Kershaw St. repairSumter. St viewed from Richland AveSumter St leak area viewed from parkwayLeak area as viewed from corner property at Richland and SumterUPDATE: Photos taken November 16, 2022
Last month, I learned about the City of Aiken Explorer app* which, among other things, provided a vehicle for addressing my concern of the moment: a puddle in the middle of Sumter Street that has been there for eons. App users can not only report issues like city water-leaks, but can optionally include photos, which is exactly what I wanted.
I dislike apps and would prefer sending my missives to humans rather than ether, but I relented and, on October 23rd, (or was it the 24th?) I downloaded the app. The exact date is unknown to me, as I wrongly assumed the app would preserve a history of my report to use as a reference, should I need to follow up with the City.
That’s the thing about ether. It exists in a realm outside our purview.
Given access to a human being, I could have received confirmation that my report was seen by a person; I might have been given a typical timeframe for the City to assess and/or address such issues. Who knows? I might have learned that this wasn’t even a leak but, rather, an exuberant spring that habitually floods across the roadway; I might learn that plans are afoot to use this spring to water a future community garden in the adjacent, now-vacant lot where, not too long ago, (before someone declared it needed demolishing or moving), there stood an architecturally beautiful boarding house inhabited by people who were one degree away from homelessness.
Yes, a community garden would nicely complement the Salvation Army shelter and soup kitchen located across the parkway from the now-vacant lot.
Getting back to the app, I actually had two infrastructure issues to report, both on Aiken’s historic northside: the longstanding Sumter St. leak and a second leak several blocks to the north on Kershaw St, the latter of which smells like raw sewage.
Below are the October photos my friend and I took of the leaks to make my reports on the City of Aiken Explorer app. The larger of the two leaks is on the southbound lane of Sumter St. between Richland and Park Ave. The Kershaw leak, which I only recently discovered, is on the northbound lane leading to the Smith Hazel Recreation Center, seen in the background of the Kershaw photo.
Sumter Street looking toward RichlandSumter St looking toward Park AveKershaw St looking toward Smith HazelView of Sumter St. looking toward Richland Ave.October photos of the Sumter and Kershaw St. leaks
In retrospect, I regret not acting on it sooner. I kept assuming that, surely — what with all the gentrification commencing along the Richland-Park Avenue corridor —a city worker, employee, shareholder or stakeholder would spot the pond and report it.
At any rate, it’s now been 2 weeks since I made my official report on the City of Aiken Explorer app. I continue to check the status whenever I’m in the neighborhood. Last week, I saw a gathering of crows enjoying enjoying a drink of water over at Lake Sumter. This is a positive for the birds, but for the people who live on the northside, it sends a clear message: the City of Aiken does not care about your neighborhood.
Sumter St bogA nice watering spot for the birdsSumter St bog with Friendship Baptist in the backgroundSumter St looking toward Park Ave.November photos of the Sumter St leak.
Meanwhile over on Kershaw St. the standing water still smells like raw sewage. Maybe it’s the rotting vegetation to blame, or maybe there is a leak in the municipal sewer line. Someone should go over and check it out.
November photos of the Kershaw St. leak
The City of Aiken Explorer app is a great idea, but to honestly serve its purpose, the app needs to — at the very minimum — provide users with confirmation that their reports have been received by a human being. This way, we can know if our missives got lost in space, or if it’s something else to blame when our concerns are ignored.
_______________
*City of Aiken Explorer app available on Google and Apple
When Ed Woltz defeated incumbent Aiken City Councilman Philip Merry in the 2017 Republican Primary, one factor influencing voter minds was Merry’s chronic appearance on local delinquent tax sale listings. Although Merry never defaulted on his property tax obligations, his payments were late enough to earn listings of his investment and development properties from 2014 to 2016.
On November 29, 2021, just four weeks after being reelected to City Council in an uncontested race, Edward Woltz was issued a citation for an unspecified business license violation. According to court records, the violation warranted a fine of $1092. The summons from city business license manager Andrew Ridout merely cited the ordinance violated, but provided fewer details than that found in the average traffic ticket. The city has been relunctant to provide information on the case. (1)
Summons for Business License violation issued to Ed Woltz on 11/29/21. This information pertaining to Ed Woltz’s alleged business license violation was in the Municipal Court’s Public Index until September, 2022.
