NEWBERRY COUNTY COUNCIL
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 29, 2005
The Newberry County Council met on Tuesday, November 29, 2005, at 10:00
a.m. in Council Chambers for a special called meeting.
PRESENT: Mike Hawkins, Chairman
William D. Waldrop, Vice Chairman
John E. Caldwell, Councilman
Henry B. Summer, Councilman
John David Dawkins, Councilman
Andy Morris, Councilman
Edgar Baker, Councilman
Leonard
B. Sossamon, Jr.,
Gary
T. Pope,
Susan C. Fellers, Clerk to Council
MEDIA: Cindy Pitts, Newberry Observer
Cassie Fowler, Whitmire
No representation from WKDK
Mike Hawkins, Chairman, called the meeting to order and determined a quorum to be present.
Notice of the meeting was duly advertised as required by law.
Councilman Edgar Baker had the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Additions, Deletions
and Adoption of Agenda.
Mr. Hawkins
requested an addition of Item (C) to Executive Session to get legal advice from
the
Mr. Caldwell requested a personal appearance to bring forth information as far as his wife seeking to purchase some land and could not get purchased. (Item 2.1).
There being no further additions or deletions, Mr. Waldrop moved to adopt the agenda as amended; second by Mr. Summer. Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Hawkins stated last Friday’s Observer pulled a quote from Leonard Sossamon and put it beside Mr. Hawkins’ picture and name. When they quote Jay Bender in the paper, he is the attorney for the South Carolina Press Association, and his opinion is worth just as much as the opinion of our attorney as to what is acceptable in Executive Session and what is not acceptable. Mr. Bender is not the final authority.
2.1 John
MR. CALDWELL: For the ones of you that don’t know me, I am J.E. Caldwell, the spouse of Patricia H. Caldwell, and to make a – well, I am not going to – bear with me on time. I have a grave concern about some things that have come up quite recently, and I think that they are grossly unfair to me and my wife. And the fact about it, I think, it is about to put my political career in you know what.
Saying that, let me just read something for you. This is a quit claim deed.
Know all men by these presents that The Forfeited Land Commission, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) to it in hand paid at and before the sealing and delivery of these presents by Newberry County Disabilities and Special Needs Board, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released and forever quitclaimed, and by these presents dies remise, release and forever quitclaim unto the said Newberry County Disabilities and Special Needs Board, its successors and assigns forever, the following described real estate:
All this certain piece, parcel or tract of land, with any improvements thereon, situate, lying and being in Tax District No. 1, Outside, on Wise Street, outside the City of Newberry, County of Newberry, State of South Carolina, and being known and designated as Lot No. 36 on a plat made by Walton B. Halfacre, Surveyor, dated April 7, 1953, and recorded in Plat Book R at page 36 in the Office of the Clerk of Court for Newberry County, and said Lot No. 36 has such metes, bounds, courses and distances as are shown on said plat.
This is the
identical property conveyed to Grantor by deed from Wendy Wise, as tax collector
for
Grantee’s address: Post Office Box 856
TMS #399-78.
Together with all and singular, the rights, members and hereditaments and appurtenances to the said premises belonging, or in anywise incident or appertaining.
To have and to hold all and singular the premises hereby granted, with the appurtenances, unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever, according to the form, force and effect of the laws and usages of the State of South Carolina and such cases made and provided.
It has witnesses, dates (inaudible).
That is property that was sold from a group of other properties.
Let me back up and say this. In my opinion I don’t want anything to get out that said that I am incriminating these ladies. These ladies have done nothing wrong. The only thing that they did was went by what they had to go on. They shouldn’t be reprimanded or challenged to the extent by what the Republican Party would say or what anyone would say because there are some good Republicans like there are some bad Democrats. Usually what we say in court is not documented and doesn’t exist. Then you turn that around and document it, and it does exist.
Let me say
this. My wife, Patricia H. Caldwell,
made purchase or attempt to have the granted purchase of several pieces of
property under the same scenario. Same
scenario. So, she was denied primarily,
and Mr. Pope, you correct me if I am wrong on this by what you had said, that
it is unethical of what the Ethics Commission would say about this, and that she
could not purchase the property. The
property would go back on the Internet.
When the property goes on the Internet, we would take sealed bids. Well, I am in all favor of Disability and
Special Needs keeping this piece of property.
And, I think that the fair thing to do is if she can’t purchase this
property, I mean, why is she being penalized for a position that I hold? Like I told you, Mr. Pope, I said Mr.
