Public commenters raise ethics question about planning commission chair and allege misconduct at sheriff's office

Two public commenters used the May 6 public‑comment period to raise separate allegations: one questioned an ethics determination involving the chair of the county planning commission, and another alleged longstanding misconduct by members of the Oconee County Sheriff's Department related to forfeited property.

Michael Grant said he had reviewed correspondence involving the planning commission chairman and the South Carolina Ethics Commission and cautioned the council that the commission’s reply was an informal opinion and not a binding clearance. Grant asked council members to consider the appearance of a conflict of interest and to require recusal where appropriate. “While they said realtors may be a large class exception… they also made it clear due to his relationship with a developer, he should exercise caution, especially if there is even an appearance of a conflict of interest,” Grant said, quoting language from the Ethics Commission document.

A different commenter alleged that property forfeited from an arrest of David Dawkins years earlier had not been returned to the decedent’s family and accused the sheriff’s office of distributing or retaining items improperly. The commenter named the alleged recipient (the decedent’s daughter) and said the items should be returned; the speaker characterized the issue as part of broader corruption allegations. The commenter also referenced past county law‑enforcement controversies; the remarks were presented as personal claims and the council did not take any formal action during the meeting in response to these statements.

Council members did not record any formal response or investigation directive in the transcript excerpt. The statements are recorded here as citizen allegations made during public comment; the council did not adjudicate the claims at the meeting.