Blythewood’s town-owned venue is losing thousands. Are deep discounts to blame?
Doko Manor was built to bring Blythewood together. Instead, it’s become a battleground.
The town’s central indoor venue now serves both as the heart of allegations of mismanagement and abuse of power, and also as the host of contentious meetings where the mayor and council members of the growing municipality northeast of Columbia quarrel about who’s to blame and what should be done next.
And questions swirl as to why the manor is operating at a more than $175,000 deficit as of the end of June.
Council members have pointed the finger at the mayor for the deficit, crying foul at discounted rentals given to select parties that they allege were done at his request. They see it as proof that the town needs a full-time town manager handling operations, which town residents voted to make happen last month after a July referendum. That change will go into effect in November.
The mayor, for now directly in charge of the town’s administration, says the issues at the manor aren’t a major concern and stem from a lack of clear policy, and many decisions to grant discounts were made by the venue’s director, an employee of the town. The director has denied any involvement.
Beyond a pattern of zero-cost and highly discounted rentals given out to some, records show a variety of inconsistencies, including discrepancies between entries logged into the manor’s booking system and the venue’s financial records.
Town employees now say the State Ethics Commission is investigating two private events held at the manor for a Richland County councilman.
And the town confirms that the director, who has a past felony conviction for wire fraud, was apparently hired without a background check.
The town council is set to hold a policy workshop Sept. 8 dealing specifically with the manor, with one of Griffin’s key critics calling for a forensic audit.
Operating at a loss
The manor has been operating at a significant deficit for years.
Fred Layman III – hired as the director of operations for Doko Manor and Doko Meadows Park, home of the town’s amphitheater, in August 2024 – said the venue was “a mess” when he was brought on and he’s been working with the town council ever since to clean it up.
In the 2022-2023 fiscal year, financial records show the manor had a more than $91,000 deficit, growing to more than $141,000 by the end of the following fiscal year. The deficit rose to more than $175,000 in the most recent fiscal year ending June 2025.
Layman said the zero-cost rentals and discounts haven’t had a major effect on the manor’s bottom line, but they do make a difference.
Most events have a record of being paid for, but the amount paid is often exceedingly lower than the standard rental cost. Total payments for some events were as low as $125, where the user fee ordinance lists they would normally be in the thousands.
Griffin admitted that there are inconsistencies between the charges reported in the booking system and the town’s financial records. He described instances in which a renter would be told to pay $500, with a check for that amount processed, but the booking system would show that $1,500 was collected.
The mayor said the manor’s finances should not be viewed as a loss, because the town has always had to shore it up with its general fund. There is no such thing as the manor being in a deficit unless the town itself is in the red, he said.
“This building was never set up to make money,” Griffin said. “It was set up as a true community building. Now, granted, it doesn’t mean that you just come in here [without paying].”
Mayor Pro-Tem Donald Brock has pushed back on this notion. He said the manor leadership should attempt to make it profitable, at least enough to cover its costs for operations and staff.
“If this was a private business, it would have been shut down years ago,” Brock said.
Events for county councilman
Council members and town leaders have questioned the selection of who gets discounts for renting the manor, including a weekend May rental to Richland County Councilman Derrek Pugh. Records provided by Griffin initially showed the amount paid for the rental as zero. The State has requested further documentation of payments and communication involving Doko Manor.
Pugh had two events booked, documents show. Rental fees for both were waived by manor staff, according to Griffin, until a meeting was held after the events between the mayor, Layman and Pugh. It was decided to retroactively apply a fee of $1,000 in total for both, Griffin said. Documents show $250 and $750 having been charged for those events. The mayor and manor director are at odds regarding who decided on that price.
According to the town ordinance, rentals are only available for a window of either six or 12 hours. If Pugh were renting the ballroom for six hours, the basic rate would be between $2,200 and $2,800, depending on the day. The total rate for both events would normally be over $6,000.
“In my opinion, that is fraudulent to the taxpayers of Blythewood,” Brock said.
Both the mayor and the venue’s assistant director, Kim Kacsur, confirmed that payment and insurance are required to be collected before events take place.
Layman said he told his assistant director not to reduce Pugh’s fee unless she got written approval from the mayor.
“That’s when I learned about exactly what happened,” Griffin said. “[Layman] wanted help with trying to come up with how much he should have charged. … I said, ‘This right here will be the sketchiest damn situation.’”