Sossamon – I called Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Waldrop - I will have my resignation on
the desk Monday when I get back from
MR. POPE: At what point do you want me to correct your, Mr. Caldwell?
MR. CALDWELL: No, do you mind if I finish, and then you –
MR. POPE: You asked me to correct you if I thought it was wrong so I was asking at what point.
MR. CALDWELL: Okay. What I want you to do – to correct is the ethical part of it.
MR. POPE: You want me to address that now?
MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. You asked, didn’t you?
MR. POPE: Under the South Carolina Ethics Commission ruling AO2002-003, the economic interest of an immediate family member, an individual with whom associated and a business with which associated is imputed to the public official, public member, and public employee for purposes of Section 8-13-700, et al., which means that the interests of your wife are identical to your interests, Mr. Caldwell, and that is why the problem has arisen. What we have attempted to do to try to come to a resolution of the problem is we have drafted a proposed letter to the Ethics Commission, which I have asked the Chairman to review and the County Administrator to review, which we were going to send down by fax today to the Ethics Commission to ask them if there was any possible appearance of a violation of the Ethics Act by virtue of your wife’s purchasing property from the Forfeited Land Commission. If they say that it is fine, then I certainly have no problem. If they say there is a problem, then they will tell us what the nature of the problem is and what would have to be done to fix that problem.
With regard to putting the land on the interstate – the Internet, excuse me, the Forfeited Land Commission has not yet met to adopt a method by which they will offer property. There is nothing that they have done about putting it on the Internet or any other method. They have – they are going to meet to discuss the standards that should be applied. The problem is that no one else who has purchased property apparently has been affected by the State Ethics Act. It is simply, as I understand it, your wife has offered to purchase eighteen separate parcels that were taken from taxpayers that they forfeited – you know, the delinquent tax sale, and transferred to the Forfeited Land Commission. And as stated, your interests are deemed to be identical her interests, and vice versa. I did not create this law. This is what the Ethics Act says. This is the official opinion of the State Ethics Commission, Mr. Caldwell. So, I am just advising that there is a potential for a problem here that needs to be addressed, and it would be in my opinion, the best thing to do would be to get an informal opinion from the Ethics Commission and see if there is a problem. And, if there is not a problem, then there is not a problem, but from my legal training and my almost thirty years of practicing law, I see that there is a potential problem here and that it needs to be addressed.
And, as the – your wife asked me yesterday how did I come to know about this because I was not asked to prepare any of those deeds. I came to know about it because someone complained to me, and that complaint is confidential. Someone complained to me that they thought it was a violation of the Ethics Act. So I can only tell you that it came to me by reason of complaint. I investigated. I started asking questions, and then I gave the advice that I gave, which is that it bears further investigation, and I believe that the appropriate course of conduct is to write to the Ethics Commission, give them the facts, and get an opinion as to whether it is right or it is wrong. You are a public official. You are entrusted with the public trust and because of that there are certain rules that make it more restrictive on what your family members can do than what an ordinary person can do. That’s my situation.
MR. CALDWELL: Okay. That being – go back. You said that I asked you or she asked you about procedure.
MR. POPE: She asked me how did I find out about it, Mr. Caldwell, is what I said.
MR. CALDWELL: Okay. Well, then was that unethical for that individual to say that to you?
MR. POPE: No, sir. It’s – in fact, it is protected not only by Council rules but by the Whistleblower Act –
MR. CALDWELL: May I just continue because I don’t want to hold up. The other thing that bothers me, and this is personal and it is not personal. You are our county attorney.
MR. POPE: Yes, sir.
MR. CALDWELL: Sinkler and Boyd, what do they do for us?
MR. POPE: They do your bond work.
MR. CALDWELL: What do your spouse do?
MR. POPE: My spouse works there.
MR. CALDWELL: Well, is that not a conflict of interest?
MR. POPE: I don’t have anything to do with selecting bond counsel.
MR. CALDWELL: She doesn’t have anything to do with the selection of property that’s going to be sold, Mr. Pope.
MR. POPE: Pardon.
MR. CALDWELL: I mean, my wife, didn’t have anything to do with the property that is – was being sold. She just purchased it.
MR. POPE: Yes, sir.
MR. CALDWELL: She purchased it like anybody else.
MR. POPE: Yes, sir, but she is the wife of an elected official. I am an employee.
MR. CALDWELL: What I am saying is she won’t be that after Monday.
