PRESTON(CUNNINGHAM) VS WILSON/WALDREP RULEING

Looks like the Preston court win streak against MCW goes up another notch. Preston 14 - MCW 0 ! When will she learn? Even with her new legal pal at her side, she loses and loses. Wonder what Preston has on the courts? (Wink wink) Or, more likely, what does the court know that the Preston haters don't seem to get? Perhaps it is as simple as "right is right." The laws of our State are being upheld.

I'm really proud of Michael Cunningham for standing up to the bullies and intimidators. He's his own man!

-republikin

I don't see it the way you do, 1-Opinion, and I've been watching this situation develop for a long time. Seems to me it's a bit disingenuous of you, after spending all that time defending Cindy Wilson's request for a "writ of mandamus" requiring County Council to follow the law, to now complain that the courts have issues a de facto writ of mandamus requiring County Council to follow the law.

Face it, 1-Opinion. County Council cannot directly interfere with the relationship between a County Administrator and county employees. They can set priorities, fund positions, fund departments and call for investigations - BUT EXCEPT IN CASES OF INVESTIGATIONS OR INQUIRIES, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DEAL WITH EMPLOYEES ONLY THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATOR. And it doesn't matter if that administrator is Michael Cunningham or somebody of the new Council's choosing.

YOU just don't see it, do you?

1-0pinion, I agree with you as far as Floyd using her influence with Animal Control, but I also recognize that if the guy in front of me runs a red light, and I follow him and get pulled by a police officer, "He did it, too" isn't a legal defense. Okay, maybe it is in Wiliamston. I know. I've tried it.

Here's your compromise position: The new Council approves a resolution calling for everybody to follow the law - specifically, both the letter AND the spirit of the S.C. Freedom of Information Law, and all laws dealing with the relationship between County Council, the County Administrator, and county employees. What could be easier?

No problem JD IF the law is fairly applied.

-1-opinion

I would suggest equally applied. Current and past council members have given instructions to individual County employees/departments. To single out the two that Preston perceived as enemies and not mention other Council members that have done the same thing is just wrong!  

I will also note today is the 29th and there is still no mention of it by the AIM (in the paper or online).

I'm sure the AIM will get to the story soon, Non-seq. With the holiday season and the new editor coming in, it probably just slipped through the cracks. You have to take steps to avoid missing a ruling that's issued two days before a four-day holiday begins.

1-Opinion, let's go back to your issue with the law being applied "fairly" and look at something that's already happened and been adjudicated. Now, keep in mind, I have no intention of helping the incoming council or any of their other official or unofficial spokesmen make a mockery of 4-9-660, but I'm going to give you a bit of advice here about something that nobody else seems to have noticed.

SSHM and I have both likened this ongoing battle to a chess match, which seems to be an appropriate analogy as the various sides move, counter move, castle and ponder their next moves. Joey Preston, so far, has proven to be the grandmaster of the board. BUT HE'S LEFT HIS QUEEN EXPOSED. And while y'all are piddling around swapping pawn for pawn, he's left a hole in his defense wide enough to drive a truck through.

Let's go back to Judge Alex McCauley's ruling for the majority when Cindy Wilson's request for a writ of mandamus requiring Preston to reveal legal narratives (that ruling was issued on January 23, 2008.) I agreed at the time with McCauley's ruling that COUNCIL AS A WHOLE had to waive attorney-client privilege, since Preston had asked for a vote of Council calling for NOT releasing those legal narratives.

Here's part of McCauley's ruling:

"The attorney-client privilege is based upon a public policy that the best interest of society is served by promoting a relationship between the attorney and the client whereby utmost confidence in the continuing secrecy of all confidential disclosures made by the client within the relationship is maintained. State v. Doster, supra. The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client and not the attorney, and may be waived only by the client. Tucker v. Honda of South Carolina Mfg., Inc., supra. �In general, the burden of establishing the privilege rests upon the party asserting it. State v. Love, supra.

"Wilson argues the Administrator should not be making judgments about what is subject to the attorney-client privilege. However, when a request for a document is made, the Administrator consults with the County's attorney and asks whether it is attorney-client privileged information. The determination of what is privileged information is based on legal advice the Administrator receives from the County's attorney. Therefore, we find the Administrator is not making the determination but is relating the information he receives from the County's attorney to the Council when a request is made for possibly privileged documents.

"Wilson, as a council member, cannot independently review attorney-client privileged documents. The privilege belongs to the client County; and the Council, as a whole, is authorized to release that information and has to waive the privilege before an individual council member can review privileged documents. See S.C. Code Ann. 30-4-40(a)(7) (2007) (a public body may but is not required to exempt from disclosure the following information: correspondence or work products of legal counsel for a public body and any other material that would violate attorney-client relationships). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding a writ of mandamus cannot issue against the Administrator to compel him to release information where the Council has not authorized such a release. See Redmond, supra (quasi-judicial duty requires discretion in determining how or whether the act shall be done or the course pursued); Charleston County Sch. Dist., supra (appellate court will not overturn decision not to issue a writ of mandamus unless the trial court abuses its discretion)."

