Home Care In Chapin, SC

A dispute over who has authority to hire attorneys for the town is the latest chapter of drama in the Chapin Town Council in S.C., with council members challenging the mayor’s decision to sign an engagement letter with attorney Bubba Samuels.

During a council discussion Monday evening, member Ainslee Bost said the council had not received or approved a contract authorizing Samuels or his firm to represent Chapin. Bost cited a South Carolina Attorney General’s Office opinion stating that municipal councils have authority to appoint a town attorney and argued that the council should have a say in hiring any lawyer representing the town.

Chapin Mayor Bill Mitchell disputed that interpretation, saying the opinion addressed the hiring of general counsel — not attorneys retained for specialized matters. The mayor said engagement letters for attorneys handling specific cases fall within the mayor’s day-to-day authority, similar to contracts with contractors or town employees.

“I never had any question in my mind that it is the responsibility of municipal council, mayor and council members to hire a general counsel ortown attorney,” the mayor said during the meeting, while maintaining that specialized legal representation is a separate issue.

Last week, Lexington County filed a lawsuit against the town for Mitchell’s refusal to issue more than 600 sewer taps to a proposed development in the former county technology park at Brighton. That refusal has jeopardized a $20 million sale of the site for a new housing development.

Mitchell implemented a freeze on new connections to the town’s wastewater system shortly after he took office in November. He has said the town’s wastewater plant has already committed to serving 97% of its capacity, although the county claims the plant isn’t anywhere near capacity and can accommodate the planned housing development.

Lexington County said in its lawsuit that it has spent more than $16 million making improvements to the 200-acre site, including sewer infrastructure the county says is ready to be added to the town’s system. Lexington County is asking a judge to order Chapin to release the taps or pay the county $20.4 million in damages.

Just a week earlier, Chapin Town Council had voted to give itself the ability to hire a town attorney, bypassing Mitchell. The mayor had previously engaged Bubba Samuels of Buford, Georgia, as a “utility attorney” to serve the town on issues related to its wastewater system, but it was unclear heading into Monday’s meeting if Samuels would continue working with the town long term.

The mayor said he’d signed a letter of engagment with Samuels had signed an engagement three or four weeks ago, though the exact date was not immediately available. The mayor also said Samuels had not yet provided extensive legal services, but had met with town officials and taken over documentation related to the pending complaint.

Council members continued to argue that Samuels should not represent Chapin without council approval. The mayor responded that the disagreement could be resolved through additional legal opinions — from the Attorney General’s Office, the Municipal Association of South Carolina or another outside attorney — or, if necessary, through a court decision.

The council ultimately voted to enter executive session to continue discussing the matter.

CHAPIN, S.C. (WIS) - Chapin’s mayor and town council issued apologies after a recent meeting became heated and resulted in a no-confidence vote.

The town’s council issued a vote of no confidence to Mayor Bill Mitchell on July 21, citing concerns over transparency, communication and deteriorating working relationships caused by Mitchell.

Days later, on July 24, Mitchell issued a statement in a video posted on the town’s Facebook page.

“Our last regular scheduled meeting was a bit of a train wreck, to say the least,” Mitchell said in part. “There was a lot of passion between myself and the council members. And this does not give a good look for our town, nor does it represent who we are.”

Mitchell added that his role calls for him to “lead being civil” during meetings and said he wanted to “take ownership” for his part on it.

“I want to extend that olive branch to all of the council members. It’s not easy for council members,” he continued. “It’s not easy for the citizens of the town to interpret what they just saw. They can’t make sense of it. They’re surprised by it. They don’t understand that we have been struggling to learn how to work together, to distinguish the distinctives of our job descriptions, and not feel like we’re competing or belittling one another. And so I just want to start off by saying I believe these council members are good people. And I believe we can work together in the best interest of the town.”

Councilwoman Ainslee Bost, who was seen arguing with Mitchell during the July 21 meeting, also posted a statement on behalf of the council.

“Like many of you, we left our recent Council meeting disappointed. The tone and events of that meeting were not representative of the kind of leadership our community expects or deserves. For that, we sincerely apologize,” the statement wrote in part.

