Blythewood Online 691

Tag: MPA Strategies

  • MPA files for sanctions against Black

    Porter: Black’s Filing Delay Cost Hunter $4,292.21
    David Black

    BLYTHEWOOD – An attorney for MPA Strategies marketing firm and its owner/CEO Ashley Hunter has filed a motion in Court for sanctions against The Town of Blythewood’s former outside attorney David Black, a partner in Maynard Nexsen law firm in Columbia.

    Attorney Paul Porter, with Cromer, Babb and Porter, has asked the Court to sanction Black for two reasons: 1) because of a Motion to Transfer that Black filed on Dec. 8, 2023, and 2) because of Black’s conduct associated with that motion thereafter, according to Porter’s Feb. 16, 2024, filing.

    Motion to Transfer

    Black filed the Motion to Transfer just weeks after Blythewood voters elected a new mayor and council who had made it known before the election that they were not in favor of continuing with the MPA lawsuits and the inherent costs and fees of those lawsuits.

    With the Motion to Transfer, Black was asking the Court to transfer the [MPA] cases to a special master who would oversee them. Black claimed this was necessary because there were conflicts of interest of Town Council members adverse to the Town’s interests in the litigation, according to the Feb. 16 filing.

    “What this meant,” Porter wrote, “was that Black did not agree with directives his client (the Town) made to him about settling this vexatious and costly litigation. Put another way, Black wanted this case assigned to a special master so he [would] not have to abide by the wishes of Blythewood’s democratically elected mayor and council.”

    Black’s Conduct

    On Dec. 11, 2023, three days after Black filed the Dec. 8 Motion to Transfer, he (Black) was terminated by Mayor Sloan Griffin via email. The mayor confirmed the termination that same day during a public press conference.

    In response to the mayor’s Dec. 11, 2023 termination letter, Black sent a letter on Dec. 13, 2023, saying he disagreed that the mayor had the authority to terminate him, but said he (Black) and his firm would “file a motion to withdraw as counsel of record from the MPA litigation due to the Town’s failure to follow legal advice,” according to Porter’s Feb. 16 filing.

    “Contrary to what he said in the letter that he would do, Black refused to withdraw from the MPA cases until 44 days later, at 3:35 p.m. on Jan. 24, 2024, the day before the Court was scheduled to hear the Motion to Transfer,” according to Porter’s Feb. 16 filing.

    By refusing to officially withdraw from the lawsuits, Black remained counsel of record for the Town and, in that capacity, also refused Porter’s request that he (Black) file a stipulation of dismissal with the Court to effectuate a Dec. 29, 2023 mutual agreement between MPA and the Town to settle and dismiss the lawsuits between them.

    “If this stipulation is not filed today, it may result in serious damages to Ashley Hunter/MPA Strategies, based on a professional recertification she is undergoing before the first of the year,” according to Porter’s filing.

    Black responded, “…pursuant to my ethical duty to the Town and its citizens, please understand that I will not be filing the attached stipulation of dismissal. As [I am] the attorney of record in this matter for the Town of Blythewood, you do not have my permission to make the filing.”

    “This delay in the filing cost [Ashley Hunter] an additional $4,292.21 in attorney fees to file a Motion to Enforce Settlement and to respond to Black’s Motion to Transfer,” Porter wrote.

    According to Porter’s filing last week, this conduct on Black’s part violated Rule 11 and the Rules of Professional Conduct.

    “First, counsel [Black] had ‘no good ground to support’ the subject motion [to transfer]. As acknowledged by counsel (Black) in his 12/13/23 letter to the Town of Blythewood, he was ‘specifically instructed and authorized by the mayor during the town council meeting on Dec. 5, 2023’ “to attempt to enter into a global settlement in the MPA litigation.

    An Unusual Motion

    “Instead of doing what he was directed to do, counsel filed an unusual motion (without consent or consultation) to refer this case to a special master on the implied basis that he wanted to be able to disregard his client’s newly elected leaders’ wishes.

    “Second, counsel violated Rule 11, SCRCP because he did not confer with counsel for the plaintiff prior to filing the subject motion or certify that consultation would ‘serve no useful purpose or could not be timely held.’ This is a stated requirement of Rule 11. Defendant’s Motion to Transfer failed to abide by this requirement providing yet another ground for the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions.”

    Porter also referenced the following two rules in his Feb. 16 filing:

    Rule 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation) states that: (a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client … if … (3) the lawyer is discharged.

    Rule 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority between Client and Lawyer) states that: (a) Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to make or accept an offer of settlement of a matter.

  • Chronicle editor, others answer MPA lawsuit

    BLYTHEWOOD – The editor of the County Chronicle named in a conspiracy lawsuit along with the Town of Blythewood and its mayor is asking a judge to throw the case against her out.

    The Country Chronicle was previously owned by Camden Media, a partnership owned by Charles H. Morris of Savannah, Ga., and Mike Mischner of Camden, SC.

    It has since been sold and is now owned by Paxton Media Group and is published out of Paducah, Kentucky.

    Meantime, the Camden media company that employed the editor and that is a co-defendant in the same suit, has denied most of the allegations against it in a recently filed response.

    In January, Ashley Hunter, the chief executive of MPA Strategies, sued the Town of Blythewood and Mayor Bryan Franklin over comments suggesting MPA landed a town contract because of a romantic relationship between Hunter and Town Councilman Donald Brock. Both Hunter and Brock have denied the allegation.

    The lawsuit originally accused Page of defamation, negligence, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference against a contract, and Camden Media of negligence.

    MPA has since dismissed the defamation and negligence causes of action against Page, but the remaining parts of the suit remain active.

    In a motion to dismiss filed May 30, Page asserts her news coverage of Franklin’s comments about the MPA contract was “substantially accurate,”

    Franklin told people at a Blythewood Chamber of Commerce function that Hunter and Brock were “having an affair,” and that it was why she got the marketing contract, according to the original suit.

