Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Atkins v. Wilson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

March 9, 2016

Vivian Atkins, Robert P. Frick and Kay Hollis, in their official capacities as members of the Town Council of the Town of Chapin, Appellants,
v.
James R. Wilson, Jr., in his official capacity as Mayor of the Town of Chapin, Gregg White, in his official capacity as a member of the Town Council of the Town of Chapin, and the Town of Chapin, Defendants, Of whom James R. Wilson, Jr. and Gregg White are Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2014-000829

Heard January 5, 2016

Appeal From Lexington County G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Spencer Andrew Syrett, of Columbia, for Appellants.

Matthew Todd Carroll, of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, of Columbia, for Respondents.

GEATHERS, J.

In this declaratory judgment action, Appellants, Vivian Atkins, Robert Frick, and Kay Hollis, a majority of members of Chapin Town Council, seek review of the circuit court's order granting the motion of Respondents, James Wilson, Jr. (the Mayor) and Gregg White, another Council member, to invalidate actions taken by Appellants at two special Council meetings. Appellants also initially challenged the circuit court's order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing their complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. However, at oral arguments, Appellants advised the court they wished to waive their assignments of error as to this particular order. Therefore, we summarily affirm this order without further discussion. As to the circuit court's order invalidating the actions taken by Appellants at the two special meetings, we reverse.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In November 2013, the voters of the Town of Chapin elected a new mayor and a new council member, Respondent White. The Mayor's term of office began on January 7, 2014. According to Appellant Atkins, before the Mayor was sworn in, he announced that he had hired Karen Owens to serve as "Director of Communication and Economic Development" although Council had not voted to create the position or make it a part of the Town's budget.[1] The Mayor also (1) refused to honor a retainer agreement between the Town and an attorney for the Town's utility department, (2) signed a contract to hire Nicole Howland as Town Attorney without first submitting the contract to Council for approval, (3) refused to place several items on the agendas for Council meetings despite requests from certain Council members, and (4) refused to schedule a special meeting at Atkins' request.

Accordingly, on February 26, 2014, Appellants filed a complaint invoking the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, SC Code Ann. § 15-53-10 to -140 (2005), and seeking a judgment declaring section 2.206(b) of the Chapin Town Code unenforceable to the extent it grants the Mayor control over the agendas for council meetings. Section 2.206 states,

a. Matters to be considered by the Mayor and Council at a regular meeting shall be placed on a written agenda and publicly posted at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting. Matters not on the agenda may be considered upon request of a member unless a majority of Council objects.
b. The agenda shall be approved by the Mayor, prior to distribution. It shall be prepared under the supervision of the Clerk/Treasurer.

The complaint also sought a preliminary injunction requiring the Mayor to "place on the agenda of the next Council meeting . . . any item requested by any member of Council." Appellants filed a separate motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking an order requiring the Mayor "to place any item requested by any member of Council on the agenda of the next occurring Council meeting after the request, without any delay." At the motions hearing, Appellants explained that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) prohibited them from exercising their power under section 2.206(a) to amend the agenda during the meeting. See Lambries v. Saluda Cty. Council (Lambries I), 398 S.C. 501, 506, 728 S.E.2d 488, 491 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[T]he purpose of FOIA is best served by prohibiting public bodies governed by FOIA from amending their agendas during meetings."), rev'd (Lambries II), 409 S.C. 1, 760 S.E.2d 785 (2014), superseded in part by 2015 Act No. 70.[2]

On March 18, 2014, the circuit court issued an order denying Appellants' request for a preliminary injunction and granting Respondents' motion to dismiss. In addressing the motion for a preliminary injunction, the circuit court stated, "the Mayor must sign off on the agenda prior to its distribution to Council, and there is no requirement that the Mayor place items on the agenda that he believes do not merit Council's consideration." In addressing Respondents' motion to dismiss, the circuit court stated, "Ordinance § 2.206(b) grants Mayor Wilson the authority and discretion to approve and, inherently, to deny any item requested to be on the agenda for a Council meeting."

The circuit court addressed the complaint's assertion that if section 2.206 grants the Mayor complete control over the agenda, this provision violates the state and federal constitutions. Despite Appellants' FOIA argument, the circuit court stated that section 2.206(a) allows matters not on the agenda to be considered upon request of a member unless a majority of members object. The circuit court also stated that Council's ability to amend the agenda during the meeting acted "as a safeguard against autocratic mayoral action that may otherwise rise to a constitutional depr[i]vation of basic rights." On April 8, 2014, the circuit court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.