The case lingered in the municipal court system for nine months, with one at least one jury trial postponed.
Assessments and levying of interest and penalties on business license taxes and fees from 2017 to 2021 for rental properties are under dispute (since Sutton Marine, which is owned by Ed Woltz, has a business license, it appears the issue is limited to rental properties).
The manner in which business license taxes for rental properties is levied is under dispute.
The business license tax levied against Woltz by the City of Aiken is alleged to have included properties outside of the the city’s jurisdiction.
After the case was dismissed from municipal court, an appeal was filed to Aiken City Council on September 15, 2022; and the status of that case is unknown.
Aiken’s Business License Ordinance: A Privilege Tax.
Business license taxes are a major revenue source for most municipalities and some counties. In its Business License Handbook, The Municipal Assocation of South Carolina describes it as
“An excise tax levied on the privilege of doing business within a municipality or a county. The value of the privilege extended is measured by the business gross revenue or receipts of the licensee.”
Approximately one-third of the City of Aiken’s General Fund revenues derive from its business license ordinance, collected from more than 4,600 business license holders.
The city’s business license ordinance requires anybody conducting any kind of business within the city to obtain a business license and pay an annual license tax. Key provisions of the ordinance include:
Section 12-31: “License Required. Every person engaged or intending to engage in any business, calling, occupation, profession, or activity engaged in with the object of gain, benefit, or advantage, in whole or in part within the limits of the City of Aiken, South Carolina, is required to pay an annual license tax for the privilege of doing business and obtain a business license as herein provided.”
Appendix A lists the base rate by business class and the variable percentages of gross incomes paid for income over $2,000 per year.
Section 12-33 describes the purpose of the ordinance as “raising revenue for the general fund through a privilege tax.”
Section 12-40 authorizes business license officials “to enter upon the premises of any person subject to this ordinance to make inspections and to examine and audit books and records” and cite businesses for any noncompliance.
Section 12-46 states that grievances of licensing decisions can be appealed to City Council within ten days of any “determination, denial, suspension, or proposed revocation of a business license,” and a hearing must be held within 10 days.
Section 12-49 states that violators of “any provision of this ordinance” are subject “to a fine of up to $500.00 or imprisonment for not more than thirty (30) days or both, upon conviction,” with each day of violation considered a separate offense.
Aiken’s business license ordinance was amended in early 2021 to align with the requirements of the South Carolina Business License Tax Standardization Act of 2020. The act sought to avoid businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions from having to comply with variable business license rules. The Municipal Association of South Carolina and the state’s Chamber of Commerce worked to provide a model ordinance that complies with the new state law.
Although it passed unanimously and with minimal discussion during the first reading on February 22, 2021, the second reading on March 22, 2021, involved more discussion regarding the complexity of the ordinance. After Mayor Rick Osbon described spending two days with “the lawyers who wrote it,” he and Ed Woltz had the following exchange:
Ed Woltz: “If it took two days to understand it…”
Rick Osbon: “It took the lawyers who wrote it two days to explain it to me and maybe they just didn’t have a good person to explain to I don’t know.”
Council then approved the amended ordinance by a vote of 6-1; with Ed Woltz casting the lone dissenting vote, stating:
“Because I can’t understand it yet I don’t want to pass that.”
Timeline for the Ed Woltz Business Tax Citation
November 29, 2021: Summons is issued to Edward Woltz for violation of Business License Ordinance. The case of South Carolina vs Edward Kibbey Woltz was classified as criminal and assigned to Aiken Municipal Court.
December 9, 2021: Woltz’s lawyer, Clark McCants III, of the law firm Nance and McCants, requested a jury trial and filed Rule 5 and Brady motions for the city to produce evidence against his client.
May 3, 2022: City paralegal Pilar Beedle requested a list of jurors from Municipal Clerk of Court Fernandina Corley in order to conduct background checks for a scheduled July 15th jury trial.
July 7, 2022: City Solicitor Laura Jordan wrote to McCants:
“Attached is supplemental Rule 5 materials pertaining to Mr. Woltz’s case. The paper jury strike is scheduled for July 15th. If you would like a list of the jurors prior to the paper strike, you can contact our clerk of court.”
July 15, 2022: McCants submitted questions for the jury and the jury trial was rescheduled for 8:00 a.m.; August, 18, 2022.