    The Town and Mayor Franklin have filed motions to dismiss on procedural and technical grounds.

    Page’s attorney argues in a memo that the “fair report” privilege protects journalists even when they quote false statements, provided said statements appear in government records or are stated in public settings.

    “Plaintiffs cannot make an ‘end run’ around the fair report privilege and other protections afforded to the media against defamation claims by calling their claims by another name,” the motion states. “This Court should dismiss Page from the present lawsuit, with prejudice, because Plaintiffs’ remaining causes of action against her are an improper attempt to avoid the protections provided to news reporters by the fair report privilege and other defamation defenses.”

    Further, Page’s attorney said there’s no proof his client worked in concert with Mayor Franklin to defame Hunter.

    “The Complaint fails to sufficiently allege that Page and Franklin had any sort of agreement or acted in combination,” the memo states. “Nor does the Complaint sufficiently allege that Page’s primary purpose was to injure Plaintiffs.”

    Camden Media has denied most of the assertions in the MPA lawsuit.

    The newspaper group denied that any articles “overly favored” any person or position. Camden Media acknowledged, however, that Page didn’t contact Hunter to seek comment before publishing content in some of her stories. The group also asserts that many of Page’s stories quoted public records verbatim. The content included remarks where Franklin accused Hunter of “trying to drag [Blythewood] in the mud with totally unfounded claims that appear to benefit her and Councilman Brock, according to court records.

    Camden Media has asked for the MPA suit to be dismissed and is also seeking attorney fees and other costs related to the suit.

    A deadline of August 28 has been set to complete mediation.

  • MPA: deposing Blythewood attorney proper, vital

    BLYTHEWOOD – Efforts to depose a Blythewood attorney are proper and a vital component of an ongoing FOIA lawsuit, according to a March 14 memorandum filed by MPA Strategies, the Town’s former marketing firm.

    The filing comes in response to a motion to quash that was filed by Blythewood attorneys who are trying to block attorney Shannon Burnett from testifying. No rulings had been made as of press time.

    “Plaintiff cannot make the requisite showing to overcome the skepticism with which courts view attempts to depose an opposing party’s attorney,” the town stated in court papers.

    Burnett is part of the Town’s legal team and was involved in negotiating a contract between Blythewood and MPA in early 2021 for marketing services, according to court records.

    MPA’s memorandum points out, however, that the Town previously and successfully argued MPA’s former attorney should provide testimony.

    “Ironically Defendant [Town] named Plaintiff’s [MPA’s] prior counsel [Joseph Dickey] as a witness,” the memo states. “Meanwhile, Defendant is obstructing discovery efforts in this case by preventing Plaintiff from taking a critical fact witness’s deposition simply because that witness is an attorney.”

    MPA filed suit in 2021, alleging the Town violated the S.C. Freedom of Information Act when it failed to turn over documents to the marketing firm it had requested through an FOI request.

    Blythewood countersued, claiming eight causes of action, including fraud, civil conspiracy, negligence/gross negligence, and another misconduct.

    MPA referred to those counterclaims as “mostly unusual” considering the original suit “was filed as a simple FOIA case,” according to the memo.

    “Burnett’s deposition is necessary and will ultimately show that Defendant [Town] was not defrauded. This is the crux of Defendant’s counterclaims,” the memo states.

    MPA notes in the March 14 filling that there is precedent for compelling attorneys to testify about non-privileged information, citing Town efforts to list Dickey as a witness.

    “Defense has already opposed a motion to strike Dickey as a witness and prevailed,” the MPA memo states.

    “The authority provided by the Court regarding Dickey as a fact witness dictates the same conclusion as to Burnett and her role as a fact witness in this case.”

    Blythewood attorneys previously argued Burnett should be exempt from testifying because she’s representing the Town in the litigation. They also argue the subpoena for her testimony is overly broad and was improperly served.

    MPA served Burnett via email and certified mail. Town attorneys stated in court papers that neither method is a proper method of service. They also note Burnett was out of the country when the subpoenas were first served and that she didn’t view them until March 7, days before the scheduled deposition.

    MPA says in its memo that, “This is a mischaracterization of how service occurred,” and that Plaintiff, “offered to re-serve the subpoena and reschedule the deposition, but Town attorneys didn’t respond.”

    They also note Burnett was out of the country when the subpoenas were first served and that she didn’t view them until March 7, days before the scheduled deposition.

    MPA says in its memo that it offered to re-serve the subpoena and reschedule the deposition, but Town attorneys didn’t respond.

    The memo says Burnett’s testimony is needed because the Town designated her as an official agent to negotiate the contract between MPA and the Town.

    “Burnett’s testimony is crucial to showing Defendant’s counterclaims are elementally deficient. Specifically, her testimony will show there is no fraud, intentional misrepresentation, or material misstatement here,” the memo continues. “No other witness can testify to this in the way Burnett can, making her testimony critical.”

  • Town’s MPA expenses soar as court dates are delayed

    Town Has Spent $148K On Outside Legal Costs

    BLYTHEWOOD – While court dates for the MPA Strategies/Town of Blythewood lawsuit appearances continue to be postponed, the Town’s legal expenses for those lawsuits continue to climb.

    As of the Town’s May 2021-22 Revenue and Expense Report, the Town’s outside legal expenses have risen $37,065.83 over the previous month.

    The FY 2021-22 budget year’s outside legal expenses stand at $148,398.51, exceeding the budgeted amount by $3,398.51 or 2.34 percent.

    Council has increased the outside legal budget to $200,000 for FY 2022-23.

    Outside legal expenses generally have to do with expenses related to lawsuits the Town is involved in.

