LR5 school board member faces ethics charges over elementary school contractor
Another Lexington-Richland 5 school board member will face formal charges from the S.C. Ethics Commission.
Ken Loveless, vice chair of the Chapin-Irmo school board, faces four charges brought by ethics investigators, according to documents released by the Ethics Commission. A formal hearing will be heard by the Ethics Commission on Feb. 16.
Loveless is accused of failing to recuse himself from decisions made by Lexington-Richland 5 regarding Contract Construction, the company that built Chapin’s new Piney Woods Elementary School that opened last year. Contract Construction also used Loveless’s company, Loveless Commercial Contracting, as a subcontractor for construction work on a new laboratory for the State Law Enforcement Division, for which Loveless was awarded a $1 million contract.
The Ethics Commission accuses Loveless of inquiring about Contract Construction’s work on Piney Woods in a letter on March 24, 2020, after his company had been awarded the contract with the SLED project. Loveless is also accused of participating in board discussions of Piney Woods on June 15 and Sept. 14 of that year. Loveless also visited Piney Woods in June 2020 to review Contract Construction’s work.
The State reached out to Loveless’ attorney, Butch Bowers, for a response to the ethics charges, but had not received a reply before publication on Tuesday.
State law requires that public officials recuse themselves from involvement with companies competing for public contracts with which the officials or their families have a financial interest. Loveless recused himself from the Piney Woods project in early 2021 when fellow board members complained about his relationship with Contract Construction. Loveless then asked for an opinion from the Ethics Commission, which said Loveless would be prohibited from visiting the Piney Woods site again as long as he is working with Contract Construction.
A constituent then filed a formal ethics complaint about Loveless’ prior involvement with the company, which happened after he started doing business with Contract Construction and before he recused himself.
Loveless has been a critic of Contract Construction’s work on Piney Woods. He voted against awarding the company the work on the elementary school after he was first elected to the school board in 2018. His critics on the board said he was trying to exercise undue influence over the project that was beyond an individual board member’s responsibility.
At a March school board meeting, Loveless praised a report by engineering consultants Mead and Hunt that highlighted what the consultants said are deficiencies at Piney Woods, including non-standard handicap parking spots and misplaced expansion joints in the concrete pours, which are meant to reduce the wear and tear on the pavement over time.
Loveless said concerns about the school’s construction were raised after he passed along questions from a constituent. “Tonight I feel somewhat vindicated by the fact that nonconforming material has been found on this very subject,” Loveless said at the school board meeting.
Contract Construction has not responded to the allegations raised in the report.
In his response filed to the ethics complaint, Bowers argues that, as one of seven school board members, Loveless does not have the ability to make decisions on his own with regard to Piney Woods or Contract Construction, and that public officials in similar circumstances have not been required to recuse themselves.
“Mr. Loveless has no individual ability to make decisions for the Board,” Bowers said.
Bowers also says it was Contract Construction that created any conflict of interest when it selected Loveless Contracting’s bid for the SLED job. He said Loveless’ position as a school board member would not have influenced Contract Construction’s decision to hire Loveless’ company — unless his company was chosen in an attempt “to prevent Mr. Loveless from commenting on the quality of work by” Contract Construction, Bowers wrote. That “is apparently what has occurred here.”
Bowers said a finding against Loveless would allow companies in such situations to “force the recusal of a public official and prevent him from doing his statutory duties” of overseeing work in the school district. He suggests the commission investigate Contract Construction to determine if that was the company’s intent.
Contract Construction did not immediately respond when The State reached out to them for comment on Tuesday.
In a previous statement issued to The State through another attorney, Desa Ballard, Loveless said one of his goals as a board member candidate “was to inquire into what I believed (was) financial overreach by certain construction contractors the District has dealt with the in the past and I continue those efforts.”
“I believe steps have been taken to attempt to silence me on that issue, and, as with everything I do, I will not succumb to bullying or lies being told about me. Nor will I refuse to do my job as a member of the Board, which is to contribute what I can to the improvement of the District and to benefit its students, parents and staff.”
Loveless is not the first member of the Lexington-Richland 5 school board to face ethics charges. Earlier this year, board chairwoman Jan Hammond agreed to pay $2,000 to settle charges she used her district email to ask parents who contacted her to vote against her opponents on the board in the 2020 election, and for failing to disclose financial information in filings with the state, including in one instance leaving off her income as a teacher in Lexington 2.
.jpg)