Tag: slider

  • Teacher Village door remains open

    Dr. J.R. Green, superintendent of the Fairfield County School District (right), urges Fairfield County Council to support the Teacher Village as Council Chairman Neil Robinson looks on. | Photos: Michael Smith

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County is one vote away from approving tax abatements for the Teacher Village, a proposed Fairfield County School District housing project intended to cater to teachers.

    But what agreement Fairfield County may ultimately reach with the school district still remain under wraps.

    After spending 20 minutes behind closed doors Monday night, County Council voted 7-0 to move forward with an ordinance that provides economic development incentives to Gorelick Brothers Capital, a Charlotte, North Carolina investment firm interested in building the Teacher Village.

    Council members did not publicly discuss the Teacher Village agreement. Council Chairman Neil Robinson told council members not to discuss specifics in open session.

    Seeking to assure residents over the lack of details, Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas said full disclosure of the agreement would come before final reading, which could be scheduled as soon as the Sept. 9 meeting.

    “This will be explained in full before we have third reading,” he said.

    In its current form, the proposed Fairfield County Teacher Village would consist of 30 homes constructed on 22 acres the district owns behind the district office in Winnsboro.

    Teachers would receive first priority, followed by school district employees, then first responders. Another 30 homes would be built if the first phase is successful.

    Rent subsidies of $300 per month would be reserved for teachers only, with monthly rent ranging between $600 and $900, depending on the home. The subsidies would come from funding included in a state budget proviso.

    Gorelick is also asking Fairfield County Council for a seven-year tax abatement totaling about $600,000.

    The final percentage of the tax abatement hasn’t been decided. Gorelick and the county are currently haggling over what the final percentage should be.

    Another major sticking point for the county is the inclusion of an indemnification clause.

    At a joint meeting in November 2018, former Council Chairman Billy Smith pushed for verbiage that would indemnify Fairfield County should any litigation arise relating to the Teacher Village.

    Smith also wanted an agreement to cover Fairfield’s legal expenses should any arise. It was unclear as of press time whether or not either condition found its way into the agreement now under consideration.

    At the November 2018 meeting, Superintendent Dr. J.R. Green said he didn’t think the Teacher Village would drag Fairfield County into litigation. He voiced concerns that delaying action might jeopardize the project.

    “If that’s the takeaway, that’s not reasonable,” Green said. “I don’t know how Gorelick is going to respond to this. The longer this stretches out, the more the likelihood Gorelick pulls out.”

    Supporters plead for Village

    Councilwoman Bertha Goins, a major supporter of the Teacher Village, said the project is needed for economic development and also to provide adequate housing in Fairfield County.

    Fairfield County Councilwoman Bertha Goins expresses her support for the Teacher Village at Monday night’s council meeting.

    “Without going into detail, I’d say we’re looking at the finish line. I did not take this project lightly, I did not take this decision likely,” Goins said.

    Five of the six area residents speaking in public input spoke in support of the Teacher Village.

    Fairfield Elementary teacher Theresa Wiggins told council members the commute from her home in northeast Columbia to work is long, but Winnsboro lacks adequate housing.

    Dr. Jim Rex, former S.C. Superintendent of Education, whose wife serves on a Fairfield County school district foundation that worked on the Teacher Village, also spoke in favor of the housing project.

    “You have the opportunity tonight to do something truly historic,” Rex said. “I urge you not to let this opportunity pass.”

    Lisa Ellis, board member of S.C. for ED, a teacher advocacy group, spoke earlier in the week with The Voice. Ellis said she thinks the Teacher Village and similar teacher housing projects may be more valuable to younger teachers saddled by student loan debt.

    A former Fairfield County teacher now working in Richland Two, Ellis said higher pay is generally more important to veteran teachers than publicly funded housing. Ellis also thinks housing subsidies might make more sense in high cost of living areas, such as California or New York.

    “Ultimately it depends upon where you are in your teaching career,” she said. “If you’re brand new, out of college, it may be a pro for you. (Veteran teachers) have a house, have a mortgage.”

  • Residents call out Trapp’s absences

    WINNSBORO – He represents Fairfield County’s largest council district, but Mikel Trapp has been spending the least amount of time at council meetings. 

    Mikel Trapp

    Re-elected in 2018, the District 3 Councilman has been absent for six council meetings or budget workshops so far in 2019, according to County Council minutes.

    Trapp has also left early on another six occasions, his departure times ranging from 6:43 p.m. to 7:01 p.m., including Monday night when he left before the council discussed revisions to the county administrator’s contract.

    Trapp hasn’t attended a full council meeting since May 14, council minutes show. He couldn’t be reached for comment Tuesday.

    The public is taking notice of Trapp’s truancy.