    In an interview in February, 2022, Councilman Rich McKenrick told The Voice he believes the Town’s outside attorney David Black with Nexsen Pruet law firm in Columbia is the payee for most of the Town’s outside legal expenses. Black represents the Town in an FOIA lawsuit filed by MPA strategies as well as the Town’s countersuit against MPA.

    Town’s Costs for MPA lawsuits

    Those expenses have mushroomed from $25,000 last fiscal year to $60,000 in FY 2021-22, after Mayor Bryan Franklin authorized the hiring of attorney David Black, with Nexsen Pruet law firm, to handle legal issues with MPA Strategies, a firm council voted 3-2 to hire in February, 2021, to market the town.

    In the spring of 2022, the budget for outside legal expenses were raised to $145,000

    Legal Costs Soaring

    According to the Town’s online monthly financial reports for outside legal expenses, the Town spent a total of $14,362.00 in April, May and June of FY 2021 and $78,929.13 over the next three months, for a total of $93,929.13 as of Dec. 31, 2021. As of June 29, 2022, the outside legal costs stand at almost $150,000, just $50,000 shy of the total budgeted for outside legal expenses for the FY 2022-23 budget, which begins July 1, 2022.

    Court Dates Continued

    The court was asked for a roster continuance for the non-jury trial for the week of May 9, 2022 and again for June 14, 2022. The next roster meeting is set for July 11, 2022.

    Black was initially hired by Franklin, Carroll Williamson and Town Attorney Shannon Burnett as an outside attorney to handle an FOIA request that was filed by MPA Strategies marketing firm’s attorney Joseph Dickey, on April 15, 2021. That request asked for Franklin’s texts, emails and other documents referencing MPA and its owner/CEO Ashley Hunter.

    The request was filed after the finalization of MPA’s marketing contract with the Town was delayed for almost two months and after rumors were allegedly spread about Hunter and Blythewood Town Councilman Donald Brock.

    When Franklin failed to submit the responsive documents to Dickey as required by law, MPA filed a lawsuit on June 28, 2021, to obtain them.

    Approximately two weeks after the lawsuit was filed, Franklin submitted the documents to Dickey on July 9, 2021.

    It is a violation of S.C. FOIA to not respond to an FOIA request within the statutorily-required time, according to media attorney Taylor Smith, with Harrison Radeker & Smith, P.A.

    “When information is turned over after a lawsuit is served, that usually means prevailing party status is given to the requester which almost assures they will win and their attorney’s fees and costs will be paid by taxpayer money,” Smith said.

  • Council authorizes Franklin to sue The Voice and others

    BLYTHEWOOD  – Blythewood Town Council voted 4-1 Thursday, May 5, to authorize Mayor Bryan Franklin, Town Administrator Carroll Williamson, and the Town’s outside attorneys David Black and Shannon Burnett to take legal action against The Voice and its publisher.

    While the Town has already sued MPA Strategies owner Ashley Hunter and threatened to sue Councilman Donald Brock, this is the first time the Town government, with the backing of all but one council member, has raised the specter of a lawsuit against The Voice and its publisher.

    Increasingly over the last year, Franklin and Black have accused The Voice and its publisher of conspiring with MPA Strategies and Brock against the Town and Franklin.

    No documentation or other evidence has been offered by Franklin or Black suggesting conspiracy by The Voice or its publisher.

    Nevertheless, McKenrick, who stated during a council meeting March 7, 2022, that, “I’m all for ending it,” reversed himself last week and made the motion to authorize the mayor’s legal actions retroactively and in the future.

    He said his motion was “not intended to dovetail on [The Voice] newspaper’s coverage of this issue, nor the mayor’s responses to the coverage,” McKendrick read from a prepared legal statement.

    He said he was, instead, addressing Brock’s statement of April 21, 2022, that he (Brock) did not recognize Nexsen Pruet as the legally hired law firm for the Town of Blythewood, nor the counterclaim [against MPA] filed on behalf of the Town of Blythewood.

    “I, as councilman, have seen nothing to make me believe the Town of Blythewood has procedurally handled the MPA lawsuit incorrectly, but Blythewood deserves to know that this council is unified in its position to protect the Town and to do what is legally necessary and required in regard to the actions and the lawsuit filed by MPA Strategies and countered by the Town of Blythewood,” McKenrick read.

    He said he wanted to help the Town move forward in a legal and equitable manner.

    “To that end,” he said, “I would like to make a motion, that this council affirm and approve all actions taken on behalf of the Town by the mayor, Carroll Williamson, the town attorneys Shannon Burnett and Nexsen-Pruet law firm regarding all matters regarding MPA Strategies, State and Frink Foundation, Donald Brock, The Voice, Barbara Ball, et all, and that such representation by and of such attorneys is hereby reaffirmed and shall continue until further resolutions of same, including any claims, counterclaims filed, answered, appealed or any ancillary issues.”

    The Voice had reported that, in April 2021, Franklin hired the Nexsen-Pruet law firm to represent the Town against MPA without council’s knowledge or consent, and that in July 2021, Franklin, Burnett and Williamson filed a counterclaim against MPA Strategies, without council’s knowledge or consent.

    A second motion was made by Councilman Eddie Baughman at the same meeting to try to right the ship of a council vote that was taken on July 20, 2021 to terminate the Town’s contract with MPA Strategies.

    The Voice had earlier reported that the July 20 vote might not have been legal since the meeting, itself, violated Title III, Chapter 30, Section 30.12 (a) of the Town of Blythewood’s Code of Ordinances, as amended by Ordinance 2020.009, which states, “The council member acting as the presiding officer must be physically present at the meeting.”

    Franklin presided over the meeting via zoom, and was not physically present at the meeting.

    “I would think a violation of the ordinance would provide a basis to challenge the action taken,” media attorney Jay Bender said at the time.

