E.W. Cromartie Recently resigned city council member E.W. Cromartie has to appear soon before a federal judge to hear his sentence in federal prison for income tax evasion. The news reports on Cromartie concerning his legal troubles have not reported on his campaign contribution collections, but in March of last year, The Columbia Star connected Cromar tie’s campaign contribution collections with the failed cityfinanced and city–developed Hilton headquarters hotel planned in support of Columbia’s convention center on Lincoln Street.

In The Columbia Star issue of March 20, 2009, former city council member E.W. Cromartie was identified as the recipient of questionable campaign contributions, maybe not only unethical but also illegal, depending on a reading of the Ethics, Governmental Accountability, and Campaign Reform Act of 1991 and also Section 8-13-320 (10) and Section 8-13-1342 of the 1976 Code of Laws.

Mayor Bob Coble According to Section 8-13-1342, “No person who has been awarded a contract with...a municipality... other than contracts awarded through competitive bidding practice, may make a contr ibution after the awarding of the contract...” Further it states that “No public official... may solicit campaign contributions or investments in exchange for the prior award of a contract or the promise of a contract...” In order for the public official to be in violation of this section, the public official must have solicited the campaign contr ibution in return for the contract award.

Cromartie’s hotel deal connections

In a memorandum of understanding (MOU) among the development team for the city– financed headquarters hotel, signed by Columbia City Manager Charles P. Austin in the late spring of 2003, the architectural/ engineering fee is cited in Exhibit A as $2,238,000. The fee was to be paid to Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C. for complete archit ectural/engineering services.

Leighton Lord When the city– financed hotel deal floundered and was canceled as unfeasible a year later, spring of 2004, developer Windsor/Aughtry came forward with an eminently doable deal for its Hilton on the same site. Windsor/Aughtry came to terms with the city and privately financed and built its Hilton. The architectural/ engineering fees paid by Windsor/ Aughtry for a complete Hilton hotel comparable to what the city had envisioned came to a bit over $400,000, according to informed sources close to the deal.

S&W had its agreement with the city for more than $2 million, but the built hotel cost only about $400,000 in fees for full architectural/engineering services.

On a company check, S&W’s $1,000 contribution to Cromartie’s campaign fund was dated 12/22/03 and later recorded at the S.C. Ethics Commission. About the same time, S&W was reportedly paid $697,812, but the amount was identified as “the advance payment to S&W,” according to The Columbia Star article of September 12, 2008.

In July 2005, S&W sued the city for about $1.3 million and eventually won.

The landscape design firm identified in the MOU as engaged for the city–financed hotel, Enviro AgScience, also paid $1,000 on a company check, 10/15/03, to Cromartie’s campaign fund.

Although not identified in the MOU, the McNair Law Firm, in this case in business with current mayoral candidate Steve Benjamin, was the hotel deal’s bond counsel. Even though the deal fell through, McNair was able to collect $94,662.10 from the city. On its company check, dated 1/05/04, McNair contributed $500 to Cromartie’s campaign. Benjamin contr ibuted $350 of his own money in two personal checks to Cromartie in 2003, but as personal money Benjamin’s checks do not flout the rules.

Construction Dynamics, listed in the MOU with Nathaniel Spells as its president, contributed $1,000 on a company check to Cromartie’s campaign fund, dated 12/22/03.

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, the state’s largest law firm and professional home of mayoral candidate Steve Morr ison, was paid $158, 309.70 for its work before the city–financed hotel deal died. And Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough contr ibuted a $1,000 company check to Cromar tie’s campaign fund, dated 3/19/04.

Gottlieb & Smith, more lawyers on the cityfinanced hotel job, used its company account to pay Cromar tie’s campaign fund three checks: $200 (3/26/04), $250 (4/2/03), $200 (12/17/03). Gottlieb & Smith was paid $69,025.89 by the city.

All of these contributions don’t pass approval based on Section 8-13- 1342. They’re all paid to Cromar tie’s campaign fund after agreements were reached with the city without competitive bidding.

Using the same criteria and the same deal, the city–financed headquarters Hilton hotel deal, Cromar tie was not the only recipient of development– team illicit largess. For example, Mayor Bob Coble was collecting similar amounts from the same firms about the same time.

Coble’s hotel deal connections

On a check identified as the Benjamin Law Firm, a company check, mayoral candidate Steve Benjamin contr ibuted $500 (12/31/ 05) to Mayor Coble’s campaign fund.

Lawyers Gottlieb & Smith gave to Coble, too, in the amounts of $500 (11/10/04) and $1,000 (2/21/06), both on company checks.

Stevens & Wilkinson gave another $500 (12/30/ 05) to Coble’s campaign fund. This is while S&W was suing the city for about $1.3 million, which began in July of that year.

Even though mayoral candidate Steve Morrison’s firm, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, was engaged with the city on the hotel deal, Morrison’s contribution to Coble of $500 on a personal check (11/29/04) is considered a personal statement and is not a problem under Section 8-13-1342.

Construction Dynamics, listed in the MOU, gave Coble’s campaign fund $1,000 on a company check, 3/6/06.

Turner Construction Company was responsible for getting the cityfinanced hotel built, but Columbia–based construction manager DESA was in on the deal — probably with a minority outreach consideration. DESA contr ibuted two $1,000 company checks to Coble’s campaign fund, 3/10/06 and 2/21/06. The maximum allowed in contributions from one company, assuming the contribution honors Section 8-13-1342, during one campaign cycle is $1,000. DESA apparently doubled the allowable amount.

Another Cromar tie contributor, landscape firm Enviro AgScience, part of the city–financed hotel team, contributed $500 (12/3/04) and $1,000 (3/4/06) to Coble, both after agreements with the city were met and both against the rules according to Section 8-13-1342.

There are other contr ibutions from other companies connected to other city deals, but the point here is Cromartie’s (and Coble’s) style of soliciting campaign contr ibutions were done without respect for the law.

Coble connects with Leighton Lord

One somewhat isolated instance where Coble’s law firm Nexsen Pruet may also be in question is a $1,000 check (11/3/05) made out to Coble’s mayoral campaign fund from “Leighton Lord, Esq.” after the convention center was built. Nexsen Pruet was the city’s legal team on the convention center, even before the hotel deal. Lord, who recently stepped down as managing partner at Nexson Pruet, where Coble is a partner, possibly did not contribute with a personal check but with an office check, one that says “Esq.” rather than just the name.

As such, Lord’s $1,000 contribution might not pass the test according to Section 8-13-1342. Nexsen Pruet’s Web site, as reported in The Columbia Star (August 17, 2007), has shown its pr ide in participating in the convention center project and has identified the mayor’s law firm as attorneys who “...entered at the conceptual stage to aid a citizens group obtain funding for the project. We provided comprehensive project services including creating an intergovernmental organization, arranging for extremely favorable tax–free financing, completing a very complex land acquisition, designing innovative construction procedures, and assisting with a myriad of contractual matters. The 2004 grand opening of the Convention Center was the first of many successful events at this 142,500 square foot, $40,000,000 facility.”

A $40,000,000 facility paid out substantive legal fees. Lord is running for South Carolina Attorney General as a sophisticated real estate lawyer.