    Three residents took to the podium Monday night to voice disapproval of Trapp’s absences. 

    An empty chair marks where Fairfield County Councilman Mikel Trapp normally sits during council meetings. Trapp left early for the third meeting in a row, drawing objections from Fairfield County resident Chris Griffiths (standing), who during public comments asked council members to reprimand Trapp. Seated at left is Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas. | Michael Smith

    One of those residents was Chris Griffiths, who expressed frustration that some county residents essentially aren’t being represented. Griffiths called upon the remaining council members to hold Trapp accountable.

    “There’s nothing that anybody can do other than contacting the governor’s office and getting that elected official removed,” Griffiths said. “I find it very offensive that the chair for the District 3 is empty right now and it’s consistently empty. I feel this is extremely wrong.”

    “The gentleman who came up here before, I agree with 100 percent,” added county resident Jeff Schaffer. “Do something about it. You can’t have a council member who does nothing, gets elected to sit here, doesn’t vote, doesn’t participate and gets paid. People have to go to work every day; if they don’t go to work, they get fired.”

    Ridgeway resident Randy Bright suggested docking council member pay as a deterrent.

    “This is an embarrassment to the county,” Bright said. “I’ve attended far more meetings. I’m a senior citizen who had a total knee replacement earlier in the year and have missed only one council meeting. I can’t imagine any excuse for this. You guys are too good, too smart to let it continue.”

    Fairfield County Council’s rules of procedure address attendance, but don’t mention any penalties for violations.

    “Fairfield County Council respects the State of South Carolina’s Constitution as it relates to fulfilling the duties of office as an elected representative of Fairfield County and our oath of office,” the policy states. “Each member of Council should attend every public meeting as scheduled by a majority of Council.”

    Other South Carolina counties are conspicuously mum on how they address chronic absenteeism as well.

    In Berkeley County, excessive absenteeism is reviewed on a case-by-case basis, though the council “reserves the right to take any action it deems appropriate at that time,” according to that county’s rules of procedure.

    Georgetown County Council doesn’t specifically address attendance, but council members can be censured for violating decorum and debate rules. 

    Florence’s attendance policy merely states members shall attend meetings and that only the chairman may excuse an absence.

    Aiken County’s rules only address long term absences of the chairman, merely stating that “state statutes” shall govern how to proceed following “his/her inability to perform the duties of the chair.”

    Traditionally, the governor may remove a council member for committing a felony or “crime of moral turpitude,” according to state law.

    S.C. Attorney General opinions generally state that local governments possess the power to discipline its own members, including by ejection.

    But the office also cautions city and county councils to strike a balance between enforcing the rules and not violating First Amendment protections.

    Here’s a rundown of Trapp’s attendance record for the last three months, according to council meeting minutes. The meetings start at 6 p.m. The time of Trapp’s departure and when the meeting adjourned are noted where relevant.

    Aug. 26 – Left 6:56 p.m.; adjourned 8:15 p.m.

    Aug. 12 – Left 6:25 p.m.; adjourned 8:45 p.m.

    July 22 – Absent

    July 8 – Left 6:43 p.m.; adjourned 8:10 p.m.

    June 24 – Left 6:52 p.m., adjourned 8:47 p.m.

    June 10 – Absent

  • Sheriff seeks shooting suspect

    Bouknight

    WINNSBORO – The Fairfield County Sheriff’s Office is seeking a suspect involved in a recent shooting incident in the Poplar Street area of Winnsboro.

    Charles Bouknight, 30, is wanted for 4 counts of Attempted Murder, Possession of a Weapon during a Violent Crime and Discharging a Firearm into a Dwelling during an incident that occurred Saturday, Aug. 17th in the 400 block of Poplar Street.

    If anyone has information regarding his location or this incident, they are asked to contact the Fairfield County Sheriff’s Office (803-635-4141) or Crimestoppers (1-888-CRIMESC or 1-888-274-6372). If anyone sees Bouknight, they are urged to immediately call 911.

  • BHS coach accused of recruiting RVHS players

    Some R2 Board Members Say
    They Were Not Told About Violations

    BLYTHEWOOD – An investigation aired last week by WIS-TV reported that Blythewood High School Head Coach Jason Seidel violated Richland School District Two’s “position on recruiting” by attempting to spirit away several football players from other Richland Two schools, including three from Ridge View High School, to play football for Blythewood High School.

    Seidel

    While numerous recruiting violations by Seidel reportedly occurred between mid-December, 2018 and the end of January, 2019, that information was not publicly acknowledged by the District until it was contacted on Aug. 14 by WIS which aired the story on Aug. 16.

    At least one Richland Two School Board member said she was not made aware of Seidel’s recruiting violations by administration until the day before the story appeared on WIS.

