Loveless issues subpoenas in LR5 ethics case. Opponents mock ‘conspiracy theory’
The South Carolina Ethics Commission has called a special meeting for Thursday to decide whether to block a Lexington-Richland 5 school board member from moving forward with subpoenas in an ethics case against him.
Ken Loveless, the vice chair of the Lexington-Richland 5 school board, has subpoenaed three people to give depositions in his case before the ethics commission. Loveless faces four counts of violating the state Ethics Act over his financial relationship with a construction company that built an elementary school for the district.
But the three individuals — Contract Construction president Greg Hughes, former school district attorney Michael Montgomery and former school board member Ed White — are fighting the subpoenas. They are asking the Ethics Commission to throw out the requests that they argue are irrelevant to the case against Loveless. The subpoenas constitute legal “harassment,” they say.
The arguments are laid out in legal motions filed by the men in front of the Ethics Commission ahead of Thursday’s 9:30 a.m. online hearing. All three argue they have no knowledge of the charges against Loveless other than what has already been made public, and have not been told what questions Loveless’ attorneys will seek to ask. The motions claim that in response to one such inquiry, Loveless attorney Desa Ballard replied in an email, “I don’t have to tell you that.”
Montgomery notes in his appeal to the Ethics Commission that he is currently scheduled to be deposed next Monday.
The three men ask that if questioning them is necessary, it be done either in writing or at a hearing in front of the Ethics Commission.
“At such a hearing, his testimony will be controlled by the Commission, and Respondent’s attorney will not have largely unfettered access to annoy and harass Mr. White about unrelated and irrelevant topics,” argues White’s attorney, Jonathan Knicely.
The Ethics Commission accuses Loveless of inquiring about Contract Construction’s work on Piney Woods Elementary School in a letter on March 24, 2020, even though Loveless’ company had been awarded a more than $1 million contract with the company for another job. Loveless is also accused of improperly 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.
State law requires that if a public official has a financial interest in a company, he cannot become involved in the company’s relationship with the school district or government that the official helps to oversee. Loveless later recused himself from involvement with the Piney Woods project after criticism of his relationship with Contract Construction.
In his filing, Hughes attorney William McGee notes that an attorney for Loveless previously alleged that Contract Construction may have committed ethics violations when it awarded Loveless’ company a nearly $1 million contract to work with Contract Construction on a job outside the school district. Loveless’ attorney, Butch Bowers, argued in a letter to the commission that the Contract Construction had offered the contract “to prevent Mr. Loveless from commenting on the quality of work by” the company in building the new Piney Woods Elementary School.
Bowers suggested the commission investigate Contract Construction instead of his client.
Hughes’ attorney included in his motion an email from Ballard that said she wanted to establish the relationship between Loveless receiving the contract and Loveless’ work on the school board.
“I suspect Contract Construction was influenced or pressured by others and it put Mr. Hughes in a terrible position when he was a current contractor in the district... Mr. Hughes was used,” Ballard wrote. “I guess he wants to spend a lot of money for no reason to fight this subpoena. Or maybe he is being used again.”
Elsewhere in emails to McGee, Ballard writes that, “[i]f we are adults about this matter perhaps Contract Construction and Loveless Commercial Contracting can do business together in the future, and I know our respective clients would be open to that.”
In his filing, White argues that his subpoena is the result of “animosity” between himself and Loveless after White’s previous criticism of Loveless’ relationship with Contract Construction and their public disagreement over the handling of the resignation of Lexington-Richland 5’s former superintendent, Christina Melton.
In an email to Knicely, Ballard says that “Mr. White appears to be the architect of much of this circumstance, for reasons I don’t pretend to understand nor do I need to.” Another email to Montgomery’s attorney alleges the school board’s former lawyer was “was working with Ed White and possibly others to have Mr. Loveless removed from the Board.”
“This conspiracy theory is not only wholly without any basis in fact, but also entirely irrelevant to the four allegations of ethical violations being investigated by the SEC,” writes Frank Potts, Montgomery’s attorney. Instead, Potts argues that any knowledge Montgomery may have of the situation that wasn’t covered in public board meetings would be covered by attorney-client privilege in his role working for the school district.
“The focus of this investigation is whether (Loveless) did or did not send a letter, participate in two discussions, and/or visit a construction site,” McGee writes. But instead, “(Loveless) has decided to blame others for the decisions he made and the actions he took.”
Potts further argues the reason behind the subpoenas is because “Mr. Loveless is looking to try and generate material that he can take out of context and post on social media before the November elections,” when Loveless is running for another term on the board. A formal hearing on Loveless’ ethics charges is currently scheduled for next February.
In his filing, White alleges that Loveless has a “robust and recent history of using the legal process to intimidate and harass his critics.”
Loveless is currently involved in lawsuits against two constituents alleging they defamed him in critical comments made on Facebook, one of whom, Kevin Scully, has since filed to run for a seat on the school board himself. Nine other constituents, including at least one school teacher in the district, were also subpoenaed by Loveless to give depositions in the Facebook lawsuit against Scully.
The attorneys’ filings also say Loveless initiated a school district lawsuit against a former superintendent who complained about how the district went about hiring an interim superintendent, for which Loveless has demanded a “formal apology.”
In asking to quash Loveless’ subpoenas, the motions cite the lawsuits as examples of Loveless’ “litigiousness” in matters that are “clearly frivolous.”
“(I)n light of Loveless’ litigiousness, abusive tactics and the obvious hostility present in (Loveless’) Counsel’s e-mails, it seems that at a minimum the Commission should require an examination of the merits of taking the deposition,” argues Potts, Montgomery’s attorney.
This story was originally published September 7, 2022 at 4:01 PM.
.jpg)