MR. POPE: Well, that’s your choice, Mr. Caldwell.
MR. CALDWELL: I know but I’m saying how are you going to rule on that?
MR. POPE: I’m not – Mr. Caldwell, I give advice. I don’t make rulings. I am not a decision maker. I am not an elected official. Ya’ll are. Ya’ll are the decision makers, not me. All I can do is advise you when I see a potential problem, and I’m telling you I saw a potential problem. My recommendation is that you get an opinion from the Ethics Commission. That is still my recommendation. When you and I discussed it last week, you apparently didn’t want to do that, but the Chairman and the Administrator and I and your wife discussed it yesterday, and your wife seemed to agree that it would be an appropriate course of conduct. And, I have drafted such a letter, which if the Chairman and the Administrator approve, I would propose to send to the Ethics Commission today by fax.
MR. HAWKINS: Let me jump in here right quick. Mr. Pope drafted this letter last night. I have copies here for all of the Council members. That is one of the things I thought we would do in executive session. Let you look at it and decide how we want to word this letter. I want the entire Council involved in this process.
MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. Well, the problem I have with it, and again, I am going to correct that, is that - - I am going to cut this to about ten minutes, may I, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HAWKINS: I’m not going to tell a County Council member – I’m not going to limit your time.
MR. CALDWELL: All right. I’m going to start right here. Mr. Baker. Less than two to three weeks ago an incident came up with Mr. Baker, or his son, or his company bid – submit a bid. Okay. He had the lowest bid, and it was questionable was that ethical or unethical. And the Council said - and you correct me if I am wrong on this, Mr. Pope - When we said what we did about it, Mr. Baker was not present, that we didn’t see anything wrong with it because we didn’t have anything in place that could prevent this from happening.
MR. POPE: Except the State Ethics Act, which said that, you know, when it is out for public bid, Mr. Caldwell, and it is out there for everybody, then you have a public process, and no one is getting special treatment.
MR. CALDWELL: Are these not out there for everybody?
MR. POPE: It is not publicly advertised. This is done by the Forfeited Land Commission over which the Council has no control, but they do not advertise it. They do not make it normally available to the public that these properties are available. They don’t have a procedure where they do that, and my recommendation to them was it would be better for everyone if you had a procedure. Then no one could question what you are doing. That is still my opinion, that they should advertise in some manner to let the public know that properties are available. At this point, they don’t do that.
MR. CALDWELL: So they don’t advertise?
MR. POPE: Not that I am aware of.
MR. CALDWELL: Well, how do the public find out about this?
MR. POPE: The public generally doesn’t. That’s the problem.
MR. CALDWELL: Well, you had a non publicized sale the same day of the other because Mr. Baker was there and my wife was there. Right over there in front of the courthouse.
MR. POPE: The delinquent tax sales are held here. This is something that is done –
MR. CALDWELL: Well, what is that held over in front of the courthouse?
MR. POPE: I have no idea.
MR. BAKER: I was not there, Mr. Caldwell, but –
MR. POPE: The delinquent tax sales are held in this room, Mr. Caldwell. The Forfeited Land Commission properties –
MR. CALDWELL: So they are not advertised?
MR. POPE: Not that I am aware of. County Council has no control over that. There is a statutory commission composed of the Auditor, the Treasurer, and the Clerk of Court, Mr. Caldwell.
MR. CALDWELL: Well, if the Council has no control over it, why are you in it, Mr. Pope?
MR. POPE: It is the appearance. It is because of your wife and the possibility of this Ethics Act applying to your situation.
MR. HAWKINS: Mr. Caldwell, if I might jump in here again. What I am hearing you say, the parallel that I think you are trying to draw here between this and the bidding on the building or the roof work – Mr. Pope advised us at that time – four of us said can you do this, and Mr. Pope said well you don’t have anything in place at the present time that prohibits Council members from bidding on projects. He said now if you want to put that in place, you can but you don’t have anything in place at the present time. I think that is the parallel that you are drawing between that case and yours. Is that correct?
MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. Then here is what I am drawing also. Okay, and again I am going down the line, and this is no (inaudible). Mr. Morris, here, is spouse is a banker. Anything that comes up pertaining to banking, does he have to excuse himself? You don’t have to answer that.
Mr. Dawkins has a kindergarten, a day care. Anything that comes up reference to schools or children, does he have to excuse himself? You don’t’ have to answer that.
Mr. Summer is in insurance. When we start talking about insurance on various buildings, can he refuse not to participate? No.
