Cost of Two Lawsuits Estimated at $800K & rising
BLYTHEWOOD – Last month, council voted 4-1 against releasing the MPA files that have been turned over to the town government after the lawsuit was settled.
Monday night, during public comment time, resident Bobbie Young asked council members, “Why are you still covering up the $700,000 lawsuit. You ran on transparency. Where’s the transparency?”
As Young turned to sit down after addressing council on several subjects, Councilwoman Andrea Fripp, who has spoken out publicly and strongly on several occasions against releasing the MPA files, made clear her position on the issue in a near six-minute soliloquy.
“I voted against it [release of documents],” Fripp said.
“In terms of releasing those files, I am against it. We would be releasing a bunch of legal files with no context to the town people,” Fripp began. “Would viewing it determine how much we paid? I don’t know that it will be broken down.
“There’s still an ongoing [defamation] case, so to release that now, I believe, there are still depositions due. Mrs. Ball’s is due. [No date for such a deposition is set with any attorney.]
“That being said, why would we release the 2021 files when the 2023 [defamation] case [against former Mayor Bryan Franklin] is still ongoing? And even in the spirit of transparency, there are some things, legally, that I believe as a council we should not put out without context. It would really be hard for you to look at a $700,000 [lawsuit] file and understand it and form an opinion,” Fripp said.
Young countered, “You did, and you’re a citizen of the community.”
“But I have certain privileges as a council person,” Fripp said. “I sat down and I know and understand things. You have to understand there is some security, as council people, that we have.
“You selected us to represent you, and not everything can be put out into the public. It’s not that anyone is trying to be non-transparent. It’s just that there are some things that just should not be put out.
“Now, he (Blythewood Mayor Sloan Griffin) is a strong mayor, and if he chooses to put it out there, he can do that without our consent. It’s up to him,” Fripp said.
“I’d love to be transparent with this, but I don’t think that would be advantageous to everyone,” she said.
Young insisted that she felt she would be able to read and discern the files.
“Yes, but I went in with privileged information that you would not know,” Fripp said. “So there is a difference in me reviewing it and you reviewing it.”
“That sounds bad,” Young said.
“How can that sound bad?” Fripp said. “Do you not believe there is information that the council has that the public would not necessarily have? It’s not that we’re hiding anything. There’s an ongoing [defamation] case. Why would we release those documents to the public if there’s an ongoing case?
Attorney Jay Bender, who represents the South Carolina Press Association, questioned the significance of not releasing documents to the public from a settled case if there’s an ongoing case.
“With respect to the documents relating to a case that has ended I have some difficulty understanding how a separate suit should shelter documents from the settled case,” Bender said.
FOI Response to The Voice
In response to a June 28, 2024 Freedom of Information request from The Voice for MPA legal files turned over to the Town by the Town’s attorneys following settlement of the 2021 FOI lawsuit, Town Attorney Pete Balthazor responded with a few random and heavily redacted invoices submitted by the attorneys, along with the following email message:
Upon review, the Town has determined that the records requested directly implicate the exemption found at S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-40(7). This subsection exempts from disclosure “[c]orrespondence or work products of legal counsel for a public body and any other material that would violate attorney-client relationships.” Most of the requested records will not be provided, with the exception of invoices received by the Town during the responsive timeframe. The invoices have been redacted to exempt from disclosure material that would violate the attorney-client relationship between the Town and its retained counsel. The Town has not waived the attorney-client privilege covering the requested materials.
“I suspect there are many documents directed to third parties that should be disclosed because they are not subject to the attorney-client privilege,” Bender said.
According to Mayor Sloan Griffin, the continued rising costs of the Town’s two lawsuits – the settled FOI case and the continuing defamation case amount, at this point, to $840,243.37.