“I do not set the manor fees, I get approval for them,” Layman said. “So that’s an outright lie.”
Interim Town Administrator Ed Driggers said he interviewed several staff members to determine who authorized the pricing of Pugh’s events, receiving conflicting stories.
“It’s clear that someone’s not telling the truth,” Driggers said. “I don’t have a single situation where I can get two people to agree on the same story.”
The State Ethics Commission has opened an investigation into the two events at the manor booked for Pugh, according to Driggers and Layman, who said he’s already been questioned. The interim town administrator said subpoenas have been issued and depositions are likely.
The commission told The State it “can neither confirm nor deny the existence of a complaint.”
“If stories stay the same, someone’s committing perjury,” Driggers said. “If we can determine through some means that something isn’t truthful and it was lied about under oath, I’m not overly concerned about opinion. I think the legal system is going to deal with that.”
Layman said the manor’s staff gave every opportunity for Pugh’s wife, who booked the event for them, to pay the right amount designated by the ordinance because the couple knew the right price to pay long before the charge was discussed in the media.
Pugh didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment.
Who’s been getting discounts?
Discounts are given to organizations that “affect Blythewood citizens,” such as the Greater Blythewood Chamber of Commerce, Griffin said. The chamber was charged $125 for a gala at the manor on Aug. 12, which would normally cost at least $1,400, according to the ordinance.
Brock expressed a different perspective on who gets discounts.
“You have to look at who is benefiting from these zero-cost rentals,” Brock said. “Richland County Council, friends of the mayor who are very vocal supporters of him online. It raises red flags, but when there’s smoke, there’s usually fire.”
Griffin denied discounts being given to personal friends, saying he realized only recently that everyone holding a government position has been allowed to rent the manor for free without his knowledge. Now that he knows of these situations, he said, he’s having to micromanage.
Another recurring rental, organized through the director, is recorded in the town’s booking system as “cheerleading practice” with no other identifying information.
A recent booking contract specifies the recurring cost as $100 per hour with a $500 security deposit. The contract reads that the rental will “be priced with all discounts applicable.”
Griffin, seemingly viewing the documents for the first time during an interview with The State, questioned, “What does a cheerleading practice have to do with community?” He noted that the charge is less than what the chamber, which he said is an organization beneficial to the town, was charged.
Layman brought the cheerleading program to the manor after approval from a former town administrator in September 2024, email records show. Discounts were applied in line with offers listed on a brochure created by manor staff.
“I was doing everything I can to fill up dead manor time to make money [and] the cheerleading program was just one of them,” the director said.
The mayor encouraged staff to use this strategy, adding that charging the town-mandated fees to rent the manor would tank interest in using it.
Layman said the mayor was aware of the cheerleading rental beforehand and they had agreed on a goal to get $100 an hour for non-primetime rentals. He told the cheerleading coordinator to stop coming until the manor’s policy was ironed out, he said.
It is permissible for the manor to be used for free in certain situations, Griffin said. Nonprofit organizations are often not charged, and previous mayors’ administrations have operated the manor the same way, he added.
There is nothing in the town’s written policy that forbids rentals of the manor being discounted for any reason, including Griffin’s stated metric of choosing ones that benefit the town. Renting out the venue for free isn’t specifically mentioned in the ordinance, but while it does grant the manor director the ability to negotiate rates, it also says he must enforce the town’s adopted fees for its use.
Private events such as Pugh’s are indisputably not allowed to be waived or discounted beyond what is allowed in the ordinance, Driggers said.
“When you open that door, you can’t close it,” the interim town administrator added. “People find out about it, and when they do, they either don’t think you should or they want you to do it for them.”
There are times when Griffin has instructed Kacsur through official channels to offer someone a comp or discount “for the good of the community,” the mayor said, adding that he doesn’t get involved with negotiations unless he is contacted by a nonprofit requesting a rental.
Brock and Layman both questioned why Layman would be incentivized to offer deep discounts without input from the mayor, since the mission he’s been tasked with is raising revenue.
The mayor announced Sept. 2 on Facebook that he’s calling on the Richland County Sheriff’s Department to conduct an investigation into “several criminal and financial claims and allegations” made publicly by members of the town council. He could not immediately be reached for clarity on the allegations to which he’s referring.