All four council members approved the vote of no confidence, which marked a public rebuke of Mitchell - but could not legally remove him from office on its own.

Mitchell previously stated he has no plans to step down.

Feel more informed, prepared, and connected with WIS. For more free content like this, subscribe to our , and . Have feedback that can help us improve? .

CHAPIN, S.C. (WIS) - A special called meeting in Chapin Monday evening showed council members and Mayor Bill Mitchell finding common ground, a change from previous meetings, ahead of a legal battle with Lexington County.

The meeting did not start off with agreement, however. Council members and Mitchell argued, with one exchange including the statement, “You’re cutting and pasting.”

Mitchell responded to the South Carolina Attorney General’s recent statement on how the town of Chapin should hire attorneys, agreeing that it is the responsibility to hire a town attorney, fall son both the mayor and council, adding,

“The discrepancy comes in whether that includes engagement letters with specialty attorneys; the AG did not address that question,” Mitchell said.

Mitchell came under fire from council members in August for bringing on Georgia-based attorney Bubba Samuels as a specialist, a decision council members say they were never informed of beforehand.

The disagreement is the latest development in a dispute that started months ago, when Mitchell was sworn into office early, shortly after the previous mayor’s death in November 2025.

Months of turmoil led the town council to vote ‘no confidence’ in Mitchell in July.

In August, ordinances passed reining in the mayor’s power. Mitchell threatened legal action. The ordinances passed anyway.

Last week, Lexington County announced plans to sue the town of Chapin after Mitchell refused to provide sewer taps for the Brighton Park development.

Days later, a statement from the Attorney General’s office said the mayor cannot make the sole decision to hire the outside attorney.

The disagreement over the decision led to the meeting’s executive session, where the topic of the Brighton development project and attorney representation was discussed. An hour later, the council returned in higher spirits.

“If you know what just happened, you would celebrate. You just got your town municipal council on the same page,” Mitchell said from his seat, drawing applause from the audience.

Council member Ainslee Bost could not give specifics from the executive session. She said the town is in a better position to handle the Lexington County lawsuit.

“It’s a work in progress. Things still need to be ironed out but we have a strategy that we discussed, and we have a backup strategy if that doesn’t work. Things are moving in the right direction as far as everyone is working together,” said Ainslee Bost, mayor pro tem, Chapin.

The town of Chapin council will now work to pinpoint their representation leading into the Brighton development lawsuit.

Feel more informed, prepared, and connected with WIS. For more free content like this, subscribe to our , and . Have feedback that can help us improve? .

The office of South Carolina’s attorney general has weighed in on the ongoing power struggle between Chapin’s mayor and the other members of the town council.

Chapin Mayor Pro Tempore Ainslee Bost, one of four council members who have clashed with Mayor Bill Mitchell over the past month in a string of contentious special meetings, wrote to the state’s top legal office asking for a formal opinion on where the balance of power between the mayor and council lies under Chapin’s mayor-council form of government.

South Carolina’s attorney general’s office routinely takes legal questions from elected officials and advises on the legality of local government actions under South Carolina law. Those opinions are published on the office’s website, but no formal opinion was issued in an Aug. 6 response to Bost’s request. Instead, Assistant Attorney General David Leggett referred back to the office’s previously published opinions on S.C. municipal government.

In her request, Bost asked whether the mayor could hire and fire a town attorney, a point of contention before the town council voted to give itself the authority to hire a municipal attorney. Mitchell previously told the council he had hired at least four attorneys in the nine months he has run town hall, something that has become one of the main points of contention between council members and the mayor.

She also asked whether the council or the mayor could direct the town attorney, and whether the mayor could prevent communications between council members and town staff.

The attorney’s opinions supplied by the office would seem to support the position of the council members who have sought more control over how Chapin operates, saying that “under any form of municipal government, the town attorney shall be hired by the town’s council,” and that “authority over the town attorney has been granted to council, not the mayor,” Leggett wrote in an emailed reply obtained by The State.