    Commenting on both of council’s votes on Thursday, May 5, Bender said, in an email interview with The Voice, “I guess the adage ‘better later than never’ is a guiding principle for this group which seems to have a difficult time following the law.

    “Maybe council hopes nobody remembers what was done without authorization. Ratification of previously taken action is legal, while at the same time revealing that the town is governed by a gang that can’t or won’t shoot straight,” Bender said.

    “Take your pick. Would you rather have a council that is sloppy or one that is devious?” he asked.

    After McKenick’s motion passed 4-1, with Brock voting against, the Town’s outside attorney David Black said the motion was made, “to actually save the Town money.”

    “The Town has been advised that in order to pursue the return of the funds that were improperly paid to MPA Strategies, the counter claim had to be filed,” Black said.

    According to MPA’s contract with the Town, however, the amount the Town actually paid Hunter is likely less than $200 and possible as little as zero. 

    Hunter’s contract called for her to be paid $48,000 annually to market the town, plus 10 percent of any grants she brought to the Town.

    After approximately 11 weeks of employment, the Town terminated her contract on July 20, 2021. The Town would most likely have paid MPA approximately $10,000 ($333.33 per week) toward the annual contract. After subtracting the $10,000 grant awarded to the Town through Hunter’s efforts, the Town’s loss through alleged “improper” payments would have washed out.

    The Voice is waiting on an answer from Black after emailing him last week to verify that amount.

    Cost to the Town so far for the MPA lawsuit and countersuit is approximately $100,000, and the town administrator has proposed budgeting $200,000 for legal expenses for outside attorneys for the FY 2022-23 budget year.

    The Town’s legal costs are being paid for out of the general fund, not out of the mayor’s and council member’s pockets. Baughman stated during a March 7, 2022, budget session, “I could care less if it adds up to $100,000.”

    “Their wrong-doing is fully documented and will be revealed to the public at large very soon,” Franklin said of MPA, Brock and The Voice.

    But that revelation could have happened as early as Monday, May 9, when the case was set for a hearing where the judge could have ruled on whether to dismiss the case or send it to court.

    Instead, on Friday, May 6, three days earlier, Black filed a motion and proposal to continue the case, delaying it further, assuring a continuing cost to The Town.

    The next hearing is set for Monday, June 13, at 9 a.m.

  • In searing public speech, BW mayor confuses conspiracy with routine journalism

    BLYTHEWOOD – Mayor Bryan Franklin delivered his most chilling verbal attack to date on The Voice’s publisher and Councilman Donald Brock at the end of a joint town council/planning commission meeting Monday night. The subject matter was rambling, with multiple undocumented claims.

    Explaining that his speech was in response to The Voice’s editorial in the April 28, 2022 issue of the newspaper, Franklin never mentioned the subject of the editorial – the almost $70,000 the Town’s outside attorney erroneously claimed the Town had spent responding to 6 or so FOIA requests from The Voice. 

    Instead, Franklin veered into the weeds, alternately mocking The Voice’s professional awards and accusing the newspaper of pressuring the Town government “to take certain actions”, though he did not identify those actions.

    In his 15 minute uninterrupted diatribe, Franklin made numerous random claims that he could not or would not provide evidence for. The speech can be viewed in its entirety above.

    Franklin claimed, for instance, that there had “never been an outright vote to hire MPA strategies” [to provide marketing and grant writing services for the Town].

    However, a YouTube video of the Feb. 22, 2021 council meeting, posted on the Town’s website, shows Councilman Sloan Griffin making a motion to take a vote, and it shows the 3-2 vote, as each councilman specifies to whom he prefers to award the RFP (Request for Proposal). Franklin and Councilman Eddie Baughman voted for The Blythewood Chamber of Commerce.

    Franklin also claimed that he voted ‘Yes’ to enter into a contract with MPA, while in fact he voted ‘No’ in the same Feb. 22, 2021 YouTube video. It was not until three weeks later that he voted ‘Yes’ when a motion was made to execute (finalize) that contract.

    Referring to what may have been a campaign pledge on Brock’s part (to become mayor), Franklin claimed it was “a conspiracy to commit fraud against the Town.”

    More than once in his speech, Franklin characterized the newspaper’s routine communications with MPA’s attorney as The Voice’s out-and-out conspiracy against the Town. The State, Post and Courier and other newspapers, like The Voice, frequently quote attorneys and their clients in regard to their lawsuits. The Voice also emailed questions (other than FOIAs) to The Town’s outside attorney, David Black.

    Franklin also declared, for some unexplained reason, that The Voice “profits three times as much as the other paper [the Country Chronicle].” He did not credit a source for that information or present any proof of his calculations.

    Franklin noted, again for an unstated reason, that “MPA submitted its FOIA for my, the mayor’s emails, communications, etc. after the contract was signed.”

     According to records obtained by The Voice, MPA’s attorney submitted the FOIA to The Town requesting Franklin’s documents on April 15, the day before Franklin signed MPA’s contract on April 16, not the day after.

    Franklin sought throughout his speech to elevate himself as the authority for determining who’s right and who’s wrong in regard to the Town’s lawsuits with MPA.

    “If any citizen wants a balanced argument, you call me directly,” Franklin said. “I’ll return your call … or visit you on your front porch to … clear up these falsehoods…” he stated.

    In conclusion, Franklin noted that, “I’ve just disproven 5 or 6 items in the editorial that could have been disproven by picking up the phone and calling somebody.”

    However, it was not obvious in the speech what those “5 or 6 items” were, or how he had “disproven” them.   

    Franklin has made multiple undocumented claims in the past against The Voice that were proven to be false.

    For instance, in the Sept. 23, 2021 issue of the Country Chronicle, Franklin was quoted as saying he had been “informed by [Town Administrator Carroll] Williamson that he had received ‘numerous inquiries’ from Voice publisher Barbara Ball regarding Town Attorney Shannon Burnett’s resignation…”

    Franklin was quoted as saying that those “numerous inquiries” amounted to “intimidating and bullying” Williamson.

