Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to direct attorney to review contracts after ethics concern; motion fails 2–7
Summary
Following an executive session about two contractual agreements, Councilman Kane moved to have the town attorney examine whether the contracts are voidable under a recent ethics ruling; the motion failed on a roll call (two yes, seven no). Supporters called for transparency while opponents warned voiding contracts could bankrupt the town.
After returning from executive session on May 12, 2025, the Batesburg‑Leesville Town Council considered a motion by Councilman Kane directing the town attorney to scrutinize two contractual agreements — a joint municipal water and sewer commission water purchase contract and a roads agreement with Sanford Enterprises — to determine whether they are voidable under a recent ethics ruling.
Councilman Kane argued the public has a right to know whether contracts are compromised. "The citizens have a right to know if these contracts are uh sound going forward," he said. Proponents said determining the contracts’ status would allow the town to move forward or address problems as needed.
Opponents expressed concern about the financial consequences of voiding existing contracts, warning that contractors could sue for damages. One council member cautioned that voiding contracts could "bankrupt the town" if the town were liable for contractor costs incurred to date.
On roll-call after discussion, the motion failed: two council members voted yes and seven voted no (including the mayor). Because the motion failed, the council did not formally direct the town attorney to initiate the requested scrutiny during the meeting.
Council previously entered executive session earlier in the agenda to discuss those two contractual items; the session vote to enter and return to open session was recorded on the public record. Council did approve that it would continue with standard follow‑up procedures without the specific attorney directive.
The council did not disclose details of the contracts in open session beyond the titles of the agenda items; members cited fiduciary duty to residents while also weighing the town’s exposure to potential lawsuits should contracts be cancelled or found voidable.