According to a 2010 opinion cited in the response, state law “is clear that under any form of government, the city council may elect or appoint a municipal attorney. Any other contract with legal counsel would be void.”

“It is the opinion of this Office that the mayor does not have the authority to hire outside counsel without approval except in very extenuating circumstances,” that opinion says.

The attorney general’s previously published opinions also support the idea of open communication between council members and town staff. Chapin council members have complained of being shut out of town operations and of not hearing from department heads during town council meetings.

“It has long been the opinion of this Office that each member of a county or city council should be given access to all records of the county or city,” the email said. State law “makes the mayor responsible for submitting ‘to the council... a complete report on the finances and administrative activities of the municipality as of the end of each fiscal year’ and making ‘such other reports as the council may require concerning the operations of municipal departments, offices and agencies subject to his direction and supervision.’”

While the mayor has a direct supervisor role over town employees under Chapin’s form of government, “the mayor may not use his authorities to preclude the town council from exercising the legislative authority,” Leggett wrote. He attached a previous opinion from the attorney general’s office that spelled out “the legislative functions of council members which may not be usurped.”

The 2013 opinion dealt with a city council member who had attended a staff meeting of the city’s public safety department, and whether that overstepped a council member’s responsibilities. While the law prohibits individual council members from giving direction to municipal employees, the opinion cites precedent that gives a council member leeway in learning about town operations that might impact their official decision-making.

“South Carolina municipal councils, however, obviously retain their legislative powers and responsibilities to deal with employees and other matters that affect the operation of municipalities,” the opinion reads. “Courts have recognized that the scope of performance of a legislator’s duties is not limited to those acts in a legislative assembly meeting... In addition, courts have concluded that other acts of a legislator, including informal as well as formal information gathering, are part of his or her legislative duties.”

That opinion specifically addresses the council-manager form of government, which places all town employees under a town manager who operates at the direction of the council. But Chapin has a “strong mayor” form of government that places executive power in the hands of the mayor — which may actually give council members more latitude in speaking with town employees, the office wrote.

“As such, the ability of council members to speak with municipal employees should be even wider than what is discussed in the opinion,” Leggett said.

“Determining what limitations on communications are and are not appropriate is a case specific undertaking and requires considering the facts of each situation,” the email says. It directs council members to consult with their attorney.

Bost also submitted some draft ordinances for the office to review, likely some of several changes council members have advanced over Mitchell’s objections at recent meetings. But the office declined to offer an opinion on those, as its attorneys can only answer specific legal questions.

“These ordinances (along with much of your other questions) appear to be born out of political disputes not questions of law, so we decline to comment upon them. We would encourage you to retain legal counsel who can advise you more specifically on this matter,” the email says.

She also asked a question about ratification of a contract. The response from the attorney general’s office doesn’t specify what contract, but this may have been related to a contract with Lexington County requiring sewer service to the Brighton site, which the county now hopes to sell for a new housing development. That 2015 contract is now at the heart of a $20 million lawsuit the county has brought against the town.

“Determining whether a town council has ratified a contract is fact specific and must be considered on a case-by-case basis,” Leggett wrote. “This Office can only render an opinion on general questions of law; it cannot make factual determinations. We recommend that you retain counsel who can advise you more specifically on this question.”

Attempts to contact Bost by The State were not successful before this story was published.

“Overall,” it concludes, “we encourage you, the other members of Town Council, and the Mayor to work collaboratively in pursuant of an amicable resolution to these problems. A functioning government is in the best interest of the public you represent. If you are unable to reach a resolution through discussion and compromise, it may become necessary to pursue litigation.”

An attorney hired by Chapin’s mayor challenged whether a flurry of changes the town council has passed are valid, even as council members approved a measure that means he may not represent the town going forward.

Bubba Samuels was hired by Chapin Mayor Bill Mitchell to give legal advice to the town for employment and utility matters, but the other four members of Chapin Town Council say they were unaware of that until a few weeks ago. Council members before Thursday’s meeting claim to have never met the Buford, Georgia,-based attorney before he appeared to defend his hiring at a specially-called town council Thursday.