    The Voice sent a Freedom of Information request that same day to town hall requesting copies of the “numerous inquiries” that The Voice allegedly sent to Williamson regarding Burnett’s resignation.

    In a Nov. 18, 2021, response to that FOIA, the Town’s outside attorney David Black confirmed that the Town did not possess “numerous inquiries” from The Voice concerning Burnett’s resignation letter.

  • Blythewood’s legal expenses skyrocket as MPA lawsuit simmers

    Bender: Meeting In Which MPA Contract Was Terminated May Have Been Illegal

    BLYTHEWOOD – After Blythewood Mayor Bryan Franklin failed to timely turn over documents including texts and emails to MPA Strategies’ attorney Joseph Dickey that Dickey had asked for through a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, MPA’s owner and CEO Ashley Hunter filed a lawsuit against the Town to shake those documents loose.

    Since April, 2021, when the Town hired outside legal counsel David Black with Nexsen Pruet law firm to handle legal matters with MPA, the Town’s ‘other legal and professional’ expenses listed on its monthly online financial report have mushroomed beyond the budgeted amount of $60,000 to $93,929.13. That amount has climbed every month since Black was hired.

    The Voice has submitted an FOIA request to the Town for a breakdown of the $93,929.13, since one is not provided on the online report and could possibly include expenses for two other lawsuits the Town was previously involved in.

    A Contentious Hiring

    After council discussed in the fall of 2020 the possibility of hiring a firm to provide marketing and grant writing services to the Town, the S.C. Municipal Association and the Town’s then Administrator Brian Cook, both of whom were familiar with MPA’s work with other S.C. towns, suggested Hunter’s name.

    Ashley Hunter, owner and CEO of MPA Strategies

    After council asked Hunter to submit a proposal in December, 2020, the Greater Blythewood Chamber of Commerce also expressed interest in vying for the marketing/grant writing contract. The Town broadened its search for marketing/grant writing services by issuing an RFP (Request for Proposal).

    MPA, the chamber and NP Strategies, a wholly owned subsidiary of Nexsen Pruet law firm, responded to the RFP. From then forward, the council and mayor have been consumed by contentious wrangling.

    The mayor and Councilman Eddie Baughman wanted to hire the Greater Blythewood Chamber of Commerce. Councilman Sloan Griffin and Donald Brock wanted to hire MPA. Councilman Larry Griffin was initially on the fence until he heard the two applicants’ presentations, then went with MPA, saying that he didn’t think the Chamber had the resources and experience that MPA has.

    “I’m looking for the best for the town,” Councilman Larry Griffin said at the January council meeting, questioning the Chamber’s ability to manage a number of separate services.

    On Feb. 22, 2021, council voted 3-2 to hire MPA for approximately $48,000 a year to provide marketing and grant writing services, with Franklin and Baughman voting against.  That vote was followed by a turbulent contract negotiation that lasted almost two months and involved myriad rumors and accusations concerning Hunter and Brock.

    Dickey filed an FOIA request with the Town on April 15, 2021, asking for copies of Franklin’s texts, emails and other documents concerning MPA and Hunter.

    The next day, April 16, Franklin signed the contract.

    On April 21, Franklin, without council’s consent – as publicly confirmed by former Town Attorney Shannon Burnett at the May 27, 2021, council meeting – approved for Town Administrator Carroll Williamson and Burnett to hire outside counsel David Black to represent the Town pertaining to MPA.

    Hunter went to work at town hall on May 1, 2021.

    During her first month working with the town, Hunter brought in a $10,000 grant from International Paper Company with another $10,000 to follow a couple of months later, which amounted to almost half the Town’s first-year payout to MPA.

    But the FOIA documents requested from Franklin were still outstanding.

    Franklin’s FOIA response to MPA was due May 24, 2021. While Franklin announced in the May 24 town council meeting that he turned his devices over to a third party vendor that day for the responsive documents to be scanned and copied, he did not turn those responsive documents over to Dickey on May 24 – the due date – as required by law.

    It is a violation of S.C. FOIA to not respond to an FOIA request within the statutorily-required time, according to media attorney Taylor Smith, with Harrison Radeker & Smith law firm in Columbia.

    On June 28, 2021, after Franklin’s FOIA response was almost 25 days overdue – not counting weekends and holidays – MPA filed a complaint in the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court of Common Pleas seeking declaratory relief from the Town’s FOIA violation.

     “When information is turned over after a lawsuit is served, that usually means prevailing party status is given to the requester which almost assures they will win and their attorney’s fees and costs will be paid by taxpayer money,” Smith said. 

    Franklin subsequently turned his documents over to Dickey on July 9, 2021, 11 days after MPA filed the FOIA lawsuit.

    More missteps

    There may have been other missteps in how Town officials handled the termination of the Town’s contract with MPA Strategies in a special called town council meeting on July 20, 2021, according to Jay Bender, media attorney with the S.C. Press Association.

    The only business on the agenda at that meeting was an executive session for the stated purpose to “receive legal advice relating to claims and potential claims by and against the Town and other matters covered by attorney-client privilege.”

    Following that executive session, council voted to terminate MPA’s contract, an action not listed on the agenda as a reason for going into executive session. Councilman Sloan Griffin made the following motion: “With the advice of our legal counsel and with the health and harmony amongst this council and your office, I am making a motion to execute in accordance with the advice of our attorney, our 60-day opt-out clause in the MPA contract.”

    Councilman Eddie Baughman seconded the motion.

    Bender said the reason for the executive session was insufficiently specific.

    “Since there was nothing on the agenda to indicate a decision would be made to terminate a contract, no vote could be taken on that matter unless notice was given or a vote taken to amend the agenda to act without notice to the public because of exigent circumstances,” Bender said.

