Blog

WINNSBORO – Fairfield County Council members signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Monday evening with Providence Health and Fairfield Memorial Hospital that sets in motion the construction of a new state of the art, freestanding, 24-hour Emergency Services facility in the County. The facility will be owned and operated by Providence Health and will subsequently lead to the closing of the Emergency Room and inpatient bed services at Fairfield Memorial Hospital after the new ER is up and running, according to the MOU.

While it was not disclosed on Monday evening where the facility will be located, Council Chairman Billy Smith said it has been a primary concern of Council that the facility be centrally located within the County.

“We have been assured in executive session tonight that it will be,” Smith said. “We had hoped to be able to let everyone know with this announcement where it will be located, but I think we’ll be able to do that soon.”

“We look forward to working with Fairfield Memorial Hospital and Fairfield County to create a strong, viable model that preserves access to important healthcare services and meets the long-term needs of the community,” Providence Health Market CEO Scott Campbell said in a meeting with FMH board members prior to separate votes taken Monday evening on the MOU by that board and County Council.

Smith said the new facility is expected to take two to four months to design, then about a year to construct.

In addition to signing the MOU, Council also passed a Resolution stating that it would continue to financially support FMH’s operations for up to 18 months or until the new Providence emergency facility is open for business. That support will be in an amount not less than Council’s currently budgeted funding levels of $1.2 million per year

The Resolution also stated that the County will give Providence Hospital, LLC $1 million each year for 10 years.

“Despite the best efforts of FMH, its current model is not sustainable for the long term. Because of this, FMH, the County and Providence Health are partnering through this memorandum to ensure that our County’s residents continue to have access to critical 24-hour ER services. We feel the best interests of our citizens are best met by our entering into this agreement,” Smith said.

 

BLYTHEWOOD – Mike Switzer, Executive Director of both the Blythewood Chamber of Commerce and Blythewood Visitor Center, requested $70,750 from the town government on behalf of both of the organizations during Monday night’s Blythewood Town Council meeting. But all of Switzer’s wishes did not come true. Council basically ignored $12,000 of that amount that represented an increase in what the Town already gives the Chamber each year, and it said ‘No,’ outright to a request for $33,000 from the Town’s Accommodation Tax funds..

Switzer, along with Chamber of Commerce chairwoman Belinda Portnall, first requested a $25,000 Economic Development Grant, a significant increase over the $12,500 that Council allocated the Chamber last year. Switzer told Council the $25,000 would represent nearly a quarter of the Chamber’s total budget which is almost $100,000.

Funding, Switzer said, would go towards renovations for the new office in McNulty Shopping Plaza, as well as for rent, which the Chamber has not had to pay during the last year.

“The increase that we’re asking for this year is to cover our startup costs which were significant, about $7,000 in renovations,” Switzer said. “Our increase this year is representing that amount that we’ve had to spend out of our reserve as well as the fact that we now have rent which we didn’t have before.”

Councilman Tom Utroska felt he needed more time and wanted to see the Chamber’s budget and go over the financial information before making his decision.

“We’ve been approached about this year after year, Mike, for additional funds for the chamber and we’ve increased it since I’ve been on the council. I’d like to see what your budget is so I can understand where this money’s being spent,” Ustroka said.

No action was taken, and the council moved on.

When Council considered the recommendations from the A-Tax committee later in the meeting for dollar awards for events, Switzer requested $4,000 for a Total Solar Eclipse event the Chamber is organizing on August, 21. Half of the funds will go to advertising, including 5,000 bags emblazoned with the Blythewood logo and special eclipse viewing glasses and brochures, while the other 50 percent of funds will go into additional marketing items such as social media campaigns, Switzer said.

The motion to grant the $4,000 for the Total Solar Eclipse event passed unopposed.

Next, the Chamber requested $8,750 in A-TAX assistance to fund this year’s Big Grab event, including rental of Doko Park, advertising, temporary restrooms, Sheriff Deputies, staff and supplies.

“The Big Grab is pretty well attended. Last year we funded it per his request $5,000. This year he’s asking for more,” the Director of Doko Manor Steve Hasterok said. “Some more sophisticated marketing and also to pay for the rental on the park for a little bit on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. So there is an increase but some of that money will come back to the town.”

