Did Richland 1 board violate SC law when discussing stalled project? A judge will decide
A judge heard arguments Friday about whether the Richland 1 school board violated the state’s open meetings law when board members refused to say what action they took in private on a stalled construction project.
A lawsuit filed on Feb. 7 by Clint Wallace, a district resident and law professor at the University of South Carolina, alleged that the Richland 1 school board had taken “secret government action” during a Feb. 1 meeting. That evening, the board met in private before returning to public session and unanimously voting to approve “recommendations as outlined” in a closed-door meeting. The board adjourned without specifying what the recommendations were and refused to divulge further details.
Under the state’s Freedom of Information Act, a school board cannot vote in private to commit the district to a specific course of action. Such votes must be made in public.
The school district’s lawyer, Gene Matthews, argued that the board’s action was protected under attorney-client privilege, which is permissible under state law. But Wallace’s lawyer, Christopher Kenney, argued that while the legal advice the board received is protected, the action taken as a result is not.
Aaron Bishop, chair of the Richland 1 school board, testified that he believed the board had complied with FOIA law. But following the concerns of fellow board members Robert Lominack and Jamie Devine after the meeting, the board decided to issue a statement at the most recent board meeting sharing more information about the Feb. 1 vote and an attempt to “course correct.”
In that the statement, Bishop said the board voted to “continue exploration of all contractual and legal avenues in an effort to mitigate costs” associated with the stalled construction of the Vince Ford Early Learning Center, a $31 million facility on Rawlinson Road in Lower Richland, and to “address any concerns related to the scope of the project by governmental entities ... including the Department of Education and the inspector general.”
Construction on the center was halted last month after the state Education Department said the building couldn’t be considered a school and the district had not secured the proper approval. The Education Department based its decision on the district’s plans to serve children as young as infants, which the department said meant the center would not be a K-12 school. The center also may violate the property’s zoning designation, which doesn’t allow for day care centers.
The district recently changed the center’s purpose. If built, it will serve students from kindergarten to second grade.
The center is now under investigation by the State Inspector General.
Kenney requested Friday’s hearing under a provision of the Freedom of Information Act that says if a declaratory judgment or injunctive relief is sought as part of an FOI lawsuit, then a hearing must be held on the request within 10 days.
Judge Jocelyn Newman did not issue a ruling on the case on Friday, nor did she issue a ruling on the district’s motion to dismiss. Kenney speculated that Newman’s decision could take a few days or a few weeks.
Wallace’s lawsuit is the third brought against Richland 1 in the last five years regarding the school board’s violations of the state’s Freedom of Information Act. In 2019, a court ruled that Richland 1 had unlawfully conducted public business behind closed doors when the board was sued for deciding how to respond to a letter from a parent in executive session. In 2022, a complaint accused the district of not giving suitable notice its closed-door meetings. That case was eventually settled.
