Category: Government

Note: The following first appeared on Quorum.com, investigative journalist Ron Aiken’s website. It is reprinted in The Voice by permission and will appear as a three-part series.

COLUMBIA – Throughout 53 pages of detailed testimony, evidence and correspondence submitted to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in April 2015, Richland County documented the unfounded nature of every charge of racial and sexual discrimination brought by disgruntled former employee Justine Jones.

The EEOC reviewed the case and found there were no charges worth investigating.

Having already lost her internal complaint before a County grievance panel before appealing to the EEOC, the only option remaining for Jones was to sue, which she did in January 2017.

A month later, despite the county’s official position for two years being that Jones’ charges were completely without merit, County Council agreed to settle out of court with Jones, costing taxpayers $175,000.

Why?

One reason, multiple sources tell Quorum: Richland County Councilman Norman Jackson wouldn’t leave the room.

Since he was expected to testify against County Council on behalf of Jones (along with disgraced former Council Member Kelvin Washington), Jackson was an adverse party to the County’s case when Council

met in executive session on Feb. 21 to receive a confidential legal briefing from Gignilliat Savitz and Bettis about Jones’ suit.

Despite a clear conflict of interest, multiple sources have confirmed to Quorum that Jackson refused to recuse himself even when other Council members asked that he leave the room. When Council members then asked County Attorney Larry Smith whether Jackson could be made to leave, they were told he could not since he was an elected official.

With the opportunity to privately discuss legal strategy thus completely compromised, sources tell Quorum, the County’s own lawyers then recommended it settle, which it did.

“It was obvious that the case was going to be a no-win situation,” said a person familiar with events.

Justine Jones

Except for Jones, that is, who thanks to Jackson’s ethically questionable behavior personally was awarded $105,000 and had her attorney fees of $70,000 paid by the County in March.

Jackson’s extraordinary loyalty to Jones against both the County’s (and his constituents’) interests came as no shock to Council, however. Rather, it was merely the last act of devotion in an extraordinary relationship spanning more than two years prior to her termination in March 2015 in which, for reasons known only to themselves, Jackson routinely put Jones’ interests above the County’s.

Over and over, Jackson illegally interfered in day-to-day County operations, documents show, to aid Jones and protect her from other colleagues, her superiors and even Council members themselves, blatantly playing the race card to ensure Jones received benefits above and beyond any other County employee, including:

•receiving a raise larger than any other County employee received that year and larger than what County policies allowed;

•being given nearly unlimited access to Jackson’s private office while he was chairman of Council to conduct interviews;

•being allowed to request lavish expenditures, including $17,400 for luxury carpet for her office when new carpet for that space already had been purchased and was waiting to be installed;

•being transferred within her first three months of employment from a supervisor she didn’t like (who was accurately questioning her work results, documents show) to reporting directly to the County Administrator only; and

•being personally protected, through the use of racial accusations and threats, by Jackson when any members of staff or Council raised questions about Jones’ performance.

For this story Quorum reviewed more than 1,000 pages of of emails, memos and letters spread across more than 600 separate files obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request and interviewed several key current and former employees, many of whom could only share information anonymously, to provide glimpses into closed-door conversations.

The result is the story of a sustained, unapologetic effort by a single council member to protect and promote a single employee through his position as County Council member (and chairman for 2014) through repeated threats, intimidation and focused individual harassment that both state law and County ordinance define as illegal and which set ablaze a war of words and allegations of racism between County Council members in emails that have never been made public until now and resulted in a parliamentary coup d’etat that finally removed both individuals from positions of power.

A ROCKY BEGINNING

“From practically her first day, Ms. Jones seemed to believe her job assignments were ‘beneath’ her,” the County’s letter to the EEOC, written by attorney Linda Edwards of Gignilliat Savitz and Bettis, stated. “Ms. Jones even tried assigning some of her responsibilities to other support staff without (her supervisor’s) approval.”

Just 19 days into the job, Jones also was eying other positions, documents show.

On Jan. 9, Jones sent an email to her supervisor Roxanne Ancheta requesting she be sent the job descriptions for the positions of Assistant to the County Administrator (Ancheta’s job at the time) and Assistant County Administrator. Neither positions were open.

When Ancheta did not immediately respond, at 11:56 a.m. Jones wrote back that she expected to receive “the job descriptions today (emphasis hers), if possible.”

Roxanne Ancheta

Jones did so, Edwards wrote, “apparently in the belief she was more suited for those positions.”

A recurring problem also were her Reports of Action and Requests of Action, both key components of her job duties. The first three she submitted all had to be redone, and her performance on these reports remained substandard, containing mistakes characterized as “careless and sloppy.”