July 20, 2022: City Solicitor Jordan wrote to Clark McCants IV:
“I also wanted to follow up in writing what we discussed regarding the offer. If Mr. Woltz has gained compliance by paying his business license fees, and penalties for the three year lookback period, by the close of business on August 4th, then the City will dismiss the ordinance violation.”
July 24, 2022: City SolicitorJordan wrote to Clark McCants III that the jury trial would begin at 2 p.m. on August 18, 2022 and resume the morning of the 19th.
August 18, 2022: The jury trial was cancelled.
August 29, 2022. City Solicitor Jordan sent a request to “place this case on the docket for dismissal either on 8/31 or 9/1,” and it was placed on the docket for September 1, 2022. (Ms. Jordan has confirmed the case was dismissed but has not provided a date, documention, or any conditions for the dismissal. )
September 8, 2022: City of Aiken sent a notice of assessment and demand for payment for the years 2017-2021 (Details are unavailable).
September 15, 2022. Clark McCants III filed an appeal with Aiken City Council on behalf of Edward K Woltz, Holly H. Woltz, and S&C Properties, LLC regarding the “assessments of and levy upon them of those business license taxes and fees, as well as the interest and penalties thereon.” The defenses offered included:
The statute of limitations has expired for certain years.
Section 12-31 is “unconstitutional and void and unenforceable as a matter of law due to their vagueness and lack of guidance to citizens and owners of real property who choose to lease or rent such properties” because city code does not contain business license provisions for leasing and renting property.
An unequal application of city code, with the city excluding “from application and enforcement owners of real properties who…do not rent more than two such properties.”
“The calculation of and determination of the amount of business license taxes and fees, as well as interest and penalties, assessed and levied by [the city]…are based partly upon revenue received…for the rental of real properties located outside the jurisdictional limits of the City of Aiken.”
County records show that Ed and Holly Woltz collectively own sixteen properties in Aiken County and Ed Woltz owns three additional properties, one of them being the sole property listed under S&C Properties, LLC. Of the nineteen properties (3) , seven are in unincorporated areas of Aiken County frequently referred to as “donut holes.” Woltz routinely recuses himself from Council decisions regarding neighborhoods where he owns property.
October 28, 2022: The following email was sent to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh:
“Can you tell me the status of the 9/16/22 appeal filed by McCants on behalf of Edward Woltz et al.?
Will this he heard in another jurisdiction ?”
There has been no response to date.
Ed Woltz owns five properties on Whiskey Road and Westover Drive in this old, prominent “donut hole” in an unincorporated neighborhood. The properties are involved in his current dispute with the city over business license taxes.
Conclusion
For nearly a year Aiken City Council member Ed Woltz was charged with violating the city’s business license Ordinance—a criminal offense—and is alleged to owe upwards of four years of business license taxes for his rental properties. Woltz contested the charges and continues to contest the tax assessement—to the same City Council upon which he serves.Since his defense lawyers contend the assessment is unfair and unconstitutional, the case has implications for every landlord in the City of Aiken.
Yet, this public matter is being handled more like a private affair, with cityofficials refusing to provide details or clarification of the case‘s status.
The case also raises the question of how a City Councilman—and former Planning Commission Chairman—who routinely voted to approve annexations, and efforts to strengthen the annexation ordinance, has managed to evade annexation of his own rental properties within some of the city’s oldest and most prominent “donut holes.”
______________
FOOTNOTES:
(1) Case record information was removed from the Public Index (below) sometime in September. On September 21st a request for records at the Municipal Clerk of Court records office was met with unexpected resistance. I was told that copies would cost $1 per page and that “nobody had ever requested” files like these before. I was asked to submit a request in writing. After five days of unresponsiveness from the Clerk of Municipal Court’s office, City Solicitor Laura Jordan informed me a Freedom of Information Act request was required.
(2) FOIA Request 261-2022 was filed on September 26, 2022:
“A copy of all court filings related to Municipal Court case ORD 5931. See attachments. This information was requested on Wednesday, September 21 at the Municipal Court records desk. No information was forthcoming and no followup calls occurred. In an email from City Solicitor Laura Jordan, I was informed the FOIA tracking date for this request will be back dated to September 21st.”
(3) Listing of properties in Aiken County owned by Ed Woltz, from the The Aiken County Assessor’s Office and IT/GeoServices Division.