CONCLUSION

"We find the trial court did not err by ruling a writ of mandamus cannot issue to compel the Administrator to deliver the county's financial documents to Wilson in a particular manner or within a particular time frame. We further find the trial court did not err by ruling a writ of mandamus cannot issue to compel the Administrator to release attorney-client privileged information without authorization by the client County. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Now, notice the parts I put in bold: Those legal narratives, and any other supposed "attorney-client" privileged information, can be released by a vote of the entire Council. Prior to Wilson filing her lawsuit, County Council had made just such a vote.

I had argued then that the vote was unnecessary, since it has always been my belief that attorney-client privilege in cases like this accrues to the ADMINISTRATOR, not to COUNTY COUNCIL. But McCauley ruled otherwise, and since I highly respect both him and the law, it now is in the hands of Council to decide whether Cindy Wilson, writ of mandamus of no writ of mandamus, gets to see those documents. One simple vote. One simple majority. One big nightmare for Preston and the former Council majority.

You see, PRESTON, it seems, has waived his attorney-client privilege. He did it by subrogating (look it up) that right to a County Council majority that favored him. A new County Council majority that does not favor him (even though it can't do anything to him under the "hold blameless" agreement) can overrule that initial decision and render McCauley's ruling totally moot.

So, 1-Opinion, while y'all are harassing county employees in violation of 4-9-660 and chasing your tails all over the county trying to prove the Preston was doing his best to undermine C. Wilson and Waldrep's ability to do their jobs as the peoples' representatives, THE SMOKING GUN IS RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU.

It's still smoking. Call in forensics - and I don't mean the auditors. This could explain, in part, why the county attorney is looking frantically for the exit before somebody notices Preston's dumb move.

It's also one of the reasons the JDTippett screen name is headed for the exit, too. I value the law, whether it favors me or not, and that occasionally seems to put me on both sides of the issues. Sorry about that, but, as they say, rules are rules - and rulings are rulings. The court has ruled on Cindy Wilson's request for a writ of mandamus regarding those legal narratives - and their ruling AGAINST her back in January basically sets the board up for a WIN by her.

Funny how much difference year can make, isn't it? At the first meeting of 2009, Cindy Wilson could make a motion for the county to waive attorney-client privilege on all matters related to Joey Preston, get a simple majority vote, and move forward with a public dump of things that never should be made public - but they CAN be made public, and there's not a thing JoeyPreston, or Tom Martin, or even Michael Cunningham can do to stop it.

I said when it happened it was dumb of Preston and Martin to request that Council vote on attorney-client privilege. Now you see why. Preston could have retained that attorney-client privilege to his grave ... but he chose instead to seek political cover from County Council. DUH!

Story's up on the AIM website now, as of about a half hour ago.

 http://www.independentmail.com/news/2008/dec/29/county-wins-injunction-against-waldrep-and-wilson/

I totally agree with this ruling (if anybody really cares what I think), but it seems to me that a majority vote by the incoming council to "investigate" specific departments would render it totally moot. It's unfortunate, but members of Council, particularly those in the majority, seem frequently capable of finding new and creative ways to bypass the INTENT of the law, if not the letter of the law.

Anybody else want to weigh in on that?

1-0pinion, I agree with you as far as Floyd using her influence with Animal Control, but I also recognize that if the guy in front of me runs a red light, and I follow him and get pulled by a police officer, "He did it, too" isn't a legal defense. Okay, maybe it is in Wiliamston. I know. I've tried it. [image]

Here's your compromise position: The new Council approves a resolution calling for everybody to follow the law - specifically, both the letter AND the spirit of the S.C. Freedom of Information Law, and all laws dealing with the relationship between County Council, the County Administrator, and county employees. What could be easier?

-jdtippett

 Preston is 14 and 0 but he is GONE! She is still there. Only she (and some of her buddies) can change things now.

-republikin

"Only the strong survive" a Jerry Butler song from 1969 has a chorus that sums it up well!

Only the strong survive, only the strong survive,
Oh, youve got to be strong, youd better hold on
cos only the strong survive
Only the strong survive, only the strong survive,
Well, youve got to be a man, youve got to take a stand
Only the strong survive, only the strong survive   

He couldn't face a Council that was not in his pocket. He is gone and she is still there to bring the change so very much needed by Anderson County. If she doesn't, I'm sure the three new Council members will change things!