Mr. Waldrop he has a relative – a relative that is working and is doing a fine job. Doing a great job, and I don’t want any of these people incriminated by what I’ve said. And I can’t over-emphasize that.
Mr. Hawkins, our Chair Person, is it wrong for Mr. Pope or me to say his daughter as a republic – as a reporter cannot stay in here and take minutes?
I’m skipping Mr. Sossamon because he plays it just the way it might have been – like it should be.
What I say, and you can quote me on this, the reason that this was stopped is simply because that piece of property on the corner – I live – we live on McSwain – the corner of South and Leavell. From Drayton to South, we own all the property except this specific building. It is occupied to the best of my ability – my knowledge (inaudible). How long has it been since that piece of property has been on the tax books?
MR. POPE: I don’t have any idea, Mr. Caldwell.
MR. CALDWELL: No idea. Well, I think it would be fair to say maybe it has been two or three years. What she was doing is putting property back on the tax books that has never been on there, and the power never been turned off. So that shows that somebody been staying. I live right around the block from it but again, I think – I don’t think my wife should be penalized for something that is not in place, and you are going to put something in place that actually will take her away from getting the property that she bid on fairly like anyone else could. She had the insight to look up and see what was out there. I think that is wrong, and to be honest with you, again I am not making threats – I think what we are looking at now – we are looking – we looking at an ace of spade. I think this is grossly discrimination, and I think that there are some civil right lawyers, and I am not making any threat, that would take the case for peanuts. Now that’s my feeling. (inaudible) you can hear what you want to threat as long as you hold basically what I said because it is not fair. It is not fair to penalize her for my position. She was going to donate two pieces of land to a church. I’m not going to call the church’s name, and she was told by you - you can correct me again if I am wrong – well, you can’t donate it to the church. Somebody else could buy it and donate it to the church. She said why. Well, it looks like you are soliciting votes. Well, isn’t that what politicians do all the time?
MR. POPE: Mr. Caldwell, on those things it is irrelevant as to what her use of the property is. It is her buying it. If the church would like to buy it on the same basis that the Disabilities and Needs Board bought their property that would not be a violation of the Ethics Act. The problem is her participation in the purchase. That’s the problem. That is what I explained to her. I don’t believe that you were a part of the conversation yesterday but that is what I explained to her. It was her participation in the process but that if a church went directly and wanted to acquire that property, the Ethics Act doesn’t apply. It has nothing to do with it. It is her participation because she is treated the same as you under the Ethics Act. I didn’t write the Ethics Act. I didn’t write this opinion that I quoted to you, and we are certainly happy to get a formal decision from the Ethics Commission as to what is proper in this situation. All I can do is try to recognize a legal problem and advise people when I see one coming at us and try to give the best advice I can. I’m not perfect. I’ve only been practicing law for, I guess, twenty-nine years. I haven’t learned it all yet but when I see a problem, I try to advise people. No one is required to take my advice, and you certainly aren’t, and you certainly apparently are not going to take it, but that is fine. It’s just I think we need to get the opinion from the Ethics Commission, and if they say it is proper, fine. If they say there are certain things that ought to be put in place, that would be fine but it is not me. It is the State Legislature that passed this law. That’s all I can tell you.
MR. CALDWELL: Well, the question I am asking you, Mr. Pope, why did you tell her that, and correct me if I am wrong, if she bought it and gave it to the church, it would look like that maybe I was soliciting votes?
MR. POPE: Mr. Caldwell, I was trying to point out to her in our conversation what people who had problems with this process might say. It’s not my opinion but it’s what people who didn’t like this transaction, what they might say about you, about what your motives are. I am not imputing motives. I’m just saying what people might say, and part of the law is to avoid the appearance of impropriety and that’s all.
MR. CALDWELL: (inaudible) and then I am finished with this, and I’m just asking for an opinion of you as the county attorney. So you are saying then in essence that it’s wrong for me to have (inaudible), it’s wrong for Pat and me to do the dinners that we do every Christmas, give away 150 to 160 meals, while still a Councilman? Are we soliciting - am I soliciting votes then? If that be the case, we –
MR. POPE: Mr. Caldwell, there is a difference between running for office and what has happening in this situation, which is buying property from the Forfeited Land Commission. There are two totally different things. One is running for office, and one is a charitable act of feeding the people who are hungry, but they are totally different. You are right. Totally different but this is a situation where you are taking property that has been taken by force of law from people who owned their property and being sold for less than fair market value to the wife of a County Council member. That is a problem and what the appearance of impropriety is and why we need to have an opinion from the South Carolina Ethics Commission to determine what the County should do in this situation.