The motion passed 4-1, with Utroska being the only nay vote.

Acting as the director of the Blythewood Visitor Center, Switzer asked for $33,000 from the A-Tax funds. That represents a $15,000 increase from the $18,000 that was allocated for the Visitor’s Center in the past.

“So as a percentage of what we’re asking for as an investment into the interests of the town’s business community is 10 percent of just the annual revenues that comes in the H- and A-Tax,” Switzer said.

“We did present our ideas (for the $33,000) to the A-Tax Committee and they were thrilled! It was an overwhelming response from them that we utilize our services in this regard which in turn is going to help those businesses through the Visitors’ Center,” Portnall told Council.

Switzer asked for $9,000 upfront, and said the Visitor’s Center would be happy to bill the Town for the remaining $24,000. The $9,000 would go towards start-up costs for a $5,000 website, a $750 computer and the remaining $3,250 would cover renovation costs.

Switzer said the additional $24,000 would go to hiring a new employee for the Visitor’s Center.

“I don’t feel comfortable with it this evening to take into account all the information that you’ve given us and the impacts on the website we are planning on rolling out ourselves,” Gordge said, “There are just a lot of issues that I think we need more time to discuss and understand.”

Meanwhile, Councilman Utroska made his concerns clear.

“I cannot agree to this proposal. I have quite a few concerns. One is that we’re going to spend $5,000 on web-hosting when we got a brand new town website that we say is great, and you (Hasterock) have a good website (for The Manor), so now we’re going to have three websites that are doing basically the same thing,” Utroska said. “And I think the numbers for your quarter-share is way out of line. Being a businessman I would never have agreed to a joint-venture with somebody else for 25 percent. It’s just goofy to me.”

Councilman Larry Griffin then made a motion to table the proposal until the next Council meeting, but the vote was deadlocked at 2-2 with Griffin and Gordge voting to table it, while Utroska and Baughman voted against. The motion failed.

Then, Utroska made the motion to not approve the item at all. The vote passed 3-1 with only Larry Griffin voted against.

 

BLYTHEWOOD – The Blythewood Town Council passed first reading Monday evening on an ordinance that would allow Council to down-zone two R-5 parcels to D-1 and 28 R-12 parcels to D-1.

The ordinance was first proposed to help slow Blythewood’s rapid growth and the density and infrastructure issues that trail that growth, according to Town Administrator Gary Parker.

“The reason this is on the agenda and a subject of great interest is the growth that has taken place in the town and the concern about the density of that growth,” Parker said. “That prompted the initiation of an amendment to the ordinance to address that.”

The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance to Town Council during their May 1 meeting, with the exception of 150 acres of the undeveloped phases in Abney Hills Estates.

“We followed up with a written description of the select parcels that might be considered for down-zoning as an alternative to deleting those districts,” Town Planning Consultant Michael Criss said. “We took that list to the planning commission, they considered it carefully and agreed with all but the last, the 31st parcel that

is the undeveloped portion of Abney Hills Estate.”

Essex Homes, the Abney Hills developer, has completed phase one of Abney Hills Estates, and construction on phase two has begun.

It was determined by the Planning Commission that down-zoning Abney Hills Estates would pull the rug out from under Essex Homes. Down-zoning the properties would raise the price of dues required by the Homeowner’s Association and could have potentially created legal ramifications for the Town Council and the Commission, Criss told Council.

“It seems to me that rocking the boat on that particular development would give a little bit of a bad taste. Probably would get us in a little bit of legal trouble, and I don’t really feel like fighting a lawsuit from a volunteer commission position,” Commissioner Donald Brock said during the May 1 Planning Commission meeting. “So I favor exempting your property from the down-zoning, kind of with the understanding that you will build in good faith.”

There were no R-8 zoning districts such as Oakhurst and Cambridge Point included in the ordinance because they have all been developed, or developers have already gotten permission to begin development. R-12 districts that are not at least 20,000 square feet were also excluded, because down-zoning those areas would result in nonconforming lots, Criss said.

“Nonconforming lots and nonconforming structures can have problems for the private sector as well as the public sector,” Criss said. “They can interfere with your title insurance, and your mortgage lender may be concerned.”

First reading passed unopposed and will be followed by a public hearing and a second reading at Council’s June 26 meeting.

 

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.”