“Ms. Jones was chronically late in preparing the ROAs and had frequent, unnecessary mistakes,” Edwards wrote. “Most of these mistakes were preventable.

“While preparing the ROAs is not a complicated task, it is vital to the organization.”

“There simply was no excuse for shoddy work.”

Jones was not happy with reviews of her work. According to her lawsuit and County correspondence, after a difficult performance review on Jan. 30 Jones, who is black, immediately went to Jackson and other African-American council members (Washington and Julie Ann-Dixon, sources tell Quorum) claiming she was being racially discriminated against by Ancheta, who is white.

In her lawsuit, Jones states in February she “reported numerous threats of termination and other racially discriminatory and retaliatory treatment by Ancheta dating back to January 2013.”

From the County’s perspective, the allegations and their method of delivery were in keeping with Jones’ disrespect for authority, disregard for workplace rules of conduct and refusal to accept responsibility for careless, mistake-ridden work products.

“Rather than following the chain of command as required by County policy or requesting assistance from Human Resources, Ms. Jones apparently complained directly to several council members about Ms. Ancheta,” Edwards wrote. “This was highly unorthodox for a three-month, probationary employee.

“Richland County policy is that employees deal through the chain-of-command and/or Human Resources. Council members are not privy to the daily activities and do not get a complete picture when they hear only from one side.”

In her closing remarks to the EEOC, Edwards was succinct.

“I believe after you have reviewed the County’s position statement and the enclosed documents you will conclude there has been no discrimination or retaliation.”

Despite the fact that two years later the EEOC would agree that Jones’ claims were without merit, in March 2013, under pressure from Jackson and other Council members, McDonald met with Jones and removed her from Ancheta’s supervision, requiring she to only report to him in an unprecedented move for a probationary employee.

Rather than end the problem, the move was just the beginning of what quickly became a pattern of Jackson illegally interfering on Jones’ behalf with often-exasperated staff as she ran roughshod over County protocol and managed to offend directors in nearly every department, members of the general public and set off a war of words and racial accusations between Council members that has never been made public and which resulted in a coup against the chairman on Nov. 18, 2014, when a coalition of members scuttled Jackson’s plans to make Jones a department director at literally the last minute.

In March of 2013, however, none of that was known, nor was it known that contrary to Jones’ and the County’s timeline of events, the relationship between Jackson and Jones had began far earlier than February, when Jones said she took her complaints about Ancheta to Council — in fact it had begun the first week she reported for work.

AN UNUSUAL INTEREST

According to emails obtained exclusively by Quorum, the relationship between Jackson and Jones — one that neither County policy nor state law condoned — began immediately after she was hired and continued months after she was fired.

Jones started work as Research Manager on Dec. 10, 2012. The following Monday, Dec. 17, the two already were planning a lunch together at “Exclusive Restaurant – Broad River Road” for that Wednesday, Dec. 19.

This is the location where Jones and Jackson first met for lunch on Zimalcrest Road just off Broad River Road. Called “Exclusive Restaurant” then, it is now known as “Da River Reggae Bar & Grill.”

That date is significant because it was when Jones first major assignment — three ROAs — were due (the ones that “had to be redone”). According to the County’s letter to the EEOC, when Jones received an email alerting her to the problems with all her ROAs that Wednesday she “left at noon, claiming to be sick” and did not return to work until Friday, Dec. 21.

Emails also show the two scheduled a meeting again at Exclusive Restaurant the following week on Dec. 26.

The South Carolina Code of Laws Title Four, Chapter Nine, Article Seven regulates the council-administrator form of government under which Richland County operates. Section 4-9-660 clearly states that council members do not have the authority to give orders to staff or deal in day-to-day county operations regarding personnel.

“Except for the purposes of inquiries and investigations, the council shall deal with county officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the county administrator solely through the administrator, and neither the council nor its members shall give orders or instructions to any such officers or employees,” it reads. Only the county administrator may be “responsible for the administration of county personnel policies including salary and classification plans approved by council.”

Richland County Ordinance Section 2.88 adds additional language to that prohibition, stating that “council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the county administrator, and no member thereof shall give orders to any county employee or subordinate of the county administrator, either publicly or privately.”

Email communications obtained by Quorum reveal that throughout Jones’ tenure Jackson routinely exerted illegal pressure on her behalf directly with staff, especially after Jackson was able to help Jones get a promotion to Assistant Director of the newly created Small and Local Business Enterprise office — an idea of Jackson’s — in December 2013. That promotion increased her salary from $56,000 to $74,000, a 24 percent raise that was against County salary guidelines at the time that limited promotional increases from between 5 and 15 percent but which sources say her supervisors were “made to sign off on” by Jackson. (Edwards’ letter to the EEOC would cite this promotion as “hardly an indication of discrimination.”) She would also be responsible to report to then-Procurement Director Rodolfo Callwood.

