Richland County Scrambles to Avoid Federal Conspiracy Liability as Claims Emerge of Secret Executive-Session Poll on WOG CDC Mall Project
- CUBNSC
- 2 days ago
- 5 min read
Fear of a Civil Rights Conspiracy Claim: Richland County’s Legal Filings Reveal Effort to Shield Council Members From Accountability
By Javar Juarez | CUBNSC | December 2, 2025
Columbia, SC - Richland County is now doubling down in federal court, filing a sharply defensive 7-page reply that attempts to dismantle the civil rights lawsuit brought by W.O.G. Community Development Corporation, WOG LLC, Word of God Church & Ministries International, and Bishop Eric Davis.
For weeks, CUBN has reported on the central allegation that sparked this lawsuit:
On July 2, 2024, during a closed executive session, it is alleged that Richland County Council may have held an internal “poll” on whether to support or block WOG CDC’s Dutch Square Mall redevelopment proposal.
If such a poll occurred—and multiple County sources say this is a longstanding practice—it would amount to a de facto vote outside public view, potentially violating:
South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Public transparency requirements
And, if motivated by discriminatory intent, federal civil rights protections
When insiders refer to an “internal poll” in a government setting, they are not talking about a survey or an opinion check. In County Council practice, an internal poll is a closed-door counting of hands—a way for members to indicate whether they support or oppose a proposal before returning to public session.
In practical terms, here’s how insiders describe it:
Council goes into executive session. Members discuss a matter privately. Someone in the room asks, “Where is everybody on this?” or “Do we have the votes?” Hands go up. Heads nod. A majority is identified.
No cameras.
No minutes.
No public record.
Then—after the internal poll—the Council returns to open session and often takes no action, postpones the item, or simply allows the administrator or staff to “handle it,” because they already know the majority’s position from the secret tally.
This is the heart of the dispute.
A decision that should never have been made in the dark—and may never have been disclosed to the public at all.
Why the Civil Rights Conspiracy Claim Terrifies Richland County
Richland County’s latest filing makes one thing unmistakably clear: the County is determined to eliminate one claim above all others—the civil rights conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3). This Reconstruction-era statute, originally enacted to combat coordinated Klan violence, now applies when government officials allegedly act together to deny equal rights to a protected group. In their response, County attorneys insist that WOG CDC’s conspiracy allegation rests only on a “parenthetical” in the complaint. But that framing sidesteps the real issue: what, exactly, happened inside the July 2 executive session?
The power of the §1985(3) claim lies in what it requires the plaintiff to prove: that officials reached a meeting of the minds, agreed—whether explicitly or implicitly—to take action that denied equal rights, and then carried out an overt act that caused injury. If a secret executive session poll on the WOG CDC redevelopment project occurred, it would fit neatly within those elements. Every councilmember present would have heard the same discussion, fulfilling the collective “meeting of the minds.” A poll, informal or not, is still an agreement on how to proceed. And preventing WOG CDC from publicly presenting their proposal—especially if that decision was made in private—would constitute the overt act that produced harm.
To counter this, the County leans heavily on the “intracorporate immunity doctrine,” a defense claiming a government body cannot conspire with itself. But courts routinely reject that doctrine when officials act with discriminatory intent, step outside the scope of their duties, deprive a group of equal protection, possess personal or political motives, or when the alleged conspirators include individuals from mixed roles—such as council-members, legal counsel, and administrators—as appears to be the case here.
This is why the County is striking at the conspiracy claim more aggressively than any other aspect of the lawsuit. If the claim survives, the shield of collective immunity weakens. Individual council members—including figures such as Paul Livingston, Overture Walker, Jason Branham, Don Weaver, Cheryl English and Chakisse Newton—could face personal exposure to federal liability. The stakes are no longer theoretical; they are direct, individual, and potentially severe. That reality gives the County every incentive to dismantle the conspiracy claim before discovery reveals what truly occurred behind closed doors.
The Bigger Question: Why Was This Not Handled at the Staff Level?
Mall redevelopment proposals such as the Dutch Square Mall project, tax credit projects, hospitality-fund applications, and public-private partnerships are normally processed through staff, not Council.
The fact that the proposal was elevated into a closed executive session raises questions:
Who pushed it behind closed doors?
Why was WOG CDC denied the ability to present publicly?
Why did Council treat this differently from other developers and nonprofits?
What were they afraid of being seen?
Is Richland County Seeking a Scapegoat?
As this legal battle unfolds, another development surfaced this week that raises additional—and entirely reasonable—questions about what is happening inside Richland County Government.
On November 18, 2025, and December 2, 2025 the County held a Regular Session that included an unusually large slate of legal-related executive session items, including one described as: “Discussion and legal advice concerning duties of the County Administrator regarding Richland County Code Sec. 2-79 and Sec. 2-80.”
This agenda language is striking for a simple reason: it suggests Council sought legal advice about the Administrator’s statutory duties rather than a specific project, contract, or routine personnel matter.
To be clear, the agenda does not say why those duties were being discussed, nor does it draw any connection to the WOG CDC lawsuit. There is no evidence—at least not yet—of any effort to assign blame. But the timing and the context raise a series of legitimate questions that the public has a right to ask:
Why did Council seek legal advice specifically about the Administrator’s duties at this moment?
Is the County evaluating whether certain responsibilities were—or were not—fulfilled?
Could this signal internal disagreement about who is responsible for decisions now being challenged in federal court?
And as the County faces intense scrutiny over executive-session practices, is there a risk that someone inside the administration could become a convenient fall guy?
These are not accusations. They are questions rooted in transparency and good-government principles—especially given that the November 18 minutes have not been made publicly available, leaving the public unable to see whether any votes or actions were taken after that executive session.
What is clear is this:
The County appears to be navigating both legal and political pressure. And when institutions are under pressure, the public must pay close attention to whether accountability is being pursued—or redirected.
Whether the Administrator is being reviewed for routine legal housekeeping or something more consequential is unknown. But as Richland County counters allegations of secret decision-making, these internal moves deserve careful scrutiny.
In a case already defined by questions about transparency, the possibility that leadership dynamics are shifting behind closed doors is a development the public—and the courts—may soon want to understand more fully.
This case is no longer just about a mall project. It is about transparency, fairness, and whether a government body acted in secret to block a Black-owned, faith-led community vision.