Court Filings Reveal Details of SLACO Controversy
Over the past year, the St. Louis Association of Community Organizations (SLACO) has faced continuing controversy stemming from actions taken under the leadership of former Executive Director Kevin McKinney and Keith Antone Willis, SLACO’s former Program Manager. The controversies have roiled the longstanding community nonprofit’s board and eventually led to the City of St. Louis requesting a significant amount of funding be returned. SLACO ended its relationship with both men some time ago, and the organization has stated that it has initiated a thorough review of the missteps that led the nonprofit into this turbulent period.
As the internal review process continues, WCS Catering, LLC, a contractor on the city-funded project, has filed a lawsuit over unpaid invoices related to the city contract. The civil suit names not only SLACO but also the city as defendants. According to court filings, WCS claims that it is owed $289,400.00 for work performed under the contract it signed with SLACO for mowing and lot clearance. WCS states that it completed all of the work agreed to under the contract and that it incurred significant costs, including those related to purchasing equipment for the contracted work. The city’s inclusion as a defendant appears to stem from WCS’s contention that the decision to demand the return of grant funds left SLACO without the money needed to pay for services rendered.
SLACO’s Response Reveals Details
In response to WCS’s allegations, SLACO has put forth an affirmative defense and filed counterclaims that have made McKinney, Willis, and WCS’s Steve Wallace parties to the suit. It also included companies controlled by McKinney and Willis that were part of recent controversies over real estate dealings. According to the court filing, SLACO’s defense is centered on the theory that “WCS, Wallace, Willis, Willis LLC, and McKinney conspired and agreed together to defraud SLACO through an unlawful lawn care services scheme designed to misappropriate SLACO funds for their collective benefit.”
While the court filing is redacted, context allows readers to piece together the claims made against McKinney, Willis, and Wallace. SLACO’s filing states that the problems began with the passing of its former board president, Sundy Whiteside. According to the suit, “From 2023-2024, there was a rapid change of leadership within SLACO’s executive leadership. The former board president had passed away in December of 2023 after battling a terminal illness. The role of president was not filled until after the April 2024 board elections. and several other members of SLACO’s executive board chose to retire and resign from their board positions.” It goes on to say that McKinney “began to increasingly deviate from the corporate processes and procedures mandated by SLACO’s governing bylaws” during this transition period.
The document further charges that McKinney and others “took overt acts including: secretly entering SLACO into an inflated and improperly awarded services agreement; bypassing legally mandated bidding processes; concealing the agreement from SLACO’s board of directors; arranging for youth ambassadors to perform the actual lawn care services while WCS submitted false invoices claiming credit and demanding payment for those same services; and causing SLACO to double-pay for lawn care services.” The filing states that SLACO’s board believes these acts were done with a specific intent to defraud SLACO. SLACO also claims that McKinney falsified tax forms for SLACO contractors and vendors.
SLACO’s counterclaim goes on to allege that McKinney made numerous false statements, concealed conflicts of interest, and omitted “material information regarding unauthorized financial transactions” from SLACO’s board. As a result of these actions, SLACO says that the organization has sustained significant financial and reputational damage. It further states that McKinney personally benefited from the fraud via “unauthorized payments, misappropriated funds, and improper and undisclosed corporate financial transactions.” SLACO’s counterclaims seek to recover these funds, stating that the board believes it would be wrong for McKinney to retain the excess compensation.
SLACO’s board also alleges additional financial misconduct outside of the context of the city contract and real estate venture. The counterclaim cites “Utilizing unapproved payment applications, including Cash App and Venmo, to make unauthorized payments of SLACO funds to unidentified individuals for unknown reasons. For example. such payments include unexplained regular payments to a local Saint Louis bartender” as inappropriate usages of the nonprofit’s funding. It goes on to state that McKinney continued to “attempt to improperly and unlawfully access SLACO’s bank accounts after the termination of his association and employment with SLACO had already taken effect.”
The filing also states that McKinney and Willis engaged in fraudulent activity stemming from a real estate venture. “McKinney created the ‘spinoff LLC’ SLACO Neighborhood Development LLC, without the authorization, knowledge, or approval of SLACO’s board of directors or executive board,” states the filing. It contends that “McKinney then used this spinoff LLC to mislead lenders into issuing additional loans to SLACO.” The filing also points to two properties that were purchased using funds from the aforementioned loans and claims that “McKinney’s spinoff LLC held the property, but SLACO remained saddled with the debt; debt that was only incurred due to McKinney’s use of the spinoff LLC to improperly mislead lenders.” SLACO states that the board voted to have McKinney dissolve the LLC in July of 2024, but that it remains active. Also related to these real estate transactions, SLACO accuses McKinney of “Unilaterally deciding to use Certificate of Deposit investments (“CDs”) held by SLACO to secure loans and lines of credit.” The suit states this was done without the knowledge of SLACO’s board.
SLACO also alleges Willis and his company participated in “concealing conflicts of interest, misrepresenting the nature and value of services they provided, omitting material information regarding unauthorized financial obligations they created for SLACO, and causing duplicative payments to be issued to Willis’ family members.” The filing indicates that SLACO is seeking reimbursement for funds owing to similar reasons as those cited in seeking repayment from McKinney. SLACO also claims Mr. Wallace and WCS were complicit in the deceptions. Rather than acknowledging debt to WCS, SLACO’s response challenges WCS’s claims and demands that the contractor return the payments it received.
WCS Denies Conspiracy, Defrauding SLACO
In a response filed yesterday, WCS’s attorney Frank Ledbetter responded to the counterclaims made by SLACO. The responses filed show that WCS admits to many of the allegations made by SLACO, while a majority of the responses to SLACO’s allegations say that “WCS lacks sufficient knowledge necessary to admit the allegations” and “therefore denies those allegations.” WCS’s Wallace also disputes SLACO’s contention that he and McKinney were friends. Rather, Wallace considers him an acquaintance. WCS denies working in conjunction with McKinney and Willis to illegally secure the contract.
Notably, WCS’s response states that the company “specifically denies that Steve Wallace worked with Willis related to the KIC initiative other than acting for WCS as its member. WCS specifically denies that any local Youth Ambassadors’ from SLACO’s KIC Initiative provided all or nearly all of the lawn care services that WCS billed to SLACO.” WCS further denies submitting false invoices to McKinney and SLACO. WCS states that it had completed the contracted work and denies demanding payment for services not provided.
During a phone conversation on Wednesday, Ledbetter emphasized that his client had no knowledge of the various claims made about the conflicts between SLACO’s board and staff. Ledbetter stated that his client believed that he was being awarded a contract that was legally executed. Ledbetter also noted that his client had previous experience in providing lawn services, despite only filing for a needed permit around the time the contract was executed. Ledbetter also noted that the fact that the company name includes “catering” does not limit the company to only providing that food service.
Judge Christopher McGraugh is presiding over the civil case. The trial is currently scheduled for June 1st.
Note: SLACO’s attorneys and Mr. McKinney were contacted for comment. Neither responded to our request. As of publication, it appears that Willis has yet to be served. The city has asked to be dismissed from the case.