    In a statement issued last week after being contacted by WIS, Chief Communications Officer for the District, Libby Roof, reported that the District has since taken “appropriate personnel action with the coach for violations of the District’s position on recruiting.”

    The WIS report stated, however, that Ridge View High School officials were not satisfied with how the District handled the matter and, in March, 2019, appealed the District’s actions. While the District reported additional meetings with Ridge View officials and a meeting with the S.C. High School League, no further actions by the District were reported.

    Roof stated in an email to The Voice on Monday that, “at this time, the District considers the matter to be closed.”

    In a statement released last week, Roof gave a timeline of what the District knew about the reported recruitment violations and when they learned about them.

    “In January, 2019, Ridge View’s principal [Brenda Mack-Foxworth] reported possible recruitment of current football players by a Blythewood High football coach and a parent,” the District’s report stated.

    WIS reported last week that numerous tweets were exchanged between Seidel and Ridge View players during January, 2019.

    As reported by WIS, “In an exchange with Player A, on Jan. 13, Seidel stated, ‘The quicker you guys get here, the more I can do with you in the weight room.’ Seidel added, ‘Let the guys know that.’ ”

    The complete list of tweets is posted on the WIS website.

    A school district administrator conducted an investigation, according to the District’s statement, met with Seidel “and took appropriate personnel action with the coach for violations of the district’s position on recruiting,” according to the statement released by the District.

    The District’s Chief Administrative Services Officer met with Mack-Foxworth and Ridge View’s athletic director to explain that the District had informed the S.C. High School League of the possible recruitment violations, but that “SCHSL informed the district that due to the fact that the students who were contacted did not transfer, no violation with SCHSL occurred,” according to the District statement.

    Mack-Foxworth and Ridge View’s athletic director were also informed that the District had taken “appropriate personnel actions” against Seidel in response to the results of their its investigation.

    According to reports, however, Ridge View administrators were not satisfied with how Richland Two handled the matter and, in March, 2019, Mack-Foxworth submitted an appeal to the Richland Two Assistant Superintendent for middle schools and high schools to request the collection of evidence against Seidel be submitted to the SCHSL, and to verify that the consequences for the Blythewood High coach “reflect the time and resources spent in investigating” the possible recruitment violation.

    In response to Mack-Foxworth’s appeal, district administrators met with the SCHSL on April 12 “and shared the written evidence of the situation.” Again, the SCHSL confirmed that “since the students who were contacted did not transfer, no violation with SCHSL occurred. Any consequences to the coach would be left to the District.”

    The District officials will not disclose the specific actions taken against Seidel, saying, “personnel matters are confidential” and cannot be shared with Ridge View administrators.

    “Richland School District Two takes recruitment violations seriously and believes that everyone must abide by the spirit of the rule in order to remain fair, consistent and honorable throughout all of our schools’ athletic programs,” according to the District’s statement.

    The District Two athletics manual provides the following regarding recruiting: “Recruiting of prospective students for athletic purposes is a serious ethical violation of the philosophy and ideals of interscholastic athletics and will be treated as such. For purposes of this section, recruiting is defined as an attempt by an individual(s) or group associated with a school to entice a student to attend or to transfer to a school for athletic purposes through the exertion of undue influence or any special treatment.”

    The District disclosed that, at the beginning of each school year, all coaches in the district must review the district’s Athletic Staff Operations Manual and sign a form stating that they agree to read the manual and adhere to all rules and regulations.

    Seidel’s Blythewood Bengals face off against the Ridge View Blazers Friday night in the season opener at 7:30 in the District Two stadium that is located at Blythewood High School but shared by both schools.

  • R2 board votes 12.3% pay hike for Super

    Board Split Over Size of Raise, Polling

    COLUMBIA – It’s been a profitable summer for Dr. Baron Davis, superintendent of the Richland Two school district.

    On July 1, Davis’ salary rose from $191,904 to $197,661 after he accepted a STEP increase coupled with a 1 percent raise the district gave administrators.

    Six weeks later, the Richland Two Board of trustees tacked on another 12.3 percent, elevating the superintendent’s base pay to $221,973, fifth highest in the state, according to public records.

    William Royster, superintendent of Greenville County schools, leads the state at $253,636, followed by Gerrita Postlewait (Charleston-$233,000), Rick Maxey (Horry-$230,869) and Darryl Owings (Spartanburg 6-$224,924).

    On Aug. 13, the Richland Two board voted 5-2 in favor of Davis’ increase, which includes a two-year contract extension and a 2.5 percent increase in annuity contributions. Davis also can only be dismissed by supermajority (5-2) vote.

    Trustees Monica Elkins-Johnson and Lindsay Agostini voted in opposition.

    Elkins-Johnson said aside from objecting to the supermajority clause, she supports Davis. 