    No notice had been given nor vote taken to amend the agenda.

    In addition, it was disclosed at the special called meeting that Franklin, Town Administrator Carroll Williamson and Town Attorney Shannon Burnett had signed and filed a countersuit against MPA earlier that evening. Three of the five council members – Brock and the two Griffins, the three who had voted to hire MPA – later told The Voice they were not informed that a countersuit was going to be filed against MPA, had not approved it, and had not been asked to vote on it.

    “I would think a vote of council would have been necessary,” Bender said, “unless council had previously given authority to the mayor to make the decision.”

    It had not.

    One other action Bender found possibly illegal about the special called meeting was that the presiding officer, Franklin, was not present at the meeting. He presided virtually via Zoom.

    Town ordinance 30.12 (Remote Meeting Attendance and Participation) passed by council a year earlier states, “The council member acting as the presiding officer must be physically present at the meeting.”

    “I would think a violation of the ordinance would provide a basis to challenge the action taken,” Bender said.

    The only action taken that evening was to terminate MPA’s contract with the Town.

    “Bottom line,” Bender concluded, “the executive session was likely illegal, the vote to terminate the contract was likely illegal, and the entire meeting may have been illegal given the ordinance requirement that the presiding officer be present.”

  • Blythewood reverses decision to release FOIA’d documents

    BLYTHEWOOD – On Monday, Aug. 30, the town reversed its refusal to release responsive documents sought by The Voice from Town Administrator Carroll Williamson through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request 41 days earlier.

    The Voice requested the following documents:

    1) a copy of the contract or letter of engagement that secured the outside legal services of Nexsen Pruet attorney David Black and a copy of documentation of the retainer paid for Mr. Black’s services as well as any subsequent invoices for his services, and

    2) copies of documentation showing whether town attorney Shannon Burnett is being paid for the MPA matter outside her normal agreed-upon annual compensation from the town.

    In the Aug. 30, 2021 response, the Town’s outside counsel, David Black, an attorney with Nexsen Pruet law firm in Columbia, went into lengthy detail clarifying two exemptions that he claimed allows for the Town to withhold the requested documents:

    1)“S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-40(a)(3)(A) provides an exemption to FOIA where the records or information requested would interfere with a prospective law enforcement proceeding. The records and information you have requested would interfere with a prospective law enforcement proceeding.”

    (Black did not explain the nature of that law enforcement proceeding and did not respond to The Voice’s request for copies of subsequent invoices to the Town for his firm’s legal services.)

     2) “S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-40(a)(7) provides an exemption to FOIA for Attorney Work Product and any other material that would violate Attorney-Client Relationships. The records and information you requested will not be provided as it is Attorney Work Product and is also exempt via the Attorney Client Privilege.”

    In a clear reversal of this response, Black, did, however, forward the requested documentation to The Voice with only one paragraph redacted and with the following explanation for his decision to release the documentation to The Voice:

    “While the engagement letter clearly is marked privileged, the Town is producing the redacted version of the engagement letter, subject to and without waiving such privilege, in hopes that such production will put an end to your [The Voice’s] ongoing attempts to assist MPA and Ms. Hunter in their litigation that has damaged the Town. [See Publisher’s Note]

    Besides including the redacted letter of engagement, Black, acknowledged that the Town’s municipal attorney, Shannon Burnett, is not receiving compensation for her work on the MPA lawsuit and the Town’s countersuit outside what she is normally paid by the Town.

    While one paragraph of the engagement letter, dated April 21, 2021, was redacted, the letter disclosed that the Town paid Black an initial $5,000 retainer and that an additional retainer could be required if there is a change in the scope of the engagement such as the firm’s appearance in litigation.

    The Voice has issued a second FOIA to the Town for information pertaining to any additional retainer fees charged to the Town since MPA filed suit against the Town on June 28, 2021.

    The letter of engagement also revealed that Black’s fee is $475 per hour and that another attorney in the firm, who would be assisting the Town, charges a fee of $315 per hour.

    According to the letter, the Town also agreed to pay for any ancillary fees billed to the firm by third parties and any necessary expenses for travel, lodging, meals mileage, copies, computerized research, staff overtime and other expenses related to the terms of the firm’s agreed upon engagement with the Town.

    In an initial Aug. 3, 2021, response to The Voice’s July 20 FOIA request, Black refused to send the letter of engagement and other requested documents, stating that “The Town has advised that it is in possession of responsive records as you describe in your request, however, such records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. 30-4-40(a)(3) and (7).

    The Voice responded on Aug. 20 that, “When an exemption is cited in a written determination response to a S.C. FOIA request, it must be fully stated. Simply citing to 30-4-40(a)(3) does not satisfy your legal requirement to cite an exemption. (a)(3) has seven subsections (A)-(G) and each carries a different rationale to keep information exempt.

    “Until you provide a written determination that includes which exemption you are using – I’m assuming you aren’t saying all seven subsections apply simultaneously – it’s not possible for me to know if I have a right to access information of this/these type(s). Please clarify which of the subsections you are intending to cite for nondisclosure.”

    With no response after a week, The Voice sent another email to Town Administrator Carroll Williamson on Aug. 27, 2021, with a deadline of Aug. 31 for a response. That response (detailed at the beginning of the story) was received on Tuesday, Aug. 30 at 5:42 p.m.

    Publisher’s Note: The Town and Black continue to blame The Voice and others for the predicament it finds itself in, but the reference to The Voice here describes what newspapers do – seek and report information of interest and significance through the use of material gathered from sources and public records.

  • MPA files motion for dismissal of counterclaim

    BLYTHEWOOD – MPA Strategies, LLC has filed a reply to the Town’s counterclaims filed July 20, 2021, in response to a lawsuit filed by MPA Strategies against the town government on June 28, 2021. All the claims and responses were filed in the Court of Common Pleas Fifth Judicial Circuit in Richland County.

