R1 board members violated state law by not saying what they did in private, judge rules
Richland 1 violated South Carolina’s open meetings laws after school board members and district officials refused to say what action they took in private on a stalled multi-million dollar construction project, a Richland County judge ruled.
University of South Carolina law professor and district resident Clint Wallace filed a lawsuit Feb. 7 that accused the Richland 1 school board of taking “secret government action” during a special called meeting Feb. 1.
The board met in private before returning to public session. It unanimously voted to approve “recommendations as outlined” in the closed-door meeting, and adjourned without specifying what the recommendations were. Afterwards, school district officials, including school board chair Aaron Bishop and Superintendent Craig Witherspoon, refused to divulge further details, claiming protection under attorney-client privilege.
Judge Jocelyn Newman heard arguments in the case Feb. 16.
Gene Matthews, a lawyer for Richland 1, maintained that the board’s action was protected under attorney-client privilege, which is permissible under state law. But Wallace’s lawyer, Christopher Kenney, said that while the legal advice the board received is protected, the action taken as a result is not.
Bishop testified that he believed the board had complied with FOIA law during the Feb. 1 meeting. But board members Robert Lominack and Jamie Devine had concerns, he said.
Lominack, who voted with the rest of the board to approve the unspecified recommendations, wrote in a blog post three days later that he believed the board appropriately handled its executive session but “fell short” upon returning to public session.
“I thought the administration recommendations on which we were voting would be described with some specificity during the public portion. That did not happen. I believe this is a clear violation of FOIA,” he wrote. “I will spare you my excuses for not catching the issue. I clearly should have said something, and I take full responsibility for my role in screwing this up.”
Those concerns led the board to attempt to “course correct” by issuing a statement at the Feb. 13 board meeting.
The statement explained recommendations in the Feb. 1 vote, which were to “continue exploration of all contractual and legal avenues in an effort to mitigate costs” associated with the halted 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.”
Richland County issued a stop work order for the project in January after the state Education Department said the building couldn’t be considered a school, and after the district failed to obtain proper approval or permitting. The center is now under investigation by the State Inspector General.
Wallace and Kenney have 15 days to submit a proposed order for the court’s decision, according to documents. The school district’s counsel then has 10 days to respond.
“We’re gratified,” Kenney said.
A Richland 1 spokesperson said the district is looking forward to receiving the proposed order.
The lawsuit was the third brought against the school district in recent years alleging violations of the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
In 2019, a court ruled that Richland 1 had unlawfully conducted public business in private when the board decided how to respond to a letter from a parent in a closed-door meeting. Another lawsuit accused the Richland 1 board not giving the public suitable notice for its closed-door meetings. That case was settled in October 2022.
This story was originally published March 12, 2024 at 9:05 AM.
