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.”
______________
REFERENCE
(1) SC Freedom of Information Act. Sections 30-4-60 through 30-4-90 pertain to open meetings law. https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t30c004.php
(2) SC Community Development Law specifies all legal aspects of Community Development Commissions. https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t31c010.php
(3) “The Project Pascalis Transparency Index.” by Don Moniak.
(4) “Did the AMDC Violate Open Meetings Law” by Don Moniak was first posted on May 27th, 2022 on the Do It Right! public Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/550766946465448/?multi_permalinks=613473893528086&comment_id=613653766843432¬if_id=1653694800539955¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
and later published at The Aiken Chronicles website at:
“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.
A link to the series of emails is at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HPUMA4t6h1gRF_7JHWf6fIVPKC5Ks3nK/view
(6) June 2, 2020 AMDC Meeting Agenda. https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=519868&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF&cr=1
(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.
(8) https://aikenmdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2022-03-15-Municipal-Development-Commission-Agenda-Packet.pdf contains the minutes for the January 11, 2022 AMDC meeting.
Mark Chostner was an invitee to the “influencer meetings” and is referenced in the minutes in regard to the Project Pascalis schedule, owns and operates “Capstone Services.” https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/sundays_best/mark-chostner-businessman-focuses-on-stewardship-encouragement/article_fbecaace-4a4c-11ec-9b27-2f61c18dc705.html
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.
(9) The Chamber of Commerce staff members are listed at: https://www.aikenchamber.net/our-team.html
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.
Executive Committee members and Board Members are listed at: https://www.aikenchamber.net/board-of-directors.html
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.
(10) The DRB Workshop meeting minutes for January 4, 2022 are at: https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2735900&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF
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.
