Ethics fine against former Midlands school board member upheld. What now?
The S.C. Ethics Commission has upheld a fine against a former Midlands school board member.
Ethics commissioners rejected an attempt by former Lexington-Richland 5 school board member Ken Loveless to overturn its 2023 finding that he had committed three violations of the state Ethics Act while he served on the Chapin-Irmo area school board from 2018 to 2022.
Loveless must still pay $6,000 in fines and fees, the commission said in an order signed March 31.
The former school board member should have recused himself from any actions related to Contract Construction’s work building Piney Woods Elementary School because Loveless’ company was awarded a $1 million contract to work with the construction firm on a separate project, the commission ruled at the time.
Loveless’ attorney argued in appealing the decision that the commission had misinterpreted the definition of a “government decision” from the start, meaning not only her client’s fine but some 30 years’ worth of commission precedent was wrong.
The commission found three instances where it said Loveless had violated the act: he was involved in board conversations about Chapin’s Piney Woods Elementary School during district board meetings on June 15, 2020 and Sept. 14, 2020; and he sent a letter on March 24, 2020, to then-Superintendent Christina Melton about the school’s construction, according to the commission’s order. Loveless attorney Desa Ballard argued in her appeal that those did not constitute government actions because no vote was taken on the project at those times.
But the order issued by the S.C. Ethics Commission rejecting that appeal said the law prohibiting conflicts of interest in a public official’s business dealings prevented Loveless from “insert[ing] himself into the inner workings of the contract” in any way.
“Any other interpretation ... would lead to an absurd result that would allow a public official to be involved in literally every aspect of a matter that implicated their own economic interests as long as they recused themselves when it came to a formal vote,” the decision reads. “This would defeat the entire purpose of the Ethics Act.”
“While the Appellate Panel acknowledges the dilemma Respondent believed he faced — namely, that he was required to act in the discharge of his official duties — his obligation under the Ethics Act was clear,” the commissioners said. “He was required to recuse himself.”
Ballard did not respond to a request for comment from The State on Friday, but at a hearing in January she suggested an appeal of an adverse decision to the S.C. Supreme Court may be in order to tighten the reins on the Ethics Commission’s decisions.
.jpg)