Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Loveless Order

    Uploaded by

    Nevin Smith
    13K views7 pages
    The final findings in the investigation into Loveless.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The final findings in the investigation into Loveless.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    13K views7 pages

    Loveless Order

    Uploaded by

    Nevin Smith
    The final findings in the investigation into Loveless.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 7
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF RICHLAND BEFORE THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: COMPLAINT 2021-016 Kim Benson ‘Complainant, DECISION AND ORDER Kenneth Loveless Respondent Pursuant to Section 8-13-320(10) of the South Carolina Ethics, Government Accountability, and Campaign Reform Act of 1991 (Ethis Act, the State Ethics Canmission (Commission) reviewed ‘the above-captioned complaint and found probable cause to charge Kenneth Loveless (Respondent) ‘with four (4) counts of violating Section 8-13-700(B). Present a the hearing held on February 16, 2023, were Commissioners AJ Holloway, Scott E Frick, and F. Xavier Starkes, Hearing Panel Chai. Respondent was represented by Desa Ballard end the Commission was represented by Courtney M. Laster, The following charges were considered COUNT ONE, FAILURE TO RECUSE FROM A GOVERNMENTAL DECISION IN WHICH A BUSINESS WITH WHICH ASSOCIATED HAD AN ECONOMIC INTEREST SECTION 8-13-700(B), S.C, CODE ANN,, 1976, AS AMENDED. ‘That Kenneth Loveless, Lexington-Richland School District Five Board Member, did in Richland County, write a letter dated March 24, 2020 inquiring aout construction work ofa district facility by Contract Construction, Inc. business with which he was associated, in violation of Section 8-13-700(8). couNT Two FAILURE TO RECUSE FROM A GOVERNMENTAL DECISION IN WHICH A BUSINESS WITH WHICH ASSOCIATED HAD AN ECONOMIC INTEREST ‘SECTION 8-13-700(B), S.C. CODE ANN., 1976, AS AMENDED. That Kenneth Loveless, Lexington-Richland School Distiet Five Board Member, di i Richland County, on June 15,2020, participate in discussion about construction of a district facility by Decision and Onder Kenneth Loveless, 2021-016 Page2 of 7 Contract Construction, Ine 70048). business with which he was associated, in violation of Section 8-13- OUNT THRI FAILURE TO RECUSE FROM A GOVERNMENTAL DECISION IN WHICH A BUSINESS ‘WITH WHICH ASSOCIATED HAD AN ECONOMIC INTEREST ‘SECTION 8.-13-700(B), 8.C. CODE ANN,, 1976, AS AMENDED That Kenneth Loveless, LexingtonRichland School Distiet Five Board Member, did in Richland County, on September 14, 2020, participate in discussion about constuction of a district, facility by Contract Construction, Inc. a business with which he was associate, in violation of Section 70018). ‘count rouR FAILURE TO RECUSE FROM A GOVERNMENTAL DECISION IN WHICH A BUSINESS ‘WITH WHICH ASSOCIATED HAD AN ECONOMIC INTEREST SECTION 8-13-700(B},8.C. CODE ANN,, 1976, AS AMENDED. ‘That Kenneth Loveless, Lexington-Richland School District Five Board Member, did in Richland County, in June of 220, participate ina site visit ofa dist facility being constructed by ‘Contract Construction, Ine, a business with which he was assosiated, in violation of Section 8-13- 70048). EINDINGS OF FACT Having carefully reviewed the evidence presented, the Panel finds as fac |L_ Respondent served on the Lexington Richland School Distret Five (District) Board of Trustees (Board) from 2018-2022. 2. Respondent has owned and operated Loveless Commercial Contracting, Ine. (Loveless) for ‘approximately thirty-six (36) years. He serves as President ard personally cartes the line of eredit for Loveless 3. Contract Construction, Inc. (Contract Construction) is a general contractor located in South Caroline, Greg Hughes (Hughes) i the President of Contrac: Construction, Devison and Order Kenneth Loveless, 2021-016 Page3 of? On December 19, 2018, the District retained Contract Construction as its Construction Manager for the building of Piney Woods Elementary School (PWES). ‘Contract Construction subsequently hired Loveless to perform work as subcontractor on a State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) Forensic Services Laboratory in Columbia, SC. The agreement was signed by Respondent and was fully executed no later than March 12, 2020 (On March 24, 2020, Respondent submitted a letter to District Superintendent Christina Melton (Melton) raising perceived problems with the construction of PWES and criticizing terms of the District's contract with Contract Construction. Respondent requested “action and a reply n these ‘matters within the next two weeks.” During June 15,2020, District Board meeting, Hughes provided an update on PWES to the Board Following the update, Respondent questioned Hughes and Dstt representative Dan Neal (Neal) bout contract change orders and ownet/eontractor contingencies. Board meinber Ed White (White) then questioned Hughes and Neal abou the issues raised in Respondent's March 24, 2020 letter to Melton. Respondent engaged in discussions with White and made additional comments to the Board, not be had received unsatisfactory