Read Part Two next week.

Reach Aiken at (803) 200-8809. Email him at ron@quorumcolumbia.org. Follow him on Twitter @RonAiken and @QuorumColumbia and like Quorum on Facebook.

 

Following a short executive session Monday evening to discuss the Town of Winnsboro’s need to find someone to facilitate activities and festivals in the downtown area and to generally assist in downtown development, Council voted unanimously to hire the Fairfield Chamber of Commerce to do the job.

“After Connie’s (Shackelford) death last year, we don’t have anyone on staff to fill that need,” Mayor Roger Gaddy told The Voice following the vote.

“Connie wrote grants and worked with the merchants in trying to bring shoppers to the downtown, but those were two different jobs and we probably need to hire two different people to do them,” Gaddy said.

“Terry (Vickers) does a great job working with the merchants now and putting on events in the town. I think she’ll do a great job for us.”

Council signed a one-year contract with the Chamber that will pay $35,000 to cover the costs of advertising and event organizing.

“I’m looking forward to working with the merchants, which is already what the Chamber does,” said Vickers who has been with the Chamber for 20 years and currently serves as President and CEO.

“We will now also be the Community Development arm of the Town of Winnsboro. This is a wonderful town,” Vickers said, “and I am happy to be part of it.”

 

BLYTHEWOOD – The Blythewood Architectural Review Board granted the Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) franchise on Blythewood Road a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Monday evening for their proposed changes to the existing building. Irwing Gama of Lendlease, the Chicago Agency that represents franchise owner Tim Wilson, presented the company’s original plans at the April 17 meeting, but was told to come back with a clearer idea.

“Maybe, first of all, this board is committed to nothing right?” Board Member John Miles said during last month’s meeting. “Maybe these presentations could involve the presenter’s research of the standards and a clear idea what they want to do versus a smorgasbord of stuff, which is very confusing to me, I don’t know about the rest of you.”

Since the first meeting, Gama has been working closely with the town’s architectural consultant Ralph Walden and Planning Consultant Michael Criss to come up with a solution that suits the board’s needs and requests.

“He (Gama) was very cooperative and I think they have done almost everything the board has asked or suggested,” Walden said. “Michael and I had no problems with just getting the details solidified.”

KFC was requesting signage with 23 square feet of surface instead of the 20 square feet of surface allowed.

The signage presented Monday consisted of the KFC lettering on the front and west facades of the building. Also included in the signage is stenciling that reads Real Meals To Go above the drive through, and World Famous Chicken near the front-door.

“There is more wall signage then would otherwise be allowed but they are actually arguably reducing the visual impact of the wall signage that’s there now” Criss said. “They have drastically reduced the amount of proposed painting of the brick. You could argue that the stenciling of the signage on the East and West facades is a form of a paint on brick but it’s certainly not obscuring the aesthetic character of the building material.”

A pyramidal shroud that bore the logo of KFC and Pizza Hut was replaced in the new proposal in favor of something more flat that will be in the front corner of the building. Lendlease removed slanted awnings that were presented at the last meeting, and replaced them with shutters.

Outdoor lighting fixtures will, according to the new plans, be shielded to prevent the glare from being a distraction to motorists and pedestrians traveling on Blythewood Road.

“Mr. Gama submitted that light to Michael and me to look at so there is a shielded light fixture and the board needs to state that they want the shielded light fixture,” Walden said. “It basically narrows the beam, it doesn’t splay out. It better meets our desire to have the light itself not visible.”

The motion to grant the COA passed unanimously.

BLYTHEWOOD – During the Town’s budget workshop last week, a discussion of the increasing incidents of vandalism in Doko Meadows (the town park) and the increasing cost of security to prevent that vandalism, became contentious.

A total of 36 security cameras have been keeping an eye on the goings-on in Doko Park and around Town Hall since last November, but Town Administrator Gary Parker said that while the cameras have helped, there is still considerable vandalism. To cover the park more adequately, Parker suggested Council might want to install two more (vehicle) tag readers and three more security cameras in areas not currently covered.

“If someone had thought about all we’re going to spend when they started this park, I’m not sure they’d have done it. We’ve spent $100,000 on cameras now,” Councilman Tom Utroska said. “It has to end someplace. It’s never going to be perfectly secure. You can’t have cameras between every tree.”

“We’re providing a public facility that’s becoming more and more popular every year,” Parker said. “So more and more visitors are coming to town property. This is a security measure to protect those people and the Town itself.”

Parker asked Council if they see more cameras as a valid expenditure justified by the potential problems that could result.