    “I want to publicly apologize to you Dr. Davis because I support 75 percent of your contract. There is only one item that I have an issue with and that is the supermajority,” she said. 

    Elkins-Johnson also claimed Board Chairman James Manning polled board members.

    “We were polled by the chair. He made a phone call and polled the board prior to, so I will not be supporting this,” Elkins-Johnson said during the meeting.

    Manning said he did occasionally speak with board members about the contract, but never polled anybody.

    While she voted against the contract, Agostini also said she didn’t get the perception that Manning polled other board members.

    “He did not poll me. He and I had a conversation about where I stood, as I frequently have discussions with other board members to discuss or seek clarity,” Agostini said in phone interview Tuesday. “It’s not uncommon for us to speak outside of a board meeting.”

    She did voice concerns about the supermajority clause, as well as the size of Davis’ raise. 

    “I, too, am unable to support the new contract based upon the supermajority vote,” Agostini said on Aug. 13. “I also have a concern about setting precedent with such a large salary increase.”

    Agostini said she would have been more comfortable approving an increase that would have placed Davis in the $200,000 and $205,000 a year range.

    “I don’t have an exact percentage,” she said Tuesday. “I do believe that he deserves a raise.”

    Trustee Teresa Holmes also thought the supermajority clause was improper, though she ultimately voted for the contract.

    “I am not in agreement with the five-vote (clause in the) contract,” Holmes said. “When we make policies, we can’t make policies for one specific person.”

    State law doesn’t specifically prohibit public bodies from instituting supermajority thresholds to approve a measure.

    In 2017, an S.C. Attorney General Office opinion said a Greenville County ordinance requiring a supermajority vote to enact a fee paying for a new communications system didn’t violate state law.

    “Courts have consistently recognized the basic principal that a local ordinance, just like a state statute, is presumed to be valid as enacted unless or until a court declares it to be invalid,” the opinion states.

    Manning said the supermajority clause has been in previous Richland Two superintendent contracts, and it’s only fair to include it in Davis’ contract.

    “Dr. Davis has proven himself to be an exceptional leader,” Manning said. “We were simply bringing his contract in line with where we had other superintendents.”

    As to the raise, Manning said Davis deserved 12.3 percent because of his vast responsibilities leading one of the state’s biggest districts.

    “You could look that as a huge increase or you can look at that he’s an at will employee who serves at the will of the board and can be terminated at any point,” Manning said. “There is some additional risk in his position that most of our staff do not have.”

    The raise Davis received is substantially more than the 2.5 percent increase he got in September 2018. It’s also greater than the 4 percent raises – newer teachers received more – included in the state’s 2019-2020 budget.

    Lisa Ellis, a board member for SC for ED, a teacher advocacy group that led a State House rally in May calling for higher educator pay, said school districts in general should dedicate less money to administration and more into the classroom.

    “We worked hard at the state level all year to try to get that salary increase,” Ellis said. “Money is not really getting into the classroom. [School districts] are spending money at the district office. For teachers, that’s a really frustrating place for them to spend it.”

  • Council raises pay for Admin, clerk

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County Council recently approved salary increases for the county administrator and clerk to council, though votes to do so were not unanimous. 

    At the Aug. 12 meeting, council members voted 4-2 to increase the pay of County Administrator Jason Taylor by 5 percent. In 2018, Taylor received a 3.44 percent increase.

    The council also voted to give Davis a 2 percent raise.

    Council members Douglas Pauley and Moses Bell voted against the increases. Councilman Mikel Trapp left the meeting prior to the vote.

    There was no discussion after the votes and the meeting adjourned.

    Reached by phone this past Monday, Pauley said his nay vote was not a reflection on either Taylor or Davis.

    Pauley said they’re both excellent employees, but noted Taylor and Davis already had received a 3 percent cost of living adjustment, or COLA, along with most other county employees in the 2019-2020 budget.

    The only exception was the sheriff’s office, whose employees received 6 percent.

    “I don’t like that they [Taylor and Davis] were compensated in the COLA raise, and then the council chose to vote for an additional raise,” Pauley said. “Last year we did a merit based system. That’s what I wanted to do this year.”

    Taylor’s base pay prior to July 1 was $129,297.52. The combined COLA and merit raises totaling 8 percent translates to $10,343.80, which would elevate Taylor’s pay to $139,641.32.

    Taylor’s base pay is slightly below the U.S. median of $142,674 for county administrators, according to a 2019 survey conducted by the International City/County Management Association, or ICMA

    The ICMA study found that the median salary rose 2.3 percent from 2018, and that more than 81 percent of county administrators received a merit raise, COLA or combination of both.

