Local Radar

---

Ridge Spring Town Council seeks to abolish Police Department

Mayor, citizens, and business owners at odds with majority of council

web posted August 16, 2006
Ridge Spring correspondent report

RIDGE SPRING - He's been a resident less than two years and in office a little more than three months, but Ridge Spring councilman Jim Saul has proven himself to be a mover and a shaker. He's moving to eliminate the town's police department and is shaking up the majority of the citizens in the Ridge community in the process.
 
A proposed ordinance to abolish the Ridge Spring Police Department and to turn over law enforcement coverage to the Saluda County Sheriff's Department received first reading approval at the town council's regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, Aug. 7.
 
A public hearing on the proposed ordinance will be held 7 pm on Monday, Aug. 28, at the Civic Center on west Main Street.
 
Unless one or more of the three council members supporting the proposed ordinance is influenced by opposition from business owners and residents and changes his mind, a second reading approval most likely will follow immediately.
 
In a letter dated July 27, Mr. Saul informed Mayor Denise Martin that he had proposed an ordinance to abolish the town's police department. "I am the Council Member proposing the ordinance," Mr. Saul wrote. "The ordinance has been referred to the Town Attorney for drafting and approval as to form.  He will prepare the notice ordinance and will send it to you."
 
However, it was not until attorney James Mann showed up at the regularly scheduled town meeting on Monday, Aug. 7, and read the ordinance proposing to do away with the police department that Mayor Martin actually saw what was contained in the document.
 
Mr. Mann sent the ordinance to clerk Barbara Waters on Aug. 4, with written instructions to make the ordinance available for public inspection. The document was in her possession prior to the council meeting, but Ms. Waters failed to give the mayor a copy before the meeting started. Mayor Martin was not happy with the discovery of the proposed ordinance's contents. A number of citizens also were taken aback.
 
Although the agenda for the meeting was claimed not to be published in accordance with state law, rumors of the proposed ordinance had passed quickly by word of mouth throughout the community over the weekend.  Residents showed up in force Monday night, causing the meeting to be moved at the last minute from the town hall conference room to the town's civic center.
 
But while the residents came prepared to find out exactly what was going on, they left with many of their questions and concerns unanswered or addressed by the council.
 
Residents first questioned how Mayor Pro Tempore Lewis Burt, whose only authority by law is to preside at council meetings in the absence of the mayor, was able to bypass the town's chief administrator and "authorize"  Mr. Saul to act on behalf of the entire council in proposing the ordinance.
 
They also wanted to know how, in his limited capacity, Mr. Burt "authorized" Mr. Saul and councilman Bob Nelson to meet with Saluda County Sheriff Jason Booth to discuss the matter, especially since Mayor Martin and councilman Ronnie Baughcome had been excluded from the entire process.
 
Mr. Burt did not address that issue, but, in response to what he called "rumors," he denied that he also had been present at the meeting with the sheriff, which would have created a quorum.
 
However, the proposed ordinance itself seeks to exclude Mayor Martin - this despite state law designating her as the town's chief administrator and the fact that numerous state supreme courts, including South Carolina's, has ruled that she, as mayor - not the council - is vested with statutory powers within the mayor-council form of government.
 
The court wrote: "Nevertheless, if the phrase “responsible to council” meant that the mayor must do whatever the council determines concerning the administration of the city affairs, the mayor-council government would not be distinct from other forms of municipal government. “It is well-settled that statutes dealing with the same subject matter are in pari materia and must be construed together, if possible, to produce a single, harmonious result.” Grant v. City of Folly Beach, 346 S.C. 74, 79, 551 S.E.2d 229, 231 (2001)
 
" ... Respondent’s interpretation of the phrase “responsible to council” would lead to an absurd result in that it would pointlessly render the statutory grant of power to the mayor ... meaningless and would eliminate the distinctions inherent in the mayor-council form of government ... “ Furthermore, the interpretation of a term set forth in a statute should support the purpose of the statute and should not lead to an absurd result. S.C. Coastal Council v. S.C. State Ethics Comm'n. 306 S.C. 41, 410 S.E.2d 245 (1991)."
 
Even so, Mr. Burt, a longtime member of council who also served as mayor pro tempore under the previous administration, and Mr. Nelson, who was elected in August 2005, have refused to acknowledge the Mayor's power.
 
In a letter to the town attorney dated Feb. 21, 2006, the two men sought "advice" from Mr. Mann in the "censure and/or suspension by Council" of Mayor Martin. The letter said that Mayor Martin "fired the Town Clerk without advice or consent of Council" and "contracted the accounting part of the Town Clerk/Treasurer's position without consulting anyone."
 
According to state statute, appointed officers serve at the pleasure of the mayor.
 
And again, the court has ruled: “Consequently, although the Mayor must appoint employees with the City Council's consent, it is the Mayor who possesses the power of appointment. Similarly, it is the Mayor who wields the power of removal. . . .” Waters v. City of Glen Cove, 181 A.D.2d 783, 783, 580 N.Y.S.2d 796, 796 (1992).
 
Mayor Martin allowed Ms. Waters to return; however, the town's minutes reveal that Ms. Waters was not appointed by the current mayor, approved by the present council, or sworn in during the present administration as required.
 
Ms. Waters, some say, is not the legally appointed town clerk but is simply a town employee, subject to the authority of the chief administrator of the town.  The mayor has the power, under the at-will employment laws of South Carolina, to hire or to fire without any reason, and without any input from council. In addition, there is no evidence that Mayor Martin ever entered into a contract with anyone for accounting services.
 