“Nationwide, more and more towns use cameras. Myrtle Beach has over 800 cameras watching the city. It’s a Council call,” Parker said.

“Let’s leave it in the budget for now and have (Ron) Perryman (National Alert Security System) back to discuss this with us before we decide,” Mayor J. Michael Ross said.

But the issue of park security didn’t end there.

“We’re having a lot of problems with playground (security),” Steve Hasterock, Director of The Manor, said. “We have people coming over from The Point because they aren’t allowed to smoke cigarettes (on the premises), so they come over and smoke behind the gas station and then come into the park. We’ve also got kids as young as 5 and 6 years old taking rocks from around the public restrooms and the drainage pipes and throwing them in the pond.”

Again, it was suggested Council invite Perryman to the June work session to discuss how to solve the playground security problems.

Parker also advised Council that there is now the additional problem of rolls of toilet paper being stolen from the dispensers in the park restrooms. Parker suggested using $750 of the $8,000 in the Parks & Recreation budget (designated for cleaning supplies) to purchase six new theft-proof toilet paper dispensers.

Ross also said it is now necessary to hire someone to clean the park restrooms twice a day on weekends, adding another layer of expenses to the park’s budget.

But it was a discussion about whether to secure the soccer fields with up to $20,500 of fencing that caused Council’s fur to fly.

“We need a quote for fencing the park’s athletic field,” Parker advised Council.

“Why?” Utroska asked.

“For security and to prevent children from kicking the soccer ball in to McLean Road,” Parker said. “It has been brought up to at least fence along McLean Road.”

Parker said the cost for 400 linear feet of galvanized fencing along the road would cost $5,300, with more attractive vinyl-coated fencing in blue, brown or green costing $7,000. To surround the entire soccer field in galvanized fencing would cost $15,000, and vinyl coated fencing would cost $20,500. The quote, Parker said, was not a bid, but a ballpark cost from the company who fenced the playground.

“Fencing the entire field will also help prevent vandalism,” Hasterock said.

“Then they’ll just tear down the fence!” Councilman Malcolm Gordge, Ross and Utroska blurted out in frustration.

While the Jeep Rogers YMCA on Kelly Mill Road will be renting the soccer fields in the fall, Ross pointed out that, for now, he has never seen more than 5 or 6 kids on the field at one time.

“Maybe put a fence down McLean Road,” Ross said. “But I’m not going to pay $20,000 to put a fence around that thing. We’ve got too many things to spend money on. We could talk all day about things like someone running in to the parking lot chasing a butterfly. That’s nuts! So we put ‘em inside a fence and they climb over and fall andbreak a leg. We’re going too far thinking we can prevent every little thing.”

“There are generic risks with a park – we have a pond out there,” Hasterock cautioned. “But there are philosophical arguments that we need to reasonably try to prevent things like that. When the YMCA comes in and they start having lot of games and practices, maybe that’s the time we should consider this (fencing).”

“Maybe they should put the fence up,” Utroska said.

“I could ask,” Hasterock said.

“He’s just being facetious,” Ross joked jokingly about Utroska’s comment.

“No, I’m not,” Utroska countered. “If the persons using it (the soccer field)…” He paused. “I’ve said enough. I wrote a note on my copy that says ‘money pit,’“ Utroska said, showing his notes to Ross who was seated next to him.

“The park?” Ross asked.

“Yes,” Utroska said.

Bringing the discussion back to center, Parker asked if it was Council’s desire to leave the budget item for fencing blank for now or plug in $7,000.

“I would say put the fence on McLean Road,” Councilman Larry Griffin said. “It shows then that we’re trying to protect. I go over to Richland County’s big ball fields and there is no fencing. And you’re not going to stop vandalism by putting a fence up. We might put the fence off another year until we see larger groups out there. Put the money into the cameras so you can get the (vehicle) tags and the vehicles.”

“Then we can use the revenue we get from (renting the fields to) the YMCA to put the fence up,” Utroska said.

A third budget workshop will be held May 25.

Ridgeway attorney Robert Hartman proposed to Council last week that it adopt a ‘burn’ ordinance. The first part of Hartman’s ordinance would prohibit any burning in the downtown area of Ridgeway. The second part would restrict burning anywhere in the town within 350 feet of homes unless permission to burn had been granted from the non-burning parties, with the exception of cooking fires, and cooking during Pig on the Ridge.

Hartman said he became concerned about the lack of a burning prohibition last week when a neighbor proceeded with a rubbish burn within 20 feet of his office, despite winds that he said were over 20 miles per hour.