    MPA also filed three motions last week, including one to dismiss.

    First Motion

    In the first motion, filed Aug. 18, 2021, MPA seeks to have the Town’s counterclaim dismissed, stating that the counterclaim, as it relates to the executed Marketing Agreement, fails “for being brought in an improper venue in violation of the fully negotiated forum selection clause agreeing to jurisdiction in Lexington County,” where MPA’ offices are located.

    In the motion, MPA also states that the Town’s counterclaims against MPA Strategies, LLC, Ashley Hunter and State and Frink Foundation for fraud, negligent misrepresentation/fraud in the inducement; violation of S.C. Unfair Trade Practices Act; violation of S.C. Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act; civil conspiracy; violation of Federal False Claims Act – 31 U.S. Code Section 3701, et seq.; and negligence/gross negligence, “fail for a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”

    Second Motion

    In its second motion, MPA asks the Court to strike Joseph Dickey, the attorney for Ashley Hunter (MPA’s owner), from being called as a witness in Court.

    MPA states that on July 20, 2021, the Town of Blythewood, “made false and defamatory allegations in its Answer and Counterclaims by naming Plaintiff and Counterclaim defendants MPA Strategies, LLC (“MPA”), State and Frink Foundation (“State and Frink”) and Ashley Hunter’s attorney Joseph D. Dickey, Jr., Esq. (“Dickey”), in its Counterclaims.

    “The Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants [MPA, Ashley Hunter and State and Frink Foundation] can only speculate that the Town is attempting to create a conflict between them [MPA, Ashley Hunter and State and Frink Foundation] and its chosen counsel and/or to fabricate a basis upon which to seek to disqualify their chosen legal counsel [Dickey] from representation going forward,” the motion states.

    “In addition, it seems apparent that the Town seeks to damage Mr. Dickey’s reputation by intentionally making false allegations in its counterclaim.”

    “As there is no basis or other valid reason for Mr. Dickey to be identified, the Counterclaim Defendants respectfully request that his name, any allegations against him, and any reference to him be stricken from the Town’s counterclaims,” the motion states.

    After presenting a lengthy argument about the issue, the motion states that,“The Town’s counsel [David Black with Nexsen Pruet] and in-house counsel [Shannon Burnett] through her verification, falsely has certified to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that Mr. Dickey has committed the crimes of fraud and other related crimes. This false certification has occurred despite these facts,” which are listed in the motion:

    “1. Prior to Joseph Dickey’s first involvement in this matter, Town Attorney Shannon Burnett advised Town Council at a publicly recorded meeting that having non-profit status was not a requirement for a vendor to perform marketing for the Town.

     “2.  Joseph Dickey’s first involvement in this matter was to draft a letter notifying the Town of his representation and concerns about the contract award at the direction of a client.

    “3. Joseph Dickey, once informed, fully disclosed that State and Frink did not have 501(c)(3) status and had no need to obtain it based on the Town’s RFP and applicable law prior to contract execution.

    “4. Joseph Dickey provided Town’s counsel persuasive legal authority supporting MPA and State and Frink receiving State A-tax funds and again notifying the Town that State and Frink did not have 501(c)(3) status prior to execution of the contract.

    “5. Joseph Dickey’s role as counsel for the Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants is simply no Rule 11 basis upon which to make the defamatory accusations that he committed crimes or other dishonest actions.

    “Based upon these facts and under any reasonable objective standard this certification fails and Town’s counsel and officials should be held accountable for their false certifications,” the motion states. “One can only surmise that the identification of Mr. Dickey is part and parcel of a strategy to create conflict where none exists and/or to deprive the Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants of the legal counsel of its choosing,” the motion stated.

    The motion requested the court to issue an order, “striking any and all allegations identifying and falsely accusing Mr. Dickey of committing a crime, silently making him a witness, and requiring the Town to pay the attorneys’ fees and costs associated with filing and arguing this motion.”

    Third Motion

    A third motion requested protection from Court appearances for Dickey for a specified period of time for a family matter.

  • MPA files lawsuit against Town after mayor fails to comply with FOI law

    BLYTHEWOOD – The Town of Blythewood has been at risk of a legal action for almost two months after Mayor Bryan Franklin failed to submit responsive documents to a Freedom of Information request from MPA Strategies, the town’s newly contracted marketing and grant writing firm.

    On Tuesday, June 28, MPA filed that legal action against the Town, stating that, “The Town still has not complied with the plaintiff’s request and has demonstrated no intent to comply with the law.”

    MPA is asking for a declaratory judgment and for injunctive relief pursuant to and under the authority of S.C. Code 30-4-10, et seq., which is known as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

    MPA filed the complaint in the Court of Common Pleas Fifth Judicial Circuit in Richland County.

    In the complaint, Joseph D. Dickey, Jr., attorney for MPA, said that on or around November, 2020, the Town contacted MPA concerning proposed marketing and grant writing services. The Voice has previously reported that former Blythewood Town Administrator Brian Cook suggested the Town consider contacting Ashley Hunter, MPA’s owner and CEO, to provide those services, as she was providing similar services for a number of other towns in South Carolina who, he said, were pleased with her work.

    According to the complaint, council initiated a request for proposal (RFP) for marketing and grant writing services on Dec. 30, 2020.

    Nonprofit not required in RFP

    The complaint states that the RFP did not require applicants to be a nonprofit, tax exempt organization or eligible to receive state accommodation tax funds to be responsive.

    In addition to MPA’s RFP, the Town also received submissions from NP Strategy and the Greater Blythewood Chamber of Commerce.

    The contract was subsequently awarded to MPA over the Chamber of Commerce by a town council majority vote of 3-2 on Feb. 22, 2021.