  • School Board spars over new policies

    Hartman: Proposed Policies are Attempt to Control Information, Shut Down Dissent

    WINNSBORO – The Fairfield County School District is taking steps some trustees say are designed to muzzle anyone offering alternative viewpoints.

    At Tuesday night’s monthly meeting, the Fairfield board passed first reading of a pair of policies – one a revision and one a new policy – addressing board member communications.

    An amendment to Policy BEDB restricts questions board members can ask during meetings. The other, BEDL, is a new policy crafted by Board Chairman William Frick that prohibits board members from using electronic devices to communicate with others during meetings.

    The vote to amend BEDB passed 5-1-1. Paula Hartman voted in opposition and Joe Seibles abstained

    The new policy, BEDL, passed 6-1 with Hartman opposing.

    Hartman often casts the lone opposing vote on a board that typically votes in lockstep. She vehemently objected to the policy changes.

    “This is an attempt by the chair, by the superintendent to control information that the public has a right to hear,” Hartman said. “This is simply an attempt to control information and board members you don’t agree with. The amendment is abuse of power to shut out dissent.”

    Hartman continued by asking if the district’s legal counsel had reviewed the policies. Frick said they had not.

    A revision to policy BEDB would compel trustees to present any questions about an agenda item to the superintendent before the meeting.

    “Requests for additional information shall be specific and relevant to the topics on the agenda,” the revised policy states. “Onerous requests or ‘fishing expeditions’ shall be denied.”

    Board member Joe Seibles also voiced concerns about policy BEDB, saying he fears that legitimate questions could be perceived as capricious.

    “My knowledge base may not be at a point where it needs to be,” he said. “What criteria are we using to determine what’s real and what’s phishing?”

    The new policy titled BEDL would bar trustees from communicating electronically with the public during board meetings. 

    The impetus for that policy started with a recent claim by board chairman William Frick.

    In an email obtained by The Voice, Frick wrote — without providing any factual evidence for his claim — that “some board members are engaging in electronic communication with members of the public, including media,” during public meetings. 

    Asked after the meeting if he had attempted to confirm these accusations, Frick said he had not.

    “This conduct will no longer be tolerated,” the email says. “Such behavior is disruptive, inappropriate and likely violates public participation in meetings and receiving information requests from the media.”

    The policy, however, permits board members to communicate with family members during meetings.

    Frick did not say how he would discern who a board member was texting or emailing with. He also did not say what the consequences would be for violations.

    Board members are also encouraged to use devices to conduct research, provided they are “limited to purposes of the meeting.” Examples include viewing board materials or polices, according to BEDL.

    Frick also said during the meeting and afterwards in an interview with The Voice that Hartman had stood up to take a picture during the July meeting, and that it disturbed him.

    The Voice didn’t observe Hartman stand up. She said she took a photo of the audience with an iPad. The District’s video of the meeting is no longer available for viewing on YouTube.

    The S.C. Freedom of Information Act specifically allows anyone at a public meeting to record the proceedings. It doesn’t exempt elected officials.

    Section 30-4-90(c ) states: “All or any part of a meeting of a public body may be recorded by any person in attendance by means of a tape recorder or any other means of sonic or video reproduction” except during executive session.

    The law defines the threshold of a disturbance as being “active interference with the conduct of the meeting.” The Voice did not observe any discernable interference due to photography.

    Jay Bender, a media law attorney with the South Carolina Press Association, of which The Voice is a member, said board members are allowed to take photos during meetings and disputed whether raising an iPad from the dais constituted a disruption or interference.

    Relating to Policy BEDL, the policy prohibiting board member electronic communications, Bender said it likely violates First Amendment protections.

    “I cannot imagine how that [policy] would be legitimate. That’s a classic First Amendment problem,” Bender said. “It’s the substance of the communication that the government wants to block here, which makes it suspect constitutionally.”

    Frick said – again, without presenting evidence to support his claim – that the use of electronic devices has become a distraction.  He also said several school boards in the state have similar policies.

    As to policy BEDB, which relates to board agendas, Bender didn’t think requiring trustees to request information in advance violated any laws.

    However, he does think such policies make it easier for public bodies to avoid accountability.

    “The superintendent is probably afraid somebody is going to ask a question he can’t answer and will make him look bad,” Bender said. “What the chair and superintendent are trying to do is limit the information that can come to the one engaged board member.”

    Frick acknowledged the policy originated after Hartman asked about the cost of the Honors Chorus’ recent trip to Italy.

    Frick said he considered that to be a surprise question.

     “What we’re saying is you can’t ask a surprise question,” Frick said.

    The “surprise question” Hartman asked was an inquiry at the July meeting about how much the Italy trip cost and how many people went on the trip. Superintendent Dr. J.R. Green said at the meeting that he was unable to say.

    Green said it’s unreasonable to expect him to know on command the cost of any district expense, calling Hartman’s questions part of a “gotcha game.”