“My neighbor who was doing the burning told me, ‘I burn every day, and I ain’t going to stop.’ And I’m like, ok…well, what can I do about it? I can’t do anything about it, but ya’ll can do something about it. All I can do about it is sue my neighbor when my house burns down,” Hartman said.

“Normally, the Forest Commission requires residents who are going to burn to attain a burn permit, but that does not apply to municipalities like Ridgeway,” Hartman said.

Winnsboro has banned burning within the town, and in Richland County yard burns are only permitted if the resident lives in a rural zoning district, and is at least 75 feet from any structure, road or property line.

Hartman said he is concerned about the age of the buildings in downtown Ridgeway, some of which date back to the 1800s, and particularly the heart pine material used in the construction of many of the buildings.

“That stuff is like gasoline. It doesn’t take much of an ignition to set it off,” Hartman said. “We have such a high density of buildings in the downtown area and all it takes is an ember to catch and that thing will burn so fast and so quick there’s no putting it out. Literally, those houses can burn within minutes. San Francisco burned to the ground. Chicago burned to the ground. Columbia has burned to the ground several times. It can happen.”

In other Council business, Belva Bush was named as a replacement for Croom Hunter, on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Hunter’s seat became vacant after he recently moved from Ridgeway. Bush, a former Town Councilwoman, was serving as a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Council will now have to appointment for someone to fill her seat.

According to Mayor Charlene Herring, the Town of Ridgeway is waiting to receive a resolution from the Fairfield County School Board that will grant the land behind Geiger Elementary School to the Town for the new water tower. “The water tower, we’re working on our agreements with our lawyer. Thats in progress, and we’ll just wait to hear when it’s time to sign,” Herring said. “I think the school board is the one that will have to do a resolution at their board meeting this month about the land being given to town of Ridgeway.”

Herring also related that, for the first time, Fairfield County will be allocating funds for the budget year to the Town of Ridgeway for use at the Town’s discretion. The sum of those funds is yet to be determined.

“We know that Fairfield County will be allocating some money to our town to help us as we move forward and thats another first too,” Herring said. “You know, in the past, they afforded grants for water hookups and fire hydrants but this year they are giving us a sum of money to use on whatever. We don’t know exactly what that sum is yet.”

BLYTHEWOOD – Town Council held its second of three workshops last week to discuss the Town government’s FY 2017-18 budget which, at $1,498,360, weighs in at $98,219 less than last year’s budget of $1,596,679.

The proposed budget includes a 2.5 percent cost of living increase for town government employees and a 3 percent pot of money from which to award employee merit increases of up to 5 percent. While Council salaries show an increase of $3,000 to reflect six months of the annual salary that will be paid if Councilman Tom Utroska does not run for re-election and another person wins the seat in the November election. Utroska has never taken his salary which is $6,000 for the full year.

“If someone else is in that seat next term,” Administrator Gary Parker said, “then we have to allot revenue for the annual salary for that seat.”

The projected budget includes funding for a major project between the Town and Midlands Council of Governments (MCOG).

“We are including matching funds of $50,000 for the study of alternatives for improving the traffic problem in the area where Blythewood Road, Langford Road and Main Street come together.” Parker noted in a memo to Council. “That study will possibly be completed in the first half of calendar year 2018.”

Revenue from Accommodations Tax and Hospitality Tax continue to be a bright spot in the budget with H-Tax revenues projected to be $390,189, up about $10,000, and Local A-Tax revenue projected at $127,139 and State A-Tax revenues at $101,940.

Even though $116,000 of HTax funds were transferred to the Manor’s Enterprise Fund, the H-Tax dollars available to fund Town events like the S.C. Diamond invitational baseball tournament, Christmas Parade and other events have not decreased.

“In fact,” Parker told Council, “available funding for community events increases in the projected budget over last year. If all of that available funding isn’t needed for events in the coming year, the unused amounts can roll-over to next year’s fund balances.”

The budget includes significant expenditures from the H-Tax for the bond payment on the Park and Manor bond issue, but Doko Meadows park, the Manor, the Depot and the soonto-be-constructed amphitheater are positive community attractions and facilities that also will produce revenue for the Town over future years, Parker told Council.

“Both the park and the Manor are seeing more and more use and, in the case of the Manor in particular, are producing increased revenue to fund their maintenance and operation. This revenue is only projected to grow,” Parker said.

Two other big revenue sources besides Hospitality Tax are the state insurance tax collection program and the local option sales tax. With all the home construction in Blythewood, the next largest revenue source has been from building permits and fees.

While these are dependable revenue sources for now, Parker said, they may not always be.

“The only potentially big and flexible revenue source that we could control,” Parker said, “is a property tax, if the Town were able to establish one.”

