Citadel BOV moves forward on independent review of ReVille case
The Citadel Board of Visitors today took another step toward a comprehensive and independent review of the complaint made in 2007 regarding Louis Neal ReVille by voting to retain Joseph McCulloch to serve as counsel to the board on this matter. The board also authorized Mr. McCulloch to research and present a list of qualified independent reviewers to the board.
"Joe McCulloch does not have a connection to The Citadel and has a well-earned reputation for integrity and fairness," said BOV Chairman Douglas A. Snyder. "Along with his higher education experience he is well equipped to assist the BOV in identifying an independent reviewer and facilitating its efforts. We considered a number of highly qualified individuals and are confident that Joe McCulloch is the right person for the job."
After a career as a criminal prosecutor, McCulloch served as associate counsel at the University of South Carolina, developing an expertise in higher education matters that he later used at a number of colleges and universities in directing investigative efforts that included policy evaluations and remedial recommendations. He has maintained a private legal practice since the mid-1980s.
McCulloch also offers a distinguished record working on behalf of those less able to defend themselves. He founded the South Carolina Innocence Project to secure the assistance of volunteer lawyers who work to discover and exonerate those wrongfully convicted. He also received the NAACP's Presidential Citation for Legal Advocacy for Extraordinary Service in Protecting the Civil Rights of South Carolinians.The board will select an independent reviewer at a meeting scheduled for August 24.Motion: "That the Board of Visitors retain Mr. Joseph McCulloch of Columbia, South Carolina to act as the Board's attorney and counselor in the role approved by the BOV at our August 1st meeting and authorize Mr. McCulloch to research and present to the Board a list of qualified independent reviewers. The working group makes this Motion after a review of the Board's actions in November 2011 and August 2012 and thorough consideration of the character and qualifications of the several candidates presented."