CHAPIN, S.C. (WIS) - The South Carolina Attorney General’s Office has weighed in on a power struggle between Chapin’s mayor and other members of its town council.
Despite it not being a formal opinion, the office said that based on state law and previous opinions, Chapin Mayor Bill Mitchell does not have sole authority to hire and direct a town attorney.
WIS on Thursday obtained a letter dated Aug. 3 from Chapin Town Councilwoman and Mayor Pro Tem Ainslee Bost, sent to the attorney general’s office requesting an opinion on the matter.
As outlined in state law, Chapin operates under a mayor-council form of government that is more commonly referred to as a “strong mayor” system.
However, Bost and other council members have recently gone public, citing issues with the mayor making some decisions — including the hiring of a town attorney — without their knowledge or input.
That led to weeks of heated council meetings throughout late July and into August, with Mitchell insisting that his actions aligned with state law.
Bost’s letter
“During approximately the past eight months, the town has experienced unprecedented instability in its legal representation,” Bost’s letter to the attorney general’s office read in part. “Four municipal attorneys have either been terminated or have resigned after being engaged by the Mayor without prior approval or authorization from Town Council.”
Those claims echo those raised by Bost and other council members during a July 21 council meeting, with one council member saying “nobody wants to work with us” because of Mitchell’s reputation.
That meeting led to other council members giving Mitchell a vote of no confidence, urging him to consider stepping down. The mayor has since said he will not resign.
Three days after Bost sent her letter, Mitchell announced that he had hired a new town attorney, Georgia-based Bubba Samuels. The other council members, however, began moving to curtail what Mitchell asserted as his sole authority to, among other things, hire the town’s legal counsel. Mitchell then threatened legal action against the other members of council.
Bost’s letter also highlighted allegations of Mitchell telling town employees not to communicate with council members without his knowledge, or be at risk of termination. This was an allegation also brought up publicly at the July 21 meeting.
She also wrote that the lack of transparency from Mitchell greatly limits the rest of council’s ability “to obtain complete and timely information necessary to perform its legislative, budgetary, and oversight responsibilities.”
“The resulting uncertainty has significantly impaired the Town’s ability to obtain stable legal representation and has raised substantial questions regarding which municipal body possesses statutory authority,” Bost continued.
Bost also provided copies of ordinances passed by the town council regarding its ability to create and organize departments, hire and direct attorneys, as well as another that would appoint two members as liaisons between the council and town attorneys.
The town gave final approval to those ordinances on Aug. 20.
AG’s office responds
In a response to Bost’s letter on Aug. 6, Assistant Attorney General David Leggett acknowledged the office could not give a formal opinion, as that would require a request from all of town council.
However, he did note that state law says the mayor does not have sole authority to hire an attorney. Under Title 5 of South Carolina law, that responsibility would fall on all of town council, regardless of the type of municipal government.
The city council may elect or appoint a municipal attorney and a judge or judges of the municipal court, whose duties shall be as prescribed by law. No mayor or councilman shall be so elected or appointed to serve as municipal judge during his term of office. The provisions of this section do not apply to a mayor who presides over a mayor’s court in his capacity as mayor as authorized in SECTION 5-7-90.
SC Code of Laws - Section 5-7-230
Leggett also noted that while Title 5 gives the mayor sole authority as a supervisor of city employees under a mayor-council form of government, it exempts things from that supervision. Citing that law and previous opinions from the attorney general’s office, Leggett said among those exemptions is the hiring and direction of a town attorney.
“As is discussed in the attached opinions, authority over the town attorney has been granted to council, not the mayor,” he wrote.
Title 5 also requires the mayor to submit a “complete report on the finances and administrative activities” and other reports that council requires.
Regarding council’s lack of communication with town employees, Leggett noted that the law only applies to council-manager forms of government, citing a previous opinion from the attorney general’s office.
“As such, the ability of council members to speak with municipal employees should be even wider than what is discussed in the opinion,” he wrote.
However, Leggett said the office could not comment further on the matter and encouraged separate legal counsel for more advice. Leggett also did not comment on the ordinances provided by Bost, saying they “appear to be born out of political disputes, not questions of law.”
“Overall, we encourage you, the other members of Town Council, and the Mayor to work collaboratively in pursuit 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 resolve through discussion and compromise, it may become necessary to pursue litigation,” Leggett’s response concluded.
Bost, Mitchell respond
Bost said discussions with the mayor did not resolve the disagreement.
“Conversations just kept going in circles. We felt like we were not being heard. He was very dead set on the fact that he was the only person who could hire special counsel, and we felt like that was not true. We’re not asking for anything more than what we were voted to do. We were voted in to help make these decisions and to hire people to represent our town, and that’s all we are trying to do,” Bost said.
Bost and her peers claim four attorneys have either quit or been fired since the mayor started hiring legal counsel without their approval.
Mitchell said he is not at odds with the AG’s findings and said his most recent hire was different.
“Regarding the AG’s opinion, I totally agree with everything he has said -- nor did I ever disagree. We need some clarity here. I hired the Samuels firm with an engagement letter that I singlehandedly signed to represent us about utility laws,” Mitchell said.
Mitchell said that hire was narrow in scope, bringing on a specialist for utility matters, not a general town attorney, a distinction he argues falls outside council’s authority.
Bost disagrees and said all attorneys fall under the blanket of responsibility, no matter the specification.
Mitchell also responded to continuing disagreements within Chapin council.
“I am not negotiating my job description with the other council members for peace. You have a job description that we all share and I have a job description -- can we please stay in our lanes? I’m not in charge of the whole world over here,” Mitchell said.
Special meeting rescheduled to Monday
Chapin Town Council has rescheduled its meeting to Monday, Aug. 31, with one agenda item regarding “discussion of employment of attorneys.”
The council is also expected to discuss a lawsuit recently filed by Lexington County over Mitchell’s attempts to block the county’s nearly $20 million land sale of the vacant Chapin Technology Park.
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? .