The budget also includes a Capital Project Budget for the construction of the amphitheater that will be funded by donations that include a $125,000 contribution from Palmetto Citizens Federal Credit Union, a $75,000 grant from Central Midlands Community Foundation as well as funds from Hospitality Tax. This construction project may go into FY 208 and, therefore, has budgeted funds for that portion of the cost that hasn’t yet arisen, Parker said.

The third and final budget workshop is set for Thursday, May 25, at 9 a.m. at the Manor. Council allow the public to sign up to make comment about the budget at the workshops. The Blythewood Chamber is expected to ask the Town at the next workshop to increase it allotment from $12,500 it received this year.

The County’s budget for FY 2017 passed third and final reading without comment Monday evening.

The $38,852,148 budget is up $5,574,807 over last year’s budget of $33,277,807.

The new budget allows for a two percent one-time bonus for county employees, and it does so without a tax increase. With more revenue than was budgeted for last year, the county’s fund balance grew by over $5 million this year.

One of the biggest capital outlays in this year’s budget is $500,000 for Fairfield County Behavioral Health that will go toward construction of a new facility. Chairman Billy Smith asked to have contingencies on the request so that if the building were sold within the next 20 years, the $500,000 would be paid back to the County.

Other larger expenses reflected increases in salaries to the County’s emergency departments. Among the biggest increases in the budget were the Sheriff’s Department ($307,201), the Detention Center ($224,524) Emergency Management ($206,976) and EMS ($276,301). A $162,962 increase in the Animal Control Department was due to increased services and personnel and facility upgrades.

Revenue Up
On the revenue side, Property Taxes are expected to bring in an additional $875,482, with the Multi-County Industrial Park accounting for $650,000 of that amount. Revenues from the State are up $573,514 and total Special Revenue Funds are up $1,037,411. Budget documents can be found on the County’s website at www.Fairfieldsc.com.

Throughout the 68 pages of transcripts obtained by Quorum from an April 4 civil court hearing between Richland
County/McClam & Associates and Richardson Construction (a Blythewood company owned by Joseph Richardson), former South Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal — now a circuit court judge — repeatedly chided county attorney Ned Nicholson for presenting arguments she characterized as “disingenuous” and “foolish,”
whose logic “shocks the conscious.”

Toal ruled against the dismissal of a suit brought by Richardson Construction against Richland County and Mc-Clam & Associates last December after Richardson’s bid (the lowest) lost to McClam’s bid (the highest) for the Shop Road Extension project. (Read the history of that troubled procurement process at blythewoodonline.com.)Richardson’s
suit sought a temporary Ron Aiken The Quorum injunction against the award, but that motion was denied by Judge De-Andrea Benjamin on Dec.21. That decision is under appeal to the Appellate Court.

By Richland County ordinance, non-winning bidders in solicitations may protest an award decision. That protest is
then heard by the County’s procurement director, and appeals of that decision may be taken to the County’s five-member procurement review panel.

When Richardson protested the initial award in October, 2016, the County did not have either a procurement director nor a fully constituted procurement review panel featuring representatives spelled out by ordinance as requiring representatives from five specific areas of interest in procurement decisions. Richardson Construction argued in its suit that it was denied due process because of these vacancies.

When asked by Toal to explain the charge that Richland County is “denying (Richardson) any legitimate due process because you haven’t got these things in effect,” Nicholson told Toal that the county already had cleared up one of the concerns.

“Your Honor, I can tell the court on behalf of the County there is a procurement director for the County named Curt —Chris Younts. Y-O-U-N-TS,”Nicholson said.

Nowhere on the Richland County’s website was Yount’s hiring announced, and a Freedom of Information Act request by Quorum showed Younts had been hired April 3, only one day before the hearing.

“So it wasn’t until after (Richardson) griped about this thing that y’all even got around to appointing a permanent
procurement director; is that correct,” Toal asked Nicholson.

“Well, Your Honor, they were… . The procurement, the director position was vacant before they, before
this,” Nicholson said.

“Uh huh,” Toal replied.“And it didn’t get appointed until after they raised questions aboutthe absence of a procurement director when (Richland County) argued, ‘Hey, (Richardson) can’t even go to court because (they have) this remedy to exhaust in the County?”

Nicholson attempted to reply but was sharply cut off.

“It’s an empty remedy because (Richland County doesn’t) have a procurement director to appeal to nor (does Richland County have) a full procurement review panel,” Toal said.

Nicholson said the review panel does have three members, which constitutes a quorum and thus should be allowed to decide the protest.

“Well, you know, that’s just not acceptable, Mr. Nicholson,” Toal said. “I’m gonna tell you that rightnow.”