answers to is feter and stating, “I'm @ ontactr,L know things like this” During a September 14, 2020 Distt Board meeting, Hughes provided an addtional upéte on PWES to the Board, Board member White questioned Hughes about the isues mised in Respondent's March 24,2020 letter. White also addressed Loveless's subcontract with Contract Construction and questioned whether it was proper. Respondent engaged in discussion with "Hiyghes and other PWES subcontractors about the cost of specifi sol and concrete work t PWES, Hughes replied in relevant part, as follows | don’t have any problem withthe questions. And we'e going to sive you the best facility you've had, and it will be under budget. And do want to speak to Mr. Loveless abilities s a contactor. He is Decision and Order Kenneth Loveless, 2021-016 Page 4 of 7 doing fantastic job on the projeet we're working together on, He was Selected for his qualifications and doing a fantastic job, And there's similar type issues out there, bu they're minor in the scheme of things. ‘And we're pleased with what he's doing for us, 9. During the February 8, 2021 District Board meeting, Respondent submitted a letter tothe Board Choir acknowledging his affiliation with Contract Construction and vowing to “recuse (himself from any and all votes, deliberations, and other actions on any matter that comes before the Board ‘of Trustees relating to Contract Construction, ne." The aforementioned letter was submitted by Respondent after he requested and received an informal opinion from the State Ethies Commission (SEC). The Informal Opinion from the SEC opined, in pertinent pert, as fllows: “Based on the facts presented, the general contractor for which Loveless Construction subcontracts is “business ‘with which (you are) associated” for the purposes ofthe Ethics Act, This means that whenever ‘you ae faced witha seenario in which the genera contractor his an economic interest, you must ‘ecuse yourself from thet matter following the instructions in Sestion 8-13-700(B).” CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon the Findings of Fact, the Panel concludes as a mater of la: 1. At all times relevant, Respondent was a public official as defined by Section 8-13-100(27), ‘Accordingly, the Commission has personal and subject matte jurisdiction 2._Section 8-13-100(4) defines “business with which he is associated as 8 business of which the person ora member oP his immediate family is a director, an officer, owner, employee, a compensated agent, or holder ‘of stock worth one hundred thousand dollars or more at fair market value and which constitutes five percent or more of the total ‘outstanding stock of any class. 3. Upon execution of the agreement between Contract Construction and Loveless, Respondent became @ compensated agent of Contract Construction. See SEC AO2000-004 (defining “compensated agent” as “any ongoing client relationship in which the (public official] receives Decision and Onder Kenneth Loveless, 2021-016 Page § of 7 compensation for services rendered."). Accordingly, Contract Construction was a “business with Which [Respondent was] associted” pursuant to Section 8-13-1004), 4. Section §:13-700 provides, in relevant part: (B)No {public eNteial} may make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his [public office} 10 influence & governmental decision in which he, a family member, an individual with whom he is associated, ora business with which he is assolated has en economic interest. A [public offical] who, in the discharge af his official responsibilities, is required t take an action or make a decision which affects an economic interest of himself, family member, an individual ‘with whom he is associated, or a business with which be is associated shal (1) prepace a writen statement describing the matter requiring ‘ction or decisions and the nature of his potential conflict, ‘of interest with respect tothe action or decision; (4) it eis public official, ther than a member ofthe Genera ‘Assembly, he shall furnish a copy of the statement tothe presiding officer of the governing body of an agency, ‘commission, board, or of a county, municipality, or a Political subdivision thereof, on which he se-ves, who shall ‘cause the statement tobe printed inthe minutes and require ‘thatthe member be excused from any votes, deliberations, and other actions on the mater on which the potential conflict of interest exists and shall cause the jeation and the reasons for it to be noted in the ‘5. Sections 8-13-130 and 8-13-320(10) allow the Panel to levy an administrative fee and to require ;peyment ofa civil penalty of up to $2,000 foreach violation ofthe Ethics Act CSI NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Panel has determined, based on a preponderance ofthe evidence, that Respondent Kenneth Loveless isin violation of three (3) counts of Section 8-13-700(B) as outlined in Count One (1), Count Two Decision and Onder Kenneth Loveless, €2021-016 Page 6 07 {@),and Count Three (3) ofthe Notice of Hearing. Specifically, the Pane finds that Respondents (1) March 24, 2020 letter to Melton; (2) participation in the June 15, 2020 District Board meeting

    You might also like