Fifteen of the parcels listed are rental properties. Three of the properties are commercial rentals, with two of these having multiple tenants. The two properties in the 200 block of Park Avenue, SE are in the Parkway District, and were purchased in June 2021. In Augusta 2021, Aiken City Council unanimously approved a $9.6 million municipal bond issuance for the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) to purchase unspecified properties in the Parkway District.
At the twenty-eight minute mark of Monday night’s Aiken City Council meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh announced:
“In talking with the PRT (Parks, Recreation and Tourism) director the daily fees for children or individuals eighteen and under starting November 1st will be removed.”
The only caveat added to this statement was the necessity of a liability waiver form on file and signed by a parent and guardian.
The announcement was made during the first portion of “public comments on nonagenda items,” a new fixture in Aiken City Council meetings first implemented on September 12, 2022. Mr. Bedenbaugh related the fee waiver decision following questions by Aiken resident and city parks advocate Laura Lance regarding recreation fee policies for children and the city’s “Fun Funds” program:
“In part of tonight’s agenda (packet) there was an answer given to concerns and complaints about the two dollar fee for basketball for kids to go and use the facilities. The response in ‘Issues and Updates” reads ‘as has been the case since 1995 Fun Funds have been available for all eligible youth which waives the fees.’
“I don’t think that’s correct. If I am not mistaken Fun Funds are intendedfor classes….summer camp or a basketball team, then they might waive their fifty dollar fee. But I don’t think the Fun Funds are intended for one or two dollar fees that kids are being charged just to go to these facilities. To apply for those funds requires a twenty dollar registration fee….Something is not matching up.”
The announcement that daily fees for children were being eliminated was met with applause and some relief—less than two months had passed since Aiken resident Laverne Justice had first voiced objections before Council to the $2 per day policy.
Status of Adult and Annual Recreation Fees
However, at least two questions regarding the city’s recreation fees linger.
1. What is the status of fee increases implemented on April 1, 2022, but in apparent violation of city procedures?
As reported in “Taking $2 From a Child to Play a Game,” fee changes must be approved by City Council. Section 2-261 of the City of Aiken’s Municipal Code states:
“All fees, rentals, admissions and other charges made to the public for the use of city recreational facilities shall be recommended by the director of parks and recreation, reviewed by the city manager and approved by the city council.”
Fee increases were implemented in April based on recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department to the Recreation Commission. Although it has no authority to change fees, the Recreation Commission voted to do so.
According to the document “Fee Proposal Changes” presented to the Recreation Commission on February 1, 2022–but never made public (1)—the maximum original annual fee was $125. At the urging PRT Director Jessica Campbell, the Recreation Commission voted to raise membership fees to as much as $400 for a family of four. According to the most recent edition of “The Park Bench,” these annual “Wellness Membership” fees remain in place.
From: “Fee Proposal Changes,” Feburary 1, 2021 Presentation to City of Aiken Recreation Commission. From: “Fee Proposal Changes,” Feburary 1, 2021 Presentation to City of Aiken Recreation Commission.
2. Even though the change in youth fees is welcome, the question remains: who is in charge of finalizing recreation fees? At the August 16, 2022 Recreation Commission meeting, at least one commissioner acknowledged it was not in their purview to change rates:
“Commissioner Wallace reminded members that they are expected to make recommendations to City Council, but are not in a position to approve or disapprove of changes.”
Footnotes
(1) The original Parks, Recreation and Tourism (PRT) “Fee Proposal Changes” document was presented to the Recreation Commission during its special meeting on February 1, 2022; a meeting for which there was no proper public notice. No record of that meeting was publicly available until mid September.
The “Fee Proposal Changes” were not included in the Feburary 28, 2022, “Issues and Update” memorandum in City Council’s Meeting Agenda Packet that served as notification to City Council of fee changes. The document was not publicly available until a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request compelled the city to post it. It is now buried in the city’s Laserfiche document repository at
FOIA Request #254-2022, filed on September 20, 2022, requested:
“1. A copy of the “ draft copy of the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (PRT) Fee Change Proposal” provided at the February 1, 2022 Recreation Commission meeting. Meeting minutes for that meeting indicate this document was provided. This document was requested on September 16, 2022 in a letter to PRT Director Jessica Campbell and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. The document should be readily accessible. 2. A copy of the final PRT Master Plan Report and Needs Assessment by Clemson University professor Bob Brookover. Please advise if there is no final copy and whether the draft that was provided in City Council’s January 10, 2022 Workshop agenda packet is the current version. 3. A copy of the online survey cited in the Master Plan Report. 4. A copy of all park usage data provided to Professor Brookover and his research associates during preparation of the report.”