“You’ve got one of the most serious bid controversies that the County has been involved in a long time. This Jushi
plant is a big new investor relocating here, all right, there’s an accelerated timetable, and…the County needlessly puts in something that could end up being a big legal question about this instead of going ahead and appointing some people to the review panel.

“Politics or nothing else should interfere with putting some people in there to perform these duties; otherwise, you don’t have due process for these people. You’ve got three out of five. (Richardson is) gonna argue…‘I had a burden of persuasion that was impossible to meet because I didn’t have a full procurement panel.”

Toal wasn’t done, saying the argument for a quorum as being satisfactory did not constitute an adequate remedy for Richardson.

“That’s the kind of thing that gets people frustrated with local government is they foolishly complicate with needless legal issues, things that ought to be pretty easy to deal with,” Toal said. “Why complicate it by deciding whether or not a quorum is satisfactory? Why not go ahead and have a full panel so there’s no question that these people have got a full due process procedure as is provided in the regulations?”

Nicholson said that was a question for County Council to answer, but remained firm.

“Our position is that we have enough (members of the review panel); that three can decide it,” Nicholson said. “That is legally sufficient.”

Toal was not impressed.

“That argument just really is not a persuasive argument to me,” Toal said.

“(Richland County has) a big procurement controversy pending and, in the face of that, they want to rely on some legal technicality about quorums instead of going on and filling out the commission that’s supposed to hear these procurement controversies?”

“That is a foolish, foolish course of action on your client’s part and it’s typical of what happens sometimes in this county…things that seem very clear and easy to do are getting wrapped around the axle and all kinds of legal arguments and proceedings when the practical thing to do would be to simply go on and do the right thing and appoint the panel.

“You’ve got people that decline to act. This is a county of hundreds of thousands of people and there’s not a limited number of people who could fill these positions.”

In her ruling, Toal allowed the civil suit against the county to proceed and said Richardson has a right to due process, a process, Toal said, the county has not offered Richardson.

“It shocks the conscious to have a process that clearly indicates five people qualified on the basis of different areas of expertise, and that’s what (Richland County’s) ordinance very definitely says, and yet the County has not done anything of recent years (to fill the positions),” Toal said. “(The panel has) one person from back in 1993. I don’t even know what the terms of these people are. They’ve got two other people that (Richardson Construction attorney Kathleen McDaniel) can’t tell what their qualification category even is.

“(Richland County isn’t) providing (Richardson) an adequate remedy when you don’t respond (to questions), that the administrator does not give a final ruling, there’s no setting of any hearing on this thing, that’s not — just sitting back and being mum and not communicating when (Judge Benjamin) said the remedy to be pursued is before your procurement panel, that’s not — I mean, you’re putting them in a Catch 22 that I’m not prepared to counter.”

When Nicholson suggested that the County’s administrative process could move forward if Richardson dropped its appeal, Toal snapped back.

“No,” Toal said. “No sir. They’re not required to do that under the law.”

“I don’t think you can box them in because you don’t like it that they filed a lawsuit, and it shocks my conscious to hear it said, ‘Oh, we’ll give them the administrative process but only if they drop this lawsuit. That — there’s something very, very wrong about that.”

Nicholson countered that the appeal process halted the administrative procedure and allowed the County to move forward with McClam regardless of the suit’s outcome.

Toal took exception.

“I find it disingenuous, to put it mildly, that the argument is made that, ‘All right, everything stops because of this appeal to the court of appeals’ and yet (Nicholson) also advanced the projection that the only thing (Richardson) can get is damage awards. They cannot get any review of the contract itself, so you go forward with McClam.

“If that is truly your legal position, then it really is very disingenuous to say, ‘Hey, all right, I can go forward with McClam under all circumstances, but (Richardson has) an avenue to get damages for knocking them out as a responsive bidder and there’s nothing in the world about the award to McClam that is interfered with by (Richardson’s) pursuing that. I don’t get that argument.”

Reached Friday, McDaniel was pleased with Toal’s ruling.

“We’re happy that our case remains alive and our appeal will be heard,” McDaniel said.

McDaniel said the issue of fairness and Richland County’s compliance with its own laws was the issue at stake.

“Counties can’t benefit from their own bad acts,” McDaniel said, referring to the county’s inability to fill the positions of director — Younts, in fact, resigned April 28 after just 20 days on the job — and procurement review panel. “Due process is guaranteed by law.”

Reach Aiken at (803) 200-8809. Email him at ron@quorumcolumbia.org. Follow him on Twitter @RonAiken and @QuorumColumbia and like Quorum on Facebook.

 

BLYTHEWOOD – Last December the Planning Commission gave their OK to a preliminary plat for the Cambridge Pointe subdivision without requiring sidewalks and gave it a virtual pass on interconnectivity with adjacent neighborhoods as called for in Blythewood’s Master Plan.

