By FITSNEWS || A Facebook group opposing the candidacy of Mac McQuillan – a school board candidate in Berkeley County – has raised questions regarding the intentions of a recent ruling issued by the S.C. Attorney General’s office.
According to the group, a recently issued letter from chief deputy Attorney General John McIntosh regarding legal fees in Berkeley County is “too bizarre to discount.”
“It’s very odd, that a random, out of the blue, letter drops into the lap of mainstream media three weeks before the election,” the group noted in one post. “We don’t necessarily disagree with the opinion, however, this letter, and its timing, seem too bizarre to discount. And the AG’s office won’t explain why it appeared when it did.”
McIntosh’s letter – which cited prior Attorney General rulings – concluded that public funds cannot be used for private defenses. We support his determination as being not only consistent with the law but also the best interest of taxpayers. In fact we said as much when we included a reference to the decision in a recent “Wire” post.
However McQuillan’s opponents believe the letter is less about protecting taxpayers and more about protecting his employer – the law firm of Haynesworth Sinkler Boyd.
“While Mac touts he will eliminate legal fees for the Berkeley County School District, did you know his employer, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd has pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Berkeley County School District?” the group alleged in one post.
Attached to the post was a spreadsheet showing the firm had received more than $360,000 from the district over the past ten years.
Interesting …
10 comments
Cannot read comments now. Eyes glazed over.
LOL……from “alleged” to “interesting”…..
An AG opinion really means nothing, right? It’s just an opinion.
Fits – you might wanna fact check. Mac was not at Haynesworth Sinkler Boyd dating back to 2006 when that firm received a chunk of that money shown on the spreadsheet, He’s an associate, meaning not been there long enough to make partner. That firm is well known for its bond practice in the state and pretty sure Mac McQuilin (sp?) had nothing to do with his firm getting bond work from the school district He’s good, not that good.
Fits – you might wanna fact check. Mac was not at Haynesworth Sinkler Boyd dating back to 2006 when that firm received a chunk of that money shown on the spreadsheet, He’s an associate, meaning not been there long enough to make partner. That firm is well known for its bond practice in the state and pretty sure Mac McQuilin (sp?) had nothing to do with his firm getting bond work from the school district He’s good, not that good.
Just checked, he graduated law school in 2009 per his bio on the firm’s website. So even if he has been at that firm since, he certainly had nothing to do with the firm getting legal fees from the school district dating back “last ten years”. Which really means the firm had an ongoing relationship with the school district which continued past 2009.
$275k to defend employee criminal acts. I guess the coach down the road that was canned for smashing a watermelon just needs to try a little harder next time.
Hmmm, the AG sent a similar letter to Curtis Loftis after Curtis requested the AG allow him to use “public use of funds for private defense” against the ethics violations issued against Curtis. FOIA it.
Josh has worked tirelessly to expose this corrupt school district (one of several across the state) and, if he is supporting Mac, that’s a good thing for taxpayers and parents who want their tax dollars spent where it matters most. If I could vote there, he’d have mine. AG’s office has had their hands full… glad to see they are back on the case.
Cant follow this. Lost the plot.