This week’s meeting was the latest in a back-and-forth between the mayor elected last year and the rest of the town council who have voted no confidence in his leadership of the town, called on him to resign and pushed through a slew of measures to wrest more oversight of the town, over the mayor’s strenuous objections.

“It’s clear you need some legal advice and counsel,” Samuels told council members after observing much of the three-hour meeting at town hall. “You need a town attorney to advise you.”

That’s the intent of one measure the town council passed Thursday, to make the town attorney a post that reports to the council and not the mayor. Council members complained the mayor has withheld information about legal challenges facing the town and made decisions — like hiring an attorney — without their knowledge.

Mitchell, who was the only vote against the measure, contends he is empowered to make hiring, firing and spending decisions on his own as long as he operates within the town budget. Now, an attorney in theory would report to the council as a whole and would work with two designated council members in addition to the mayor.

Samuels, who drove three hours from his Georgia law office on 24 hours’ notice to be at Thursday’s meeting, told council he believed that measure violated the mayor’s authority under Chapin’s “strong mayor” form of government.

“The respective duties and obligations of the mayor and council are set out in statute,” Samuels said. “They have been analyzed over and over by the courts. The chief executive officer has to be in a position to work with the lawyers of the town.”

But many council members questioned Samuels’ ability to represent the town while living and working out of state. Many point out his law license was listed as “inactive” by the state bar association until recently. Samuels blamed that on changes to the mutual recognition of licenses between Georgia and South Carolina and has since been corrected, he said.

Council members also publicly questioned Samuels about a previous disciplinary action from the bar association. He said while serving as a county attorney, he inadvertently took a call from a magistrate judge about a case he was involved in separately from his work with the county. He said he self-reported the violation to the bar, and the incident taught him to be more careful in how he represents local governments.

He told council members, who may now decide if he remains the town’s attorney, that he would still like to use that experience to help them in what appeared to be an impromptu job interview.

“I don’t know why you want to,” Mitchell told the attorney at one point. “Many would not.”

Samuels said his practice works with many municipalities “whose governing body is dysfunctional.”

Council members agreed they needed legal advice on how to handle pressing town concerns, including potential litigation with Lexington County over whether the town will provide sewer service to a new development outside of town that Chapin leaders oppose.

“We don’t know what litigation is being discussed or what meetings are happening,” said Councilwoman Ainslee Bost. “Our constituents ask us questions about it and we don’t know, so we look like fools.”

Discussion about lawyers was only one item the council majority approved over Mitchell’s objections Thursday, including other changes to how town council agendas are set and who can call council meetings. One measure introduced at the meeting would require a town council member to co-sign any spending decisions made by the mayor or a town department head.

“That’s not to say we think anything is going wrong or anyone’s doing anything bad,” Bost said at the meeting. “This is about providing oversight... so there’s a third party who is objective because they are not working here.”

Mitchell said before those motions passed that he would like to refer the motions to the S.C. Municipal Association or the attorney general’s office for an opinion on their legality, but the council pushed through the measures in 4-1 votes. Mitchell reiterated a previous threat to challenge the council’s motions in court, which would create the possibility of a mayor suing his own town.

Speaking to The State after the meting, Mitchell said he would “put on pause” any legal action to see if he and the council members can improve their working relationship moving forward, and said Thursday’s meeting had actually helped put them on the same page.

”What’s on display here is the raw reality of a brand new municipal council in place, a brand new mayor and two new council members,” Mitchell said. “And that is quite difficult to manage for all of us and painful for that to be on display while we’re working through it. But my desire is to be transparent, albeit I don’t want to put unelected people out in public like that.”

He acknowledged his council colleagues will now decide on the town’s attorney, but said he hoped they would decide to retain Samuels in that role.

“He took a six-hour round trip to be here and answer questions,” Mitchell said. “His heart for municipalities is quite impressive... we struck gold with him.”

The last motion passed Thursday was to ask the Municipal Association to provide training for all members of town council on their responsibilities. Mitchell suggested that training should take place at a future public meeting.