    “If you ask me a question for a specific dollar figure, it would be unreasonable to suggest I have these figures off the top of my head,” Green said. “There was no expectation that we were even going to discuss the Italy trip.”

    Discussion of the Italy trip, however, was actually initiated by the Superintendent’s Report portion of the agenda, in which Green and other board members discussed and praised the Honors Chorus’ trip. Hartman’s financial question came up during that discussion.

    At Tuesday night’s meeting, Green said the trip cost $77,102.

    In January, the board kicked in $30,000 to help defray costs of the trip, leaving $47,102 from students and their families, Green said.

  • County, FCSD disagree on ‘Promise’

    WINNSBORO – Fairfield County and the Fairfield County school district still have some homework to finish before a plan allowing students to attend college at no cost takes effect.

    County Council on Monday approved its version which would cover college costs for qualifying Fairfield County students enrolling in Midlands Technical College’s Winnsboro campus.

    The vote was 5-1 with Councilman Douglas Pauley opposing. Councilman Mikel Trapp left the meeting before the vote, which followed a 60-minute executive session.

    However, it is not clear exactly what the council actually approved.

    Council members voted to “approve the Promise Program agreement as amended,” according to the motion to approve.

    It was not disclosed in public session what those amendments are.

    Council Chairman Neil Robinson wouldn’t release a copy of the agreement or even a summary of the new amendments, saying after the meeting that the county’s attorney needed time to draft the formal document.

    The S.C. Freedom of Information Act states that negotiations incident to proposed contracts can be discussed behind closed doors, but contracts themselves become public once entered into.

    “These documents are not exempt from disclosure once a contract is entered into,” the law reads.

    The Promise Program’s reception has been mixed since the school district announced the proposal in May.

    A majority of school board and council members have touted the Promise Program as an opportunity for Fairfield students to receive a college education that otherwise would remain out of reach. They also see it as a way to facilitate economic development.

    Critics have raised concerns about cost, lack of course offerings and accountability.

    On Monday night, Ridgeway resident Randy Bright said while he supports the Promise Program’s general premise, the lack of course offerings at MTC concern him.

    “We need to leverage MTC. We need to offer enough classes to make this a viable situation for our Fairfield County students,” Bright said. “The last time I looked the Fall schedule had 12 entire classes. Most of them were germane to basic studies. It needs to be a more robust program.”

    Differences between the agreement signed by the school district last month and what some council members say they want to approve for the Promise Program were enough to concern Councilman Moses Bell, but not enough for him to vote against the deal.

    “Let me discuss my reservation to the new agreement. At this point we do not know whether they [school board members] agree. Do we give them a courtesy review?” Bell asked. “We may be looked upon as a group that can’t keep its word. Yes, I definitely want the promise program to educate the students of Fairfield County, regardless of circumstance.”

    While one council member told The Voice that the school district jumped the gun by signing an agreement last month that the county had not yet agreed to, Bell said he thought the school district should have been allowed to view the county’s modifications before it gave final approval on Monday night.

    Robinson said the county would share its version of the contract [with the school district] now that it is approved.

    “The reason they haven’t got any copies is because this is the official [document] we’ve agreed upon now … I’m sure they will view it and make notes as they see fit.”

    However, at least one council member disagrees that the council has actually approved an agreement at all.

    Councilman Jimmy Ray Douglas told The Voice that council’s vote was only ‘approving’ that the Promise Program is a good thing, not a vote for approval of the agreement that was presented to them in executive session.

    The agreement that was included in the school board packet and voted on was identified as a Memorandum of Understanding.

    Councilwoman Bertha Goins said it is only natural that the agreement the council approved Monday night would evolve from the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed in July. But the July 8 MOU ‘agreement’ signed by representatives of the council, school board and Midlands Tech was half a page long and lacked specifications that were included in the three-page agreement approved later in July by the school board.

    “It’s my understanding this began with the [July 8] MOU to understand the process,” Goins said. “Both parties have the discretion of choosing their own avenue of how to do the proceeds.”

    The Fairfield County school board’s meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Aug. 20. It will be held at the District Office Auditorium, with executive session starting at 6 p.m. and the regular meeting following.

    An agenda for the meeting had not been published as of Tuesday, though the Promise Program is likely to be discussed.

  • County rebranding transit system image

    At Monday night’s council meeting, Demetria Holmes, director of the Fairfield County Transit System (seated), prepares to deliver a report about agency improvements. | Michael Smith

    WINNSBORO – Demetria Holmes wants to put Fairfield County in the driver’s seat when it comes to mass transit.