    Franklin and Councilman Eddie Baughman were the two dissenting votes, favoring the Chamber of Commerce over MPA.

    The complaint states that while having a nonprofit entity was never a requirement of the Town’s RFP, the Town subsequently advised MPA that it would be beneficial for MPA to become a nonprofit entity. The complaint stated that MPA complied, establishing the nonprofit State and Frink Foundation.

    “Despite awarding the contract, the Town then required MPA to further negotiate the contract outside the parameters of the original RFP,” the complaint states.

    The contract was negotiated by Franklin with assistance from Town Attorney Shannon Burnett and Town Administrator Carroll Williamson.

    Stalled Negotiations and Rumors

    After almost two months of unsuccessful negotiations and because at least two town officials had spread rumors about Hunter to the media and other town officials, MPA submitted a written FOIA request to the Town on April 15, 2021, in which MPA asked for all documents from Franklin’s devices relating to MPA pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. 10-4-10, et seq.

    The mayor signed the contract the next day and sent it to Hunter to sign.

    MPA’s FOIA request sought disclosure of, among other things, certain documents and recordings from Mayor Bryan Franklin related to MPA, Ashley Hunter and State and Frink Foundation, MPA’s nonprofit entity.

    Town Charges $500 FOIA Fee

    On April 20, Franklin authorized retaining Black to represent the Town in it’s dealings with MPA.

    On April 23, 2021, MPA received correspondence from Black acknowledging receipt of MPA’s FOIA request and advised the cost of copying documents….10 cents per page plus $10 per hour for copying and a fee of $500 to pull email and text messages per device for the electronic data sought through the FOIA.

    Three days later Dickey responded, questioning, “the excessive fee of $500 for a third party vendor to check devices.” After receiving no reply from Black, the complaint states that Dickey sent a follow up email on May 5, 2021, inquiring if Town’s response was to be received no later than May 24, 2021, the due date for the Town to submit the documents.

    On April 29, The Country Chronicle newspaper sent FOIA requests to all five Blythewood town councilmen for documents concern MPA Strategies. On May 7, Black emailed Dickey stating that the Town had decided to waive all FOIA charges previously quoted and that, “a response by May 24 was ‘highly optimistic.’”

    More Response Delays

    On May 24, according to the complaint, Dickey emailed the Town stating there had been no communication from the Town since May 7, 2021, and that, “today is the deadline for the Town to respond with the requested information.”

    According to the complaint, about 45 minutes later, Black responded.

    “As we discussed, your FOIA request overlaps with several other requests for the same data. All of the data is being pulled by an independent contractor [TCDI]. We are still in the process of pulling all of the data,” Black wrote.

    Franklin had insisted publicly and repeatedly that all council members were required to submit all their devices – personal and town issued – to Black to be processed through TCDI. The Freedom of Information Act, however, does not require that FOIA responses be processed in that manner.

    The complaint stated that Black said the independent contractor would pull all documents from all the devices and that he would then determine which documents were responsive and submit them to the requestors. Not all of the councilmen wanted to submit their personal devices to be scanned and said they would submit texts, emails and other documents themselves or through their own attorneys.

    “I do believe we are entitled to a timeframe of which to expect responses,” Dickey replied, according to the complaint. “Is that something the Town is unable to provide?”

    Black emailed back, “Correct. I am unable to provide you a timeframe until we get all of the data from all devices. Thanks for your understanding. Additionally, you have made allegations that a town employee made some form of defamatory or improper comment regarding your client,” Black wrote. “If you could elaborate on that it may help me expedite things.”

    Dickey responded on May 26.

    “The mayor has publicly stated his information has been submitted. Therefore, I don’t understand the delay,” Dickey wrote. “I only requested data from the Mayor, so I am unsure of “all devices” you reference. The information you’re requesting has nothing to do with the Town or you complying with the FOIA request. Let me know when to expect a full response.”

    Black replied on May 26, that, “in order to waive the $500 per device charge, we negotiated a bulk rate for all of the devices. We are unable to process until the vendor receives all the devices. On email it is pulled and being reviewed,” Black wrote. “We may be able to get you the email before the texts.”

    Dickey pointed out that, “Notably, the Town remarkably was able to timely respond to the County Chronicle’s April 29, 2021 FOIA request as confirmed through the newspaper’s June 17, 2021 article.”

    The Freedom of Information Act provides that any person has a right to inspect or copy any public record of a public body, except as otherwise provided by state statute 30-4-40. The statute also provides that a S.C. public body in receipt of written FOIA request, “shall within ten days (except Saturdays, Sundays and legal public holidays) of the receipt of any request notify the person making each request of its determination and the reasons thereof.”

    In the complaint, Dickey stated that, “If the request is granted, the public body must, no later than thirty calendar days from the date on which the final determination was provided, must furnish the requestor with records.”

    The June 28 complaint states that MPA has not been provided any of the requested records, all of which were due May 24, 2021.

    In the complaint, MPA asks the Court to declare that the Town of Blythewood violated the FOIA in failing to maintain public records and in failing to produce records in response to a request. Dickey is also asking the Court to require the Town to immediately respond and produce the responsive documents as required by law.

    The complaint also asks for “attorney fees and costs incurred by MPA in bringing this action and prosecuting it.”

    UPDATE: On July 9, Black emailed the responsive documents to both MPA and The Voice. Those sent to The Voice included 1,886 documents, a very large portion of which are documents that make no mention of MPA, (i.e. a notice that the Board of Zoning Appeals will not meet, copies of months and months of the agendas and agenda packets for all town board and committee meetings, notice of events at Blythewood High School, information about funding Movies in the Park, etc.) Most of the documents are duplicated, some as many as four or five times. The 1,886 documents are in no particular order, and it is not discernable who many of the texts messages are from are to.