MR. CALDWELL: Thank you, sir.
MR. SUMMER: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question?
MR. HAWKINS: Yes.
MR. SUMMER: Mr. Pope, now the Forfeited Land Commission, where do they get this property from?
MR. POPE: Mr. Summer, they are set up under Title 59, and what happens is by State law under Title 12that the first bid at a delinquent tax sale by law is deemed to be given by the Forfeited Land Commission. That is the starting bid unless the property is contaminated. They are not required to take contaminated property but every other property they are deemed to make the first bid on it.
[MR. CALDWELL LEFT THE MEETING AT
10:26 A.M.]
If no one else bids on the property, then it goes – it is deemed that they bid it into the sale, and after one year if the property has not been redeemed by the taxpayer of record, then they get a deed to the property. And then the state law states that it is a county asset. This is Code Section 12-59-40. It says, “All lands deeded to the Forfeited Land Commission of any county shall be held by it as assets of the county and state and sold to the best interest of the county and state. It shall sell and dispose of such lands in such a manner and upon such terms and conditions as to it may appear to be for the best interest of its county.” And it goes on to say that you can’t have terms of more than ten years. But it is a statutory commission. It is in place so that the ownership of the land will be in somebody’s name when the taxes are not paid.
MR. SUMMER: So anybody from the public that is interested in this property could show up at the delinquent tax sale and buy the property?
MR. POPE: Absolutely.
MR. SUMMER: And so the only property the Forfeited Land Commission gets is people that didn’t want to bid on the property. All they got is the leftovers?
MR. POPE: That is correct.
MR. SUMMER: So if you go back to when the land was put in place at the start, it was advertised – it was sold at the Courthouse steps and anybody that wanted to could buy the property. At that point they could, and only – they only end up with property nobody wanted to bid on.
MR. POPE: At that point, yes, sir.
MR. SUMMER: So if you go back to that point in time, anybody from the public had an opportunity to buy the property.
MR. POPE: The first time they did. The problem is the second time. Once they get a deed to the property and it hadn’t been redeemed, the problem is what do you do the second time. Should it be made available to the public? This statute was originally done in about 1938, as I am reading this, before we had the Home Rule Act and before we had the State Ethics Act, and the problem is what happens when we have a situation like we have now. And when the property has not been – once they own the property that it has not been advertised or made available equally to members of the public. People have different opinions about this and maybe having it advertised at the delinquent tax sale is all that is required to be done. My point is that in this day of the ethics and the Ethics Act, it would be prudent to get a decision from the Ethics Commission as to whether that is sufficient or not and what should be done in this situation. And, I can see no down side to doing that and see that it would give clear guidance in the future for persons who want to do it. The problem has been that most of the property the Forfeited Land Commission gets is generally worthless property. It is property that has been cut off when a road was widened or whatever, but sometimes you have property that is valuable. Like in this case you have a duplex that is rentable. For some reason, it wasn’t bid on, but anyway –
MR. HAWKINS: Let the
record show that Mr. Caldwell excused himself.
I don’t know whether or not he intends to return. I wish he had stayed. I had a few things I wanted to say while he
was here. Mr. Summer was driving toward
the point that I made yesterday afternoon when we met with Mrs. Caldwell. The county attorney gives us legal advice. He and I disagree on the fair market
value. In my opinion when it was put up,
auctioned off and everybody had a chance to bid, and they did not, that
established the fair market value of the property. I have a problem with the fair market value
portion of this discussion. I do agree
with the county attorney that it is good to get an Ethics Commission
opinion. I thought that was what Mr.
Caldwell was going to refer to when he went down the line and got to me. My wife is employed at
MR. MORRIS: Just a couple of comments. All of this is news to me. This is the first I have heard anything about this when I came and sat down today and Mr. Caldwell got up to make his comments. But he started off his comments talking about Republicans and Democrats, and I don’t see where this is a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, but it is a personal issue. So I don’t know where that is coming from and I just want to go on the record as saying it is a personal issue and has nothing to do with politics.
