Laurens City Council voted to approve Ordinance 12-22-25 during a special meeting on Dec. 31, 2023, but the presiding officer said the measure had not been properly approved by the city attorney and refused to certify the ordinance, leaving its legal status unsettled.

The motion for second reading of Ordinance 12-22-25 was made by Council member Miss Sullivan and seconded by Miss Miller. After debate over whether the ordinance met the procedural requirement that it be approved in writing by the city attorney, the council recorded support from Councilors Whitmire, Campbell, Sullivan and Miller and opposition from Council Member Martin Lowery and Mr. Bolt. The chair stated, "Let the record reflect that those counselors supporting this ordinance were Whitmire, Campbell, Sullivan, and Miller." (Transcript: Chair.)

The presiding officer opened the meeting with a lengthy statement arguing that the ordinance and the process that produced it were problematic. The chair cited municipal code provisions and said legal counsel had issued written opinions on Dec. 23 and Dec. 30 stating the proposed ordinance "contains significant legal defects, and that its adoption would likely expose the city and individual council members to legal and financial liability." The chair warned that adopting the ordinance could force litigation and costly audits and said, "This ordinance does not reflect good governance." (Transcript: Chair.)

Supporters of the ordinance framed it as a response to written allegations presented to the council. Miss Sullivan read a statement saying the council had received allegations concerning "potential misuse of public funds, nepotism, harassment, and conflicts of interest within the executive administration of the city of Lawrence," and said the council would refer the materials to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and the South Carolina Ethics Commission for independent review.

Both sides flagged concerns about process and transparency. The chair said the ordinance was not approved by the city attorney as required by "section 2-93 of the city code" and therefore "is not properly before Council, cannot be placed on the agenda for action, and cannot lawfully proceed to a second reading." Supporters argued the council has the authority to pursue oversight and to refer allegations to state investigators.

Council members also discussed the city's legal representation. The meeting record notes that the city retained the firm Pope Flynn and that the city attorney had advised the council in writing; Miss Sullivan and others said the council would consider discontinuing representation if the attorney would not continue to advise the full body. The meeting included discussion about whether a workshop or mediated session with counsel could resolve differences without litigation.

After the roll-call-style vote, the chair announced that he "will not certify or sign any ordinance adopted in this matter and therefore this matter will require judicial resolution." (Transcript: Chair.) The meeting adjourned with no further action taken by the chair to certify adoption.

Next steps: The council's supporters said they would refer documentation to SLED and the state ethics commission; the presiding officer's refusal to sign the ordinance means the measure's legal effect is likely to be litigated or otherwise resolved in court or by state authorities. The city's written legal opinions dated Dec. 23 and Dec. 30 were entered into the meeting record, according to the Chair.