Yet, even though it has been warned repeatedly by Mayor Martin, the majority of the council, including Mr. Saul, seems intent on overstepping its boundaries.
 
The proposed ordinance would authorize Mr. Burt to appoint one councilman, presumably Mr. Saul, and the town attorney to "negotiate an agreement with Saluda County and the Saluda County Sheriff's Office."
 
It also would authorize Mr. Burt to "negotiate for the provision of surplus law enforcement equipment to the Saluda County Sheriff's Office together with the provision of a physical facility for a Sheriff's substation" and to revert any unspent revenues in the town's 2006-2007 law enforcement budget to be available "upon request and approval by the Mayor and Council" to the Ridge Spring Fire Department.
 
The proposed ordinance would construct that the "proposed agreement is to be submitted by the Mayor Pro Tem to the Town of Ridge Spring elected officials in a special called meeting of Town Council, where it will be subject to approval or disapproval by majority of the Mayor and Council."
 
Other parts of the proposed ordinance also raised eyebrows within the audience, as well.
 
When the residents heard a portion of the ordinance which read "Whereas, law enforcement service costs are duplicated, it is obvious that consolidation of law enforcement with Saluda County and the centralized 911 emergency system is in the best interest of the taxpayers and citizens of the Town of Ridge Spring," one of the citizens present asked Mr. Saul to produce the figures to support the claim.  He could not.
 
Mr. Saul did say, however, that Ridge Spring would have to pay $35,000 up front to secure the sheriff's services. But the explanation of the disbursement of those funds - $30,000 to Saluda County and $5,000 to Sheriff Booth - have some residents who were present at the meeting wondering if Mr. Saul misspoke.
 
There also is a possibility that there would be a monthly recurring charge by the sheriff's department and/or the county. That issue has not been made clear by the parties involved.
 
According to the town's financial reports, Ridge Spring's police department budget for 2005-2006 was $88,718.  Actual expenditures by the department from July 2005 through March 2006 were $32,113.  The proposed police department budget for 2006-2007 is $90,418.
 
Since the town's current financial reports have not been made available to the public, there is no record of the expenditures so far this fiscal year.
 
Another resident asked Sheriff Booth how, with the sheriff's department already short at least two deputies, he planned to provide 24/7 law enforcement coverage for the town. Sheriff Booth said that he actually needed three more officers and admitted that such coverage would be impossible. He indicated that a deputy most likely would be available in Ridge Spring only from 8 am to 5 pm.
 
Reportedly none of the town's ordinances, which cover everything state law doesn't - from loitering to disorderly conduct - would be enforced by any member of the sheriff's department.
 
Two business owners told the council that if the police department was abolished their insurance rates on their businesses would increase by more than $3,000 per year. The town's druggist, Bo Banks, pointed out that the very nature of his business would draw the criminal element in a town without adequate law enforcement. He said that the local dentist and medical clinic would face the same situation.
 
Another resident pointed out that the populace of Ridge Spring was comprised of a large number of widows, the elderly, and single mothers who would be uncomfortable without an around-the-clock police presence.
 
The latest available census data reveals that in 2000 more than half (55.2 percent) of the 823 people residing in Ridge Spring were women. There were 230 single females over the age of 15 in the community, with 65 of those being widowed. There were 23 widowers living in town. And more than 42 percent of the population was over 45 years old while 34 percent was less than 24 years old.
 
And still another citizen stressed that with no police department in town, the bank likely would close and the post office would shut and lock its doors between the hours of 4:30 pm and 8 am (as is the case in Monetta and Ward), making many residents' mail inaccessible to them.
 
Calls made this week to First Citizens Bank's security department, PBT, (the town's telecommunications provider, which has a collection office in town) and the US Postal Service indicate that the businesses echo the resident's concern.
 
"What are they thinking?" one asked.  "Have they lost their minds?" questioned another. The Postal Service spokesperson said that although the postmasters in its branches are forbidden to get involved in local politics, they may make security decisions for their particular site based on circumstances.
 
Mayor Martin and Mr. Baughcome have said that they are vehemently opposed to the proposed ordinance and will continue to fight it. Although the residents failed to sway the council's initial 3-1 vote (Mr. Baughcome was absent) on the proposed ordinance, they are not taking the majority's actions lightly, either.
 
Townsfolk say other issues affected by council's decision include, but are not limited to: the two current police officers being laid off and the town having to pay their unemployment benefits; the expectation of council to receive the same tax revenues, even though the residents will not receive the same services; the loss of the School Resource Officer at Ridge Spring elementary and middle schools; the possible higher premiums for homeowners insurance; the historical increase in crime during peach season; and the loss of businesses.
 
Still others question whether the council's thinking really is "in the best interest of the taxpayers and citizens of the Town of Ridge Spring," or whether the action - which has never been addressed in any previous council meeting or voiced in any public forum - is just a vindictive retaliation against the town's police officers who in May filed charges against and arrested a particular woman.
 
Some residents also are talking about petitioning the courts to seek an injunction against any further vote by the council on the matter until a referendum can be held and/or seeking counsel to advise them of any other remedies available to prevent the abolishment of the police department.
 
They promise that Mr. Burt, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Saul will be called upon during the next meeting to provide credible reasoning behind their move to abolish the police department and other recent actions.

 

EdgefieldDaily.com is a member of the
Edgefield County
Chamber of Commerce

---

JAM Straight Customs

---

Featured Dining

La Cantina

---

---