While the former was a relief to the Cambridge Pointe development team, the latter did not sit well with many of neighboring Oakhurst residents who have voiced their concerns over interconnectivity, home density and traffic.

During the May 8
meeting, Commissioners heard from Bucky Drake, a developer working on Cambridge Pointe, and his project engineer John Thomas, regarding changes made to their plat since their December appearance before the board. They were granted conditional approval after their last presentation to the Commission.

Among the changes made was the reduction of lots on the Oakhurst side of the stream from 89 to 80, a proposal to build larger sized lots on the Oakhurst side of the stream, and the removal of an internal bridge and road that connected two sections of the development separated by a stream that divides the tract of land in half. Instead, lots on the west side of the project will have access to Boney Road, and lots on the east side will be connected to the Oakhurstsubdivision.

Also, Drake proposed the removal of the internal street connection system that connected to Oakhurst. The new plan also proposed to eliminate access to the multi-use trail from the Oakhurst side.

“We were approved but we said we would go back and talk to the neighborhood because we wanted to be good neighbors and that’s basically what we did,” John Thomas said. “This was the solution Bucky worked out with the neighborhood, so that you would just have an end to Oakhurst with two cul-de-sacs and then everything else takes place on the other side of the creek.”

Donald Brock, an Oakhurst resident as he disclosed, lauded the changes, after expressing the concern other Oakhurst residents had regarding future housing developments moving within the Oakhurst boundaries.

“It’s my understanding that the residents of Oakhurst did not want any future developments to encroach upon the neighborhood. I believe this satisfies that request, as Mr. Criss said it looks like it adds 12 homes to the existing Oakhurst neighborhood,” Brock said. “It does meet the minimal lot size we’re looking for. Other requirements of the neighborhood I don’t see as a problem.”

Another point of focus for the council was the proposed use of four flag lots. Flag lots are discouraged in the Blythewood zoning codes, but are not prohibited.

“Note there are a number of flag lots with those long private driveways that sometimes cause concerns for the occupants as well as the municipalities,” Planning Coordinator Michael Criss said. “They’re discouraged in your code but not prohibited, so the question is how many flag lots are too many.”

A flag lot is real estate jargon for a parcel of land that is at the end of a long driveway, which literally causes the parcel of land to be shaped like a flagpole. According to John Thomas they plan in implementing the flag lots as a way to make it easier for occupants to get in and out of the lot without facing such steep inclines.

“The shape of the lots and the way it has turned out had to do with the terrain on that side of the side of the creek; it’s extremely steep coming off the back of Oakhurst,” Thomas said. “So that’s why we put the flag lots there, to utilize land where the accesses are at a fairly level place, so that you’re not going down a real steep slope to try to get in and out of the lot.”

Using flag lots will allow developers to keep more of the treecover in the area, and preserve more of the natural environment along the creekbed.

Commissioner Brock had very little concern with the use of flag lots. “I understand Mr.Criss’s concerns about flag lots. It looks to be four of 12 lots where you have that, not a big cause of concern in my opinion,” Brock said.
The Commission unanimously granted approval to the changes.

When Fairfield County Councilofficially embarked on a major economic development project last year with the S.C. Department of Commerce to acquire about 1,200 of property located on the east side of I-77 and to the north of Highway 34, it was understood that the land might not be developed for many years.

On Monday evening, members of the Public Services and Development Committee came up with a proposed revenue producing use for the land in the interim.

“A Council member has suggested Council turn that 1,200 acres over to the Department of Natural Resources for hunters to use,” Committee Chairman Jimmy Ray Douglas told Committee members Bertha Goins and Neal Robinson.

But Douglas said he had a better idea.

“I’ve leased property over the years and I get $10 – $12 per acre for hunting rights. For 1,200 acres, that’s potentially $12,000,” Douglas said.

“I called Mr. (Councilman Dan)Ruff and he said we can advertise it for lease and start bids at $10 per acre. We would also require anyone who leases the property to have liability insurance to cover anything that might happen,” Douglas said.

Councilman Robinson asked County Administrator Jason Taylor his opinion.

“I think that as long as we follow the procurement code and advertise it properly, fully open to anyone who would like to bid on it and they have adequate insurance coverage, I think it would be okay,” Taylor said.
“The other option, to let DNR have it and they come up with a leasing plan, it would be left up to them who would hunt there,and that would not not generate any revenue for the County.”

“Because of the County’s relationship with the Commerce Department on the site” Taylor said, “we would need some kind of clause to allow for immediate termination of the lease should we have a prospect for the property.”

The committee voted unanimously to forward the proposal on to full Council.