MR. HAWKINS: Mr. Baker.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I hate Mr. Caldwell left. I wanted to ask him one question, too. When I ran for this seat, I wrote the Ethics Commission and told them I was a general contractor, and asked them about bidding on the county’s work. The report I got back from them was as long as it was a public bid, there is no problem. The county cannot give you a job just because you say you will do something but if it is a public bid and open to public, there is no problem. The question – I know nobody here can be able to answer because he is already gone, but I wanted to question Mr. Caldwell about his comment he made about this being a civil rights violation, and I want to know what he meant by that. I won’t elaborate anymore at this point with the newspaper here.
MR. HAWKINS: Any other comments on this issue? If not, we will move on to agenda item number 3.
[MR. DAWKINS REQUESTED PERMISSION
TO BE EXCUSED FOR A MINUTE, WHICH WAS GRANTED]
While Mr.
Dawkins was out of the room, Mr. Hawkins advised Council of a letter received
from the United States Environmental Protection Agency rejecting an
administrative complaint, which says the complaint was not made in a timely
manner and had been denied. This, too,
was a civil rights complaint in connection with the landfill at
[MR. DAWKINS RETURNED]
3. Formal
Action adopting Resolution approving the annual adjustment of rates at J.F.
Hawkins Nursing Home.
Mr. Morris moved to adopt the Resolution; second by Mr. Baker.
Martha Bursinger, Administrator, introduced Glenn Wicker, Chief Financial Officer, who was hired full time yesterday. Ms. Bursinger presented recommended increases as follows:
(a) $12 increase for semi-private rooms at J.F. Hawkins from $123 (current rate) to $135 per day;
(b) $17 increase for a private room from $128 (current rate) to $145 per day;
(c) $10 increase for semi-private rooms in the Alzheimer/Special Care/Unit 4 from $144 (current rate) to $154 per day;
(d) $14 increase for private rooms in the Alzheimer/Special Care/Unit 4 from $148 (current) to $162 per day.
This is a total increase of 17%; however, it is a 10% increase if you look at the J.F. Hawkins’ rates and a 7% increase at the Springfield Unit 4 location as well as the J.F. Hawkins Special Needs Unit.
Mr. Summer asked Ms. Bursinger if she estimated the projected additional revenue, but she had not. This will be helpful they have a 19.75% cost increase from last year and the 17% increase will match some of the cost increase.
Mr. Hawkins called for the question. Vote was unanimous.
4. Approval
of temporary easement for Plum Creek Timber Company to cross property recently
purchased by the County from the Whitney Estate for the Maybinton Ballfield
Project.
Mr. Baker has investigated this matter further and had no reservations granting an easement for one year to Plum Creek to cross one corner of the county’s property.
Jon Welch with Plum Creek advised the easement would cross the northern portion of the county’s property and would split before the forestry service tract.
Mr. Baker moved to grant the easement for one year and after that, something else would need to be worked out to push his road further north; second by Mr. Morris.
Mr. Pope advised the County was in the process of buying additional property from Adella Summer, which is located next to the Whitney property just purchased by the County.
[AT 10:45 A.M. MR. CALDWELL
RETURNED]
Mr. Hawkins called for the question. Voting for the motion: Councilmen Hawkins, Waldrop, Summer, Dawkins, Morris and Baker. Councilman Caldwell abstained. Motion passed by majority vote.
5. Christmas Holidays.
The Governor has declared Christmas Eve as a holiday for state employees to be observed on Friday, December 23. Mr. Sossamon has already had several inquiries from county employees about this.
Mr. Summer moved
to grant
6. Executive Session.
Mr. Morris moved to go into Executive Session to discuss the following matters: personnel involving Magistrate’s Court; economic development; and legal advice regarding the ethics question; second by Mr. Caldwell. Vote was unanimous.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION 10:50 A.M. –
1:OO P.M.]
Mr. Morris moved to return to regular session; second by Mr. Waldrop. Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Morris moved to honor Senator Cromer’s request to commence paying Judge Abraham full time effective November 21, 2005; second by Mr. Waldrop. Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Summer moved
to authorize the
Mr. Hawkins stated there were conditions to be met before doing that and Mr. Sossamon understands what they are.
Mr. Hawkins
called for the question. Voting for the
motion: Councilmen Hawkins,
Mr. Hawkins
announced a seminar on “The Jail as a Part of County Government” on February
22-24, 2006. They suggest that the
Sheriff, Jail Administrator, and the
There being no further business, Mr. Waldrop moved to adjourn; second by Mr. Baker. Vote was unanimous.
Meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
NEWBERRY COUNTY COUNCIL
___________________________________
Mike Hawkins, Chairman
__________________________________
Susan C. Fellers, Clerk to Council