    Holmes, director of the Fairfield County Transit System, said at Monday night’s council meeting that the agency is launching a marketing plan to take back its role as public transportation for the county population as a whole. She plans to accomplish this by linking to more routes, expanding existing ones and partnering with The COMET, short for the Columbia Midlands Regional Transit Authority.

    Holmes told The Voice that, over the years, the public perception has developed that the county’s transit system is primarily intended for Medicaid patients.

    “That’s not the case,” Holmes said. “It is the county bus system for everyone in the county.”

    To change the public’s perception and the transit system’s image, Holmes has launched a plan to extend some routes and touch all areas of the county and beyond. That plan includes the joint venture with the COMET, called the Killian Road Express, that will link Fairfield routes with Richland and Lexington county routes.

    Holmes has also hired a marketing firm to come up with a new logo, perhaps a catchy phrase and even design a colorful wrap for at least some of the buses.

    Reviving Funding

    Holmes said expanding public transit is vital to the Fairfield system, which has faced federal funding roadblocks.

    Formed in 1988, the county system has traditionally relied on a combination of federal grants and state funds to keep operations rolling.

    In 2012, the agency started providing Medicaid transportation services, which have quickly loaded up passenger counts.

    Holmes said Medicaid passengers have accounted for 300,000 miles a year while public transit makes up only 34,000 miles. Medicaid passengers account for about 1,500 trips per month compared to a few dozen public passenger trips, she said.

    As public transit dropped off, so did the federal rural transportation grant that Fairfield had received, with funding dropping from $300,000 to $129,000.

    In addition, Medicaid revenues have been relatively flat, fluctuating between $318,000 and $360,000 the past three years. Expenses, however, have continued to rise, causing Medicaid transportation to operate at a deficit the last two years, Holmes said.

    “It’s not paying for itself,” she said. “But it’s a service that I do think that residents need. That’s why we’re turning it back to public [transit] so we can draw more money from the [federal] grant. That’s why we’re rebranding the system so it’s not just Medicaid.”

    COMET Connection

    On Aug. 5, Fairfield County launched its Killian Road Express (COMET) service. Buses leave Fairfield County Transit and stop at 10 locations around town before proceeding to the Killian Road Superstop.  The Killian Superstop is located in Walmart parking lot. From there, passengers can transfer to The COMET bus or patronize businesses in the surrounding areas.

    Fairfield County pickups start at 7 a.m., and include locations such as the Bi-Lo Plaza, the old Walmart Plaza, Winnsboro Plaza, and other spots around Winnsboro.

    Fares are $3 one-way and busses operate Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.

    County Administrator Jason Taylor said partnering with The COMET doesn’t come with any additional costs while also increasing transportation opportunities.

    “I think we’ve come up with a very good solution,” Taylor said.

    In coming days, Fairfield County Transit plans to accelerate marketing of the new services.

    “It’s really just getting started,” Holmes said.

    Councilwoman Bertha Goins praised Holmes and the agency for pursuing a partnership with The Comet.

    “Kudos, that’s all I can say. Any time you can connect with someone to make quality of life better, that’s a good thing,” Goins said. “That’s what the future is all about. Never be afraid to partner with other people to try new ideas.”

    Transit-Go Route

    Another new service, Holmes said, is the Transit-Go route, a demand response service, which also launched Aug. 5.

    “Transit-Go is a general public dial-a-ride service that offers curb-to-curb transportation beyond the usual routes, but within specific areas of the county and beyond,” Holmes said.

    Fees are based on mileage, starting at $5 for zero to 10 miles, and increasing incrementally by $5 every 10 miles. All the fares are one-way rates.

    Transit-Go will operate Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m., excluding certain holidays.

    New Winnsboro Local Route

    Also new is a deviated fixed-route service that operates around the Town of Winnsboro and outlying areas.

    The route is an extension of the regular Winnsboro Local service’s hours of operation and coverage area. It will operate on a fixed schedule, but offers up to a two miles deviation off a route, Holmes said.

    “If residents want a deviation from the service on their route, they will need to call the transit office ahead of time,” Holmes said.

    “Because of the deviation of service and because the drivers are required to operate the lift for mobility aid securement for some riders, this can cause some delays.” Holmes said.

    The new fare for the extended service is $1, and deviations are .25 for the first mile and .50 for the second mile.

    Future Routes Planned

    Holmes said she plans to initiate more new routes throughout the county during the next three to six months. Those routes include a Ridgeway Express, Greenbrier Express, White Oak/Blackstock/Woodard Express, Blair/Jenkinsville/Monticello Express and a revised Columbia 1X (will go to Providence Northeast, Providence Downtown, Prisma Health Richland, Prisma Health Baptist, and the Dorn VA Hospital.)

    A full list of pickup locations, fares and departure times can be found online at www.fairfieldsc.com/residents/transit-system.