The “Fee Change Proposal” and a clean copy of the PRT Master Plan were provided on October 4, 2022. They are currently in the city’s Lasefiche ecodoc repository.
_______________
City Solicitor Laura Jordan’s response to #3 and #4 of the request was as follows:
“For Item No. 3, the requested item is an online survey. The survey is no longer active online and the City is not in possession of a copy of the survey.For Item No. 4, Professor Brookover was provided the link to the Monthly Reports, which are available at the City of Aiken’s Document Repository (LaserFiche). Once the Laser Fiche page has been accessed, click on the “Browse” link in the upper right hand corner. From there, click on the “Parks and Recreation” Folder and then then “Monthly Reports” Folder.’”
For the first time in anyone’s memory, on September 12, 2022 Aiken City Council placed on its meeting agenda citizen input for issues unrelated to agenda items. Even though Council did not acknowledge the source of the change, they accepted written citizen requests to honor City of Aiken’s municipal code that mandates “nonagenda items from the public” be on the agenda both early and late in the meeting.
Eight citizens took advantage of the new opportunity, raising issues ranging from recreation fees, water quality notifications, the future of the County Courthouse, the lack of a grocery store in walkable distance in the downtown area, the growth of the Aiken airport, and the upcoming Historical Aiken Foundation workshop.
Prior to this, City Council required citizens to submit a request to speak on nonagenda items, and that request had to be approved.
Comments can be viewed at 0:26 and 1:12 of the meeting at the City of Aiken’s You Tube channel:
The following letter to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, cc’ed to City Council, is a followup on the historical significance of the meeting:
Mr. Bedenbaugh,
At last night’s historical City Council meeting, the agenda was open to comments and questions unrelated to agenda items from citizens in attendance. City of Aiken Municipal Code 2-64, Rules of Order, Rules of Procedure, and Order of Business has long mandated that “nonagenda items from the public” be placed twice on the agenda, yet that requirement, if ever implemented, became lost long ago.
During the first comment period, the question was posed to Council: “When was the last time Agenda Items (3) and (7) were on the Agenda?
At 30:24 of the meeting, Mayor Osbon answered, ” I do not know, it predates all of us,”
Late in the meeting, council was asked about the origin of the ordinance and you answered “pre-1980.” Maybe your talented IT department could locate the exact source of the ordinance change for the historical record?
I was unable to locate when the ordinance change occurred, nor any agenda in City of Aiken files in which “nonagenda items from the public” has ever been on the agenda. I did find that from 1955 (when the earliest agenda records are posted) through 1960, #2 in the agenda involved public requests and petitions; and that the language evolved from “citizens who are present” to “consideration of requests and petitions” to “petitions and requests.” Here is a timeline for that period.
July 7, 1955: Agenda #2 is “Consideration of requests from citizens present who desire to address council.”
December 12, 1955 to sometime in 1956: Agenda #2 is “Consideration of requests and/or petitions from citizens who are present and who desire to be heard by the council.” In the case of June 4, 1956, even the local Chamber of Commerce was still considered in the citizen category, and was unsurprisingly seeking funding from the City of Aiken— $4500 in this case.
January 28, 1957: Agenda #2 still mentions “citizens” : “Consideration of Requests and Petitions from Citizens.”
February 11, 1957: Agenda #2 changes to “Consideration of requests and/or petitions.” , and shortened and changed to “Petitions and Requests” by 1960.
December 12, 1960: Last agenda with “Petitions and Requests” as #2 on the agenda.
January 2, 1961. “Petitions and Requests” moved to # 4 of the Agenda.
As I stated last night, the September 12, 2022 agenda should be held up as a model for public input and nonagenda items” should be viewed in the context of “Consideration of requests and/or petitions from citizens who are present and who desire to be heard by the council.” As Elections Commission nominee Mike Loftis stated last night, “In any kind of position, when you are talking you are teaching, and when you are listening you are learning.” Viewing the people as “citizens” instead of as “the public” would improve the way Council listens and learns from citizens of the Aiken area.
