Resident asks city to release ethics opinion after mayor voted on housing-authority property transfer

Suzanne LaRochelle, a Florence resident and licensed psychotherapist, told the City Council she wants the city to release the written opinion from the South Carolina Ethics Commission after she questioned Mayor Barnes' participation in an earlier vote to convey city-owned property to the Florence Housing Authority.

LaRochelle said the council voted on Bill 2025-28 on Aug. 11 to transfer property to the housing authority, where Dr. Al Bradley, a sibling of Mayor Barnes, is the paid executive director. LaRochelle said she submitted a request to speak to the council on Aug. 22 and sought clarification on recusal procedures, disclosure, and minute documentation under South Carolina law. She said she did not allege a violation but asked for transparency.

City attorney Scott told the council and LaRochelle before her remarks that the city consulted the South Carolina Ethics Commission about the circumstances she described and that the commission provided guidance that votes by the mayor on such matters did not constitute a prohibited economic interest. Scott said the city received an opinion that the ethics act did not require recusal and that the guidance was communicated to LaRochelle; he added the legal exchange was attorney-client in nature and not publicly released by the city.

LaRochelle disputed that conclusion during her five-minute public-comment period. She cited South Carolina Code Section 8-13-7(b) and an advisory opinion she identified as AO 02/2011, saying the statute bars an official from participating when an immediate family member has an economic interest and that employment or salary of a family member can create such an interest. She said the transfer of valuable city property strengthened an institution that pays Dr. Bradley and that the city should release the commission's written opinion for public review.

Councilman McCall responded from the dais, framing the issue in terms of the city's housing needs and urging progress on affordable housing projects. Attorney Chiquess interjected at one point to clarify, "I am not talking about that housing property," in response to an attempt to defend against the public comment. The mayor and council did not move to release the written opinion during the meeting.

LaRochelle concluded by asking the city to "release the exact ethics commission opinion" so citizens could read the commission's words directly. The council did not take formal action on that request during the meeting.

Why it matters: The request centers on public trust and transparency when elected officials vote on matters that involve agencies connected to family members. The resident's appeal and the city's reliance on a confidential advisory exchange with the ethics commission raise procedural and disclosure questions that some residents said could affect public confidence in future housing decisions.

What the record shows: The meeting transcript records LaRochelle's references to the Aug. 11 vote, her Aug. 22 request to speak, and her Sept. 5 notice that the city had received an ethics-commission opinion. City counsel stated the commission found no required recusal but characterized the advisory exchange as legal guidance the city would not provide as attorney-client communications. The council did not vote on releasing the written opinion at the meeting.