Written by Timothy J. Hegarty, A Concerned Citizen of York County:
A very simple dictionary definition of “bias” is “an inclination or preference for or against an individual or group that interferes with impartial judgment “. Remember this statement, as it will relate to the story below.
If you’ve read the previously posted “Damn the Citizens, Full Speed Ahead! in York County” article, then you have a thorough understanding of many of the actions and/or inactions that have contributed to the attempt to foist the Silfab Solar chemical manufacturing facility onto the citizens of Fort Mill.
What you may not know is that the Fort Mill School Board (FMSB) and District have played a passive role to date in allowing this to happen. The Fort Mill School District (FMSD) is, without a doubt, the most influential adjoining property owner to the Silfab Solar location and may share the largest common property line. In their capacity as an adjoining, thereby aggrieved, property owner, the FMSD has the opportunity and the right to speak out and oppose York County ‘s attempt to allow an unlawful, Heavy Industrial use on their neighboring Light Industrial zoned property. It is a violation of their rights as property owners. Take this a step further, and you could say that the FMSD has an obligation to oppose such development in their duty to protect their students. To date, they have chosen to avoid this opportunity and ignore this obligation.
Why have they done so? In their own words, per numerous previous statements made by Kristy Spears, Chairwoman of the Fort Mill School Board (Oct. 29, 2024, FMSB meeting video, approx. 47:28 time) and Joe Burke, Chief Communications Officer for Fort Mill Schools (email dated Aug. 20, 2025), they have been following the advice of their attorneys.
So just who are these attorneys? The legal firm advising the FMSB on this matter is Haynesworth Sinkler Boyd (HSB), a prominent SC law firm with offices in Charleston, Columbia, Greenville, and Florence, SC. The information quoted below is taken directly from the HSB website (hsblawfirm.com):
“Haynesworth Sinkler Boyd’s Economic Development attorneys have extensive experience in representing U.S. and foreign companies investing in South Carolina. Our Firm’s client base reaches over 30 countries, including China, Germany, Italy, England, Ireland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Finland, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Canada, and more. We assist clients in structuring their investment, financing, real estate matters, permitting, and available economic development incentives and in the implementation of such incentives.
We are well-positioned geographically. Our Columbia office is located in the same building as the South Carolina Department of Commerce, the SC Power Team, the Central SC Alliance, and the City of Columbia and Richland County Economic Development offices, and directly across the street from the State House. More importantly, our lawyers have ongoing, working relationships with key economic development officials at the regional, state, county, and local levels…
Haynesworth Sinkler Boyd is a leader in negotiating economic development and incentive transactions for clients relocating or expanding in South Carolina. In the past 10 years, our attorneys have negotiated and closed fee-in-lieu-of-tax transactions on projects representing billions of dollars of investment in the state. We have represented hundreds of industries and businesses, including a variety of manufacturing, distribution, energy, and knowledge-based companies…”.
Additionally, it should be noted that HSB is an investor and/or member (dependent upon the group’s chosen nomenclature) of the following SC economic development organizations:
- York County Economic Development Council, which was a strategic player in bringing Silfab Solar to Fort Mill, and mentioned at the York County Council FILOT (Fee in Lieu of Taxes) Public Hearing as recommending approval of this FILOT (see yorkcountyed.com)
- I-77 Alliance, which promotes economic development in a five-county area along the I-77 corridor in SC. Note that the I-77 Alliance website features an article released by the SC Chamber of Commerce, which touts the virtues of Silfab Solar “establishing flagship operation in York County”. (see I77alliance.com)
- Palmetto Partners, “a cooperative organization of the major economic development groups in our state, including SC Commerce, the eight regional economic development alliances, private business, and other industry partnerships’ as per their website. (see sccommerce.com)
- SC Economic Developers’ Association (SCEDA), which “serves as the voice for Economic Development in the Palmetto State” per their website. (see SCEDA.org)
Now, none of the above information is provided to make any accusations of wrongdoing in the matter of the FMSB receiving legal advice from HSB. Surely HSB has specific in-house rules and regulations to silo the many and various aspects of the legal work they perform. And surely, HSB must have disclosed the above information to the FMSB as part of their legal agreement. Right?
But let’s go back to the first paragraph definition of “bias.” The continuing definition of “bias” goes on to say that bias can be conscious or unconscious, intentional, or unintentional. The National Center for Cultural Competence at Georgetown University goes further and refers to conscious bias as “Implicit Bias” and, in the case of the medical world, states that “Implicit bias can interfere with clinical assessment, decision-making, and provider-patient relationships such that the health goals that the provider and patient are seeking are compromised”. (see nccc.georgetown.edu)
Is it unreasonable to assume that a legal firm that is as heavily invested in economic development may not be in the best position to provide unbiased counsel to the FMSB to oppose economic development based on property rights and in the interest of student safety? Has student and faculty safety taken a back seat to economic development?
It is reasonable that the FMSB felt compelled to obtain attorney feedback on the topic of Silfab Solar as an adjacent property use. As we know, it is the most contentious community issue in Fort Mill in our lifetime and presents a long-term health and safety risk to the community as well as to the school district, specifically the neighboring schools. What is not reasonable is that the FMSB/D should blindly follow an attorney’s advice to ignore their obvious rights as adjacent property owners and their obligation to student and faculty safety. An attorney’s role is to provide legal advice, not to shape policy. That responsibility falls squarely within the purview of the FMSB.
In the end, for the FMSB, this is not simply a question of zoning or economics; it is a question of trust. The Fort Mill School Board’s responsibilities lie in the education, safety, and well-being of its students. To fulfill that duty, the FMSB must ensure any legal guidance it receives takes those board responsibilities into consideration first and that such guidance is free from conflicts that could compromise impartial judgment. Student safety deserves more than silence and more than bias; it deserves advocacy, and it deserves appropriate preventative proaction, not simply reaction, monitoring and mitigation.
Respectfully,
Timothy J. Hegarty
Concerned York County Citizen and Grandfather
Proud American
SCPIF is not directly affiliated with the litigation of this issue