Judge voids secretive, 'unlawful' Richland One board votes on learning center after suit (2024)

COLUMBIA— A Richland County judge voided two secretive February votes taken by the Richland One school board May 16, ruling that the votes related to the Columbia district's halted early learning center were violations of the state Freedom of Information Act and cannot be acted on by the district.

Those two votes were taken during a Feb. 1 meeting after the board exited from a private session where they had received legal advice from the district's attorney.

After returning to the public, the board then voted to hire a law firm and approve a recommendation from the district's administration that had been outlined in that private session— without saying what that recommendation was.

In a lawsuit filed against the district after that meeting, district parent and law professor Clint Wallace argued that the board entered that closed-door meeting illegally, then took secretive action by publicly voting on the measure that had only been detailed in private.

Circuit Judge Jocelyn Newman agreed.

Writing in the May 16 order, Newman ruled the board failed to state a specific-enough purpose to legally enter a private session, and that the votes taken after that private session amounted to illegally making a decision in private and then publicly approving the unstated, already made decision.

"It cannot be correct that a public body can go behind closed doors, have a course of action proposed (even by a lawyer), and then return to public session and vote to approve what was said behind closed doors without ever publicly stating the action approved," the order reads. "Such a rule defies common sense, is contrary to the core purpose of FOIA, and would create a loophole that renders FOIA’s public meeting provisions meaningless."

Newman also shot down Richland One's argument that it couldn't publicly disclose the details of its legal recommendations to the board because of attorney-client privilege, which its lawyer made during a Feb. 16 hearing.

While communication between an attorney and their client is confidential, the order said "there is nothing privileged about action."

Wallace's lawyer, Chris Kenney, told The Post and Courier they "feel gratified and vindicated that secretive government action is not going to be permitted by South Carolina courts."

The order voids the two votes and prohibits the district from acting on them, and it orders Richland One to pay $10,462 to Wallace for attorney's fees and costs. The board is allowed to meet again to take a public vote authorizing the same actions.

Richland One spokeswoman Karen York said in a statement that the district had received the order but did not detail how the ruling would impact the district's handling of the early learning center project.

"While we disagree with the ultimate ruling in the order, we respect the Court’s decision and district leaders will consider next steps in this matter,” York's statement read.

The court order against Richland One, which was first decided with an initial March ruling, adds another setback to the district's plans to build an early learning center in Lower Richland.

Construction on its planned Vince Ford Early Learning Center was halted in January after it became clear that the district didn't have the necessary building permits, and the state inspector general opened an ongoing investigation into the project's financing and construction the same month.

It was legal advice related to that construction project and investigation that the board discussed and voted on — illegally, per Newman— during the Feb. 1 meeting.

The board had authorized its administration to "continue exploration of all contractual and legal avenues in an effort to mitigate costs created by the project's work stoppage, and to address any concerns related to the scope of the project by governmental entities … including the Department of Education and the inspector general," board Chair Aaron Bishop said in aFeb. 13 statement prepared by district lawyers.

As the construction siteacross the street from Caughman Road Park sits unworked, the district's costs on the project continue to rise.

The state Department of Education has said they won't reconsider issuing a permit to the district, which was originally denied based on a disagreement between the department and district on whether the center technically constituted a school, until the inspector general's office finishes its investigation.