In a statement, Sheriff Leon Lott said his department has received the request and “will review the documentation sent of allegations made against Mayor Griffin and determine if a criminal investigation is warranted.”
Felony conviction
Layman said he was prohibited from speaking to the media by Griffin, but agreed to an interview with The State. When asked about the ban, Griffin said manor employees should be focused on their jobs and media requests should go solely to town leaders.
During a public question and answer session with a few council members in which the manor was being discussed, a former Blythewood official alleged that Layman, a businessman who has refurbished several sports clubs, had previously been convicted of a felony. Public records show that he pled guilty in 2011 to wire fraud for a transaction made in 2007. Layman was sentenced to 16 months in federal prison between 2011 and 2013, according to court documents.
He vehemently denied any wrongdoing when asked about the conviction, saying he only pled guilty to protect his family and adding that he has “an exemplary record in the industry.” Layman has not been charged with any crimes since.
The director said he was background-checked by both the town and Richland County, but that the checks only go back five years, so his charge did not come up. The town now indicates that a check likely didn’t happen.
“It does not appear that a background check was conducted on the director of the Manor prior to his employment,” Driggers, who was not working for the town at the time of Layman’s hiring, said in an email.
Layman said he completed the town’s application paperwork, which included permission to conduct a background check and “assumed he passed it.”
“Administration of personnel is the responsibility of the mayor,” Driggers added. “That will shift to the town manager in late November.”
But Griffin said he doesn’t “know anything about [Layman’s] personal transactions.”
“It does sound reasonable that some employees have background checks, some don’t,” Brock said. “When one person makes all the decisions, they can pick winners and losers.”
“It ultimately falls to [the mayor],” the mayor pro-tem added. “The mayor is responsible for all things HR, whether he’s qualified to do so or not.”
During the July public answer session when the conviction was brought up, Brock said the mayor was rightfully the only council member involved in the director’s hiring, and several council members denied knowing about the conviction.
But the council was made aware of Layman’s history shortly after his hiring and “nobody had a problem,” Brock later told The State.
“Everybody was made whole in that ordeal,” Brock said of Layman’s case. “Not excusing it, but once council was made aware, at least from my perspective … it didn’t warrant [much] scrutiny, because the guy made a mistake.”
He added that he wouldn’t consider the conviction as a matter that would impair Layman’s ability to run the manor’s operations.
Driggers said the employee responsible for background checks on new employees recently retired, and he is unable to confirm the practices during her tenure. He said he’s working with the town’s new HR director “to include background checks, including criminal, driving, and credit, for all individuals offered employment with the town.”
Layman was hired in August 2024 with an annual salary of $80,000, which was increased in February to $82,400 per year, according to the town’s attorney.
Attempts to raise revenue?
Griffin and Layman have different views on why the deficit has continued to grow. When asked if staff had made efforts to make the manor profitable, the director said he had pitched several ideas to Griffin over the past year, and all were rejected.
“His plans really entail the council giving him a pot of money and just running with it,” Griffin said of Layman. “This council is not about to give you $50,000 and say, ‘Go forth and create revenue.’”
Layman said he never asked for or needed any money from the town, and increased the number of rentals through guerrilla marketing and connections in the community.
There is evidence to show that Layman is at least slowing the bleeding. During the most recently completed fiscal year, the first since the director was hired, the deficit grew by about $15,000 less than it did the year before. Dozens of new revenue-generating events were booked at the manor within a few months of his hiring, records show.
“All I want to do is bring revenue there. … I have nothing to gain from comping people at the manor,” Layman said. “I want my numbers to be fantastic, and I can do it. They hired the right person.”
The director said he and the manor’s small team achieved all of their finance goals for the year “with [their] hands tied and blindfolded” by the mayor’s micromanagement.
Griffin described his staff as “on edge” because they’ve seen the “budget get strict because of personality differences” on council. He said they’re now scared to come up with ideas “because they’ve seen everything get shot down.”
Brock said he would like to see the council launch a forensic audit and call for a full-scale investigation into the handling of the manor.
“If you are knowingly giving away the manor, waiving fees … that’s effectively stealing from the citizens, stealing from the electorate,” Brock said. “We can’t lose the trust of the electorate.”
This story was originally published September 5, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