  • County: magistrate shortage not currently impairing caseload

    WINNSBORO – The shortage of experienced magistrates in Fairfield County is not currently causing a case backlog despite sweeping changes in magistrate posts, County officials say.

    As it stands, only two Fairfield magistrates are qualified to preside over cases – Paul Swearingen and newly appointed Chief Magistrate Russell Feaster.

    State Sen. Mike Fanning, D-Great Falls appointed four new magistrates in May, but they can’t handle cases on their own because none hold a law degree, according to their resumes.

    Jannita Gaston, Danielle Miller, Katina Capers-Washington and Vannessa Hollins must observe 10 cases before they can oversee cases, a six- to nine-month process.

    County Administrator Jason Taylor says he recently conferred with Swearingen and Feaster, and he said each one said they could handle their current caseloads.

    “Both Paul and Russell said they are okay, and as long as their workload is not overwhelming them, I think we’re fine,” Taylor said.

    In June, the county feared it might need to enlist temporary magistrates while the appointees receive training, potentially pinching the county budget since temporary judges were unbudgeted.

    Fairfield County appropriated $559,114 for the magistrate’s office in its 2019-2020 budget. Taylor initially thought temporary magistrates could cause the county to exceed that total, but now he doesn’t foresee any immediate problems.

    “At this point we have coverage without having to hire outside judges,” Taylor said.

    The Fairfield County Magistrate Office has seen extensive change. In addition to Fanning appointing apprentices to the bench – Hollings has experience as a magistrate for the Town of Winnsboro – another Fanning appointee was appointed chief magistrate.

    S.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Donald Beatty appointed Swearingen to serve as chief justice on June 28. Two weeks later, in a surprise move on June 12 – the day after the county was notified that one of the newly appointed magistrates could not be bonded through the county’s bonding company – Beatty nullified the order to appoint Swearingen as chief justice, and replaced him with Feaster who was appointed magistrate by Fanning last year. The new order installs Feaster as chief magistrate through Dec. 31.

    “The provisions of this Order are effective immediately and shall remain in effect unless amended or revoked by subsequent Order of the Chief Justice,” the order states.

    An S.C. Court Administration representative couldn’t provide an exact reason for the switch.

    “Chief Magistrate appointments are made at the discretion of the Chief Justice, who issues an order appointing Chief Magistrates every six months,” agency spokeswoman Ginny Jones said via email. “The Chief Justice also makes interim appointments as needed for the continued operation and efficiency of the Unified Judicial System.”

    Former Fairfield Magistrate Will Pope said it’s highly unusual for the magistrate office to experience such sweeping changes.

    “Why Paul was removed, I don’t know,” he said. “I didn’t understand it. I don’t know that being there a year, if Judge Feaster truly knows a lot about the system, about what goes on.”

    Pope spent 27 years working as a magistrate in Fairfield County, including 17 as chief magistrate. He retired April 30.

    Also retiring from the bench this year was Carol Tolen. William Robinson and Johnny Dewese were replaced by Fanning. Both Robinson and Dewese were subsequently hired by the Town of Winnsboro to serve as magistrates for the Town.

    Pope said he’s perplexed by Fanning’s decision to replace Robinson and Dewese, two trained and experienced judges.

    “He (Fanning) says the good old boy system is gone,” Pope said. “There’s no rhyme or reason why he did what he did.”

    Problems have peppered the appointment of Fairfield magistrates since the appointment of the four new judges earlier this year.

    Fanning announced the appointments of Gaston, Miller, Capers-Washington and Hollins via Facebook in May, calling them “outstanding new appointees” and touting their experience in doing so.

    “Our 4 new Fairfield County Magistrates bring a wealth of diverse experiences to the position,” the post said.

    However, public records reviewed by The Voice have called the appointment process and some candidate qualifications into question.

    A screening committee that interviewed magistrates likely violated the state’s Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, by failing to provide the required 24-hour notice of its meeting.

    The committee itself also included controversial members, such as Chester Chief Magistrate Angel Underwood, who the S.C. Supreme Court suspended in 2015. She was reinstated a year later.

    Her husband, former Chester County Sheriff Alex Underwood, now under indictment in a pending excessive use of force case, participated in at least some of the interviews too, according to two candidates speaking with The Voice.

    Alex Underwood was not under indictment when the interviews took place but was being investigated.

    Fairfield magistrates who were appointed had to be reappointed because at the time, none of them had taken a basic skills exam that state law requires magistrate candidates to pass prior to appointment.

    When the magistrates were tested, some of them required multiple attempts to pass the exam, according to public records.

    Most recently, Judge Miller’s credit history nearly prevented her from being bonded, a requirement of magistrates.

    Public records obtained through the FOIA show that Miller was initially denied